"When all things are subjected to him [Jesus Christ], then the Son himself also will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him, that God may be in all" 1 Cor 15:28

Meherally claims that due to Christ Jesus being subject to another, he is not God, as God is not subject to anything.

The verse does indicate that Jesus Christ does have a subjection and that is to the 'one', the 'one' in this case being the Father. The title 'Son' is indicative of subjection to God the Father, it must be stressed that this is a subjection of relationship. It is also important to note that subjection through relationship does not deny the fact that Jesus Christ is God. Is a human son less a man than his father? of course not, both are fully men but is one is subject in relationship to another. So it is perfectly feasible for one person of the Godhead to be God but in relational subjection to another within the Godhead.

It is very important that this verse is re-read carefully to obtain it's meaning, the opening part of the verse states that "all things are subjected to him", please note that the verse states everything will be made subject to Jesus Christ. All things does not mean just men on Earth, it also encompasses the Angels and all the earthly and heavenly beings. This is hardly a title that could be bestowed upon a mere man, who is in deed lower than the angels, it is only God who could assume such an attribute.

If anything, this verse indicates equality of position, Jesus Christ shares the same title God the Father. Jesus Christ holds the position of having "all things subjected to him" (note the beginning of the verse) and the Father also has the title "all things subjected to him" (note the end part of the verse).

In concluding Meherally quotes Issaih

"I am the First and the Last, and there is no God besides" Iss 44:6

This verse tells us that the title the First and the Last is a title that belongs exclusively to God, for God is solely the creator (Gen 1:1) and so God is the eternal and so rightly is the only one who can claim to be the first and the last.

This is in fact a title that Jesus Christ, ascribes to himself in the book of Revelations,

"I am the First and the Last" Revelation 1:17

"Jesus said to Martha, 'I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me shall live..." John 11:25-26

"whoever hears my words and believes in him who sent me has eternal life" John 5:23

Meherally claims to believe the words of Jesus and glorifies the one who sent him.

Meherally does not inform us as to whether he believes Jesus is 'the resurrection', which would imply that Meherally would believe that Jesus died and rose again.He does however commit the fallacy of equivocation by stating that

• he believes the words of Jesus Christ, or at least the words spoken in John 5:24
• that he glorifies God the Father who sent him

In response we note the following

• It is not sufficient for any person to pick choice verses from the Bible and claim to follow them whilst ignoring others. If Meherally was to truly claim to follow the words of Jesus Christ then he would need to deal with all the words that Jesus Christ did speak.
• Meherally claims to glorify the one who sent Jesus, God the Father (John 14). Upon the subject of glorifying the Father it is important to note the following words of Jesus Christ

"the Son should be glorified just as the Father" John 5:23a

This verse states quite clearly that the same glory must be given to the Son as one would give to the Father, for those who do not do this Jesus warns:-

"He who does not glorify the Son, does not glorify the Father who sent him." John 5:23

This verse warns quite clearly that if the person does not glorify the Son as the Father, then there is no glory given to the Father at all. People like Meherally who try to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, but claim to worship the one true God, should take heed of these words and realise that by not glorifying Jesus Christ as God, is in fact not giving no glory to God at all, no matter who much he would like to believe otherwise.

Meherally makes two points

• 1. Just because Jesus performed miracles, this does not indicate that he was God, as other prophets performed such miracles as raising the dead etc.
• 2. If Jesus was sent by God (John 11:24) then he was not God

Of all the prophets, only Jesus Christ forgave the sin of others (Luke 7:47-50, Mark 2:10, John 1:29). On many occasions when he did forgive sins, he was often rebuked by the Jewish teachers, who quite correctly stated that only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7). Note also that Jesus response to this was not to deny that he was able to forgive sins, rather he uses miracles to demonstrate that he can indeed forgive sins.

Some apologists have tried to cheapen this attribute by arguing,

"well if someone robs me and I forgive them, does that make me God as well?"

The forgiveness of sins against one's person does not indicate divinity, but we need to realise that Jesus was not forgiving sins committed directly against him personally, but against God this is what caused the Teachers to question such actions. There is also a big difference in that whilst other prophets prayed to God for the forgiveness of theirs and others' transgressions (Mark 2:16), Jesus Christ demonstrated that he himself could forgive sins committed against God, indeed final judgement at the end times is his (John 5:22).

In the Taurat (Old Testament) God claims himself as being Lord of the Sabbath (Lev 23:3, Ex 20:10) Jesus Christ also uses this title of himself (Mark 12:8)

As God is uncreated, he is the only one who can rightly claim the eternal title 'The First and the Last' (Issaih 44:6), Jesus Christ uses this unique title for himself (Revelation 1:17).

The first verse of the Bible tell us that God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), Jesus Christ created the heavens and the Earth (John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16).

Meherally makes the point that if God sent Jesus, "then he was not the God that sent him", the logic being applied here applies to a mono personal or unitarian God.

As we have covered earlier on the Bible clearly reveals a singular God who is multi personal.

The Bible tells us that there is only one God. In Mark 12:9, when Jesus Christ is asked what the most important commandment is, in reply he quotes the Old Testament teaching which is commonly called the Schema, which is the central creed of monotheism taught in the Bible,

"Hear oh Israel the Lord your God, the Lord is one" Deuteronomy 6:4

The original Hebrew reads

In Hebrew there are two words for one

If we look back to the original Hebrew text of the Schema, we see that the word ESCHAD is used to described the oneness of God, rather than YACHID. For further information, refer to Question 1, which refers to the New Testament Greek usage of the word 'one' as describing a multipersonal God.

The Biblical doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that there are three persons that exist within the Godhead each of who is distinct and yet fully God, so within this context it is quite plausible for one person of the Trinity to refer to another as God but in distinction, indeed we find verses in the Bible that support this premise.

"About the Son, however, God said, 'Your Kingdom, O God, will last for ever and ever'." Hebrews 1:8 

In Hebrews, God speaks to His Son whom he calls God.

"In the beginning was the Word and was with God and the Word was God" John 1:1

The Word is distinct from God (with God) and yet God.

This demonstrates quite clearly that God is indeed able to refer to another who is also God, and the Bible tells us quite clearly that it is God the Father who sends the Son, who is revealed to be fully God.