[annalex]

This voluntary taking upon Himself the form of a man was part of the plan from eternity to be economically subordinate to the Father but did nothing to diminish His deity.

I agree with this, Blue Duncan. I am not sure what is it that you and Kosta are arguing about.

[blue-duncan]

We aren’t arguing we are exploring a new way to share the results of our studies. We are discussing as family the finer points of the presence of Jesus, like “where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them”.

[kosta50]

I agree with this, Blue Duncan. I am not sure what is it that you and Kosta are arguing about

It started off with the notion of being to the 'right' of the Christ being placed to the right of the Father (by the Father) according to +Paul, and by being raised BY the Father from the dead, also according to +Paul and Acts (which is the same thing as +Paul).

In other words, Christ is always portrayed as subordained to God the Father, and this is something alien to our Creed and Trinitarian theology.

BD now says that Christ was "subordained" to the Father in the Divine Economy, which of course makes no sense when it comes to Christ raising Himself or Christ in heaven being told where to sit!

The Creed says "On the third day He rose," not "He was raised." big difference. And "sitting to the right of the Father" is of course not taken literally as apparently +Paul and the Prots interpret; neither was He told where to sit as +Paul suggests. That is a distorted, indeed, perverted pseudo-Trinitarian picture more akin to Arianism than Christianity.