Hooberus,
Herk do you agree with the following?: In Luke 22:27 . . .
Yes, if it's in the Bible I most certainly agree with it. That is the difference between us. Trinitarians have come along and tried to give the Bible a new meaning. Jesus did not say at John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I with respect to position but not to nature." He simply said, "My Father is greater than I." He did not in any way qualify his statement as if in some respects his Father was not greater.
Everything in John 14 argues against trinitarianism. If Jesus was God in the same way the Father is God, . . .
- He would not have said "believe in God, believe also in me." (Verse 1)
- He would not have said "In my Father's house" but in "our" house. (Verse 2)
- He would not have said ""I am the way" but "I am the ultimate goal." (Verse 6)
- He would not have said "from now on you know the Father, and have seen him." Jesus was not the Father, even as trinitarians acknowledge. He was the reflection or image of the Father, not because he was equal to the Father, but as he clearly explained: "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves." (Verses 7-11) The disciples saw the Father in Jesus, not because Jesus was equal to God, but because he spoke "words" and performed "works" on God's behalf.
- He would not have said "he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do." He had just stated that it was his Father's "works" that proved others could see the Father when they saw him. Thus, others would see the Father in anyone who performed the "greater works" Jesus foretold. (Verse 12)
- He would not have said "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper." If he shared equality with God following his ascension, there would be no need to request anything from another member of the so-called "triune God." If any member of the Trinity was to be asked, and if the Holy Spirit was the "Third Person of the Trinity," and if all members shared equality, the Spirit should have been the one asked, not the Father. (Verse 16)
- He would not have said "I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." (Verse 20) He would not have so carelessly suggested that membership in the Trinity would be shared by his followers.
- He would not have spoken of "the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." (Verse 26) If the Holy Spirit was an equal member of the Trinity, he would have betrayed a lack of equality since Jesus taught that "the one being sent is lesser than the one who sends him." And why would the spirit come in the name of Jesus if his own name was equal to that of Jesus' name?
- He would not have said "I do exactly as the Father commanded me." If he had been an equal member of the Trinity before being born as a human, he would have known due to his own equal awareness without having a need to be commanded by the Father. (Verse 31)
There is nothing in the context that suggests Jesus' inferiority to the Father was by position only.
herk
