hooberus,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16. ... "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. . . . " John 15:20. ... In the above verses in John the word translated "greater" clearly refers to position and not nature.
Look what Jesus said in John 13:16 and John 15:20. Since greater clearly refers to position and not nature in these verses, why is it a distortion to claim the same for John 14:28?
These two verses say nothing about the meaning of John 14:28. Additionally, they do not "clearly" refer "to position and not nature." In John 13, Jesus had just washed the feet of the disciples. In verse 16 he said each of them was a "servant" and he spoke of himself as their "Lord [kurios]." Your belief is that "Lord" means God by nature as well as by position. Thus you are inconsistent by saying "greater" does not mean "God by nature" when an intrinsic part of your personal belief is that "Lord" means God by nature as well as by position.
In John 15, Jesus was discussing persecution and said that the servant/disciple "is not greater than his Lord [kurios]." In trinitarian terms, Jesus was telling the disciples, "You are not greater than the One who is your God by nature as well as by position."
As to John 14:28, I've raised the following points in another thread you started. I'm waiting for you to address them:
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