It's the same context.
What you have to prove is that functional superiority always necessitates ontological superiority...and that you can not do.
I don't have to prove any such thing - it's not relevant to the issue in 1 Cor 15:24.
You can start a new thread concerning this or any other passage. This thread concerns itself with Matthew 28:18.
You have been creating and posting in quite enough different threads as it is; there's no need for more on the issue of "all power" or "all authority". Indeed, Matt 28:18 and 1 Cor 15:24 are the only two verses containing this exact Greek phrase. And since it is central to your claim about the Matthew passage, and you say it has the same meaning in Corinthians, then the latter verse is equally relevant to this discussion thread.
Matthew 28:18 teaches that Christ has all-power. No sources (your opinions do not count) have yet been supplied that somehow limits the use of "all" here...and an all-powerful/omnipotent Being is the same thing as saying the "Almighty".
Danker: the right to control or command, authority, absolute power, warrant
Of Jesus' total authority Mt 28:18 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, exousia, page 353).
Do you know what "total" means?
No, in point of fact, Mat 28:18 does not teach that Jesus has
all power, i.e. authority. To do that, he would have said "I have all authority", and the record of his words would use the verb 'echo' - "I have". But he didn't say that. The verb is in fact a form of 'didomi' - to give, So, exactly as has been repeatedly pointed out, this passage teaches that all power has been given
to Jesus. This teaching directly and totally precludes the possibility that Jesus is God, for who could give God authority that he does not already have?
You consistently fail to address this most basic point, just as you fail to answer the problem you created for yourself by claiming that "all authority" in 1 Cor 15:24 means God's omnipotence. Your interpretation in that latter verse directly leads to absurd consequences, but still you won't acknowledge that your interpretation must therefore be wrong.
Edited by Mark Taunton, 20 August 2012 - 07:39 PM.