Let me start out by saying that I affirm and fully believe Jesus Christ, to be the one and only begotten of the Father, the "Son" of God. And that he is fully divine and fully human.
Now, let's take a look at some texts here and see what we can glean from them.
"He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." 1 John 2:22, 23.
I do not believe they are role playing here so to speak, but that Jesus literally came forth from and out of the Father. There is a definate father and Son relationship here, the Father being older than his Son naturally.
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, Ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God..." John 8:42
"For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world..." John 16:27,28.
What I see here is that there was a time when before he "came out of God" that the Father did not have a son. It wasn't until his Father brought him into existence, out of his very own divine nature, that the Father then had a Son to love. He was brought forth into existence, long before this world was created and the rest of the heavenly universe because God created all things by his Son.
In Hebrews 1 we read:
3�Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4�Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5�For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? So there you have the birth of the Father's Son. He did not always exists as a part of some trinity where they are all equally God and have all existed side by side from eternity unless you count Jesus as being one with the father when he was still within his "loins" if you will, before he became God's Son. The Father is older then his Son.
Take a look at Dan. 7:13, 14.
"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."
Here we clearly see that the Father is older then the Son. The Father being called "the ancient of days" and Jesus, the Son of man.
Now I realize this is a very sensitive subject and that we are treading on holy ground as we speak of the nature of the Son of God. I would just like to be able to prayerfully consider these scriptures and not our individual biasis and long standing traditions.
I'd like to suggest you do a little study and read the beginning of every one of Paul's letters and pay attention to how the Father and Son are addressed. In every single instance without fail, the Father is always addressed as God, and Jesus is never addressed as such. He is generally referred to as the "Lord" or God's Son.
Here's a few more scriptures to consider.
No man has seen God at any time. John 1:18 See also 1 John 4:12.
Many men saw Jesus, so how can he be God in the highest sense? For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:15.
Jesus is between God and man. I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17.
The Father is the God of Jesus.
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Cor. 8:6.
This scripture is so clear.
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph 4:5,6.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor. 11:3.
The woman isn't man, man isn't Christ and Christ isn't God, he's the Son of God. He is the express image of God, and God his father was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. That's why Jesus could say, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.
But he wasn't actually, literally God, for "no man has ever seen God." But God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
In the same way, Christ is to be in us. That doesn't make us Christ though. But if we are dead to self, then Christ will be living his life through us. When people see us, self should be hid and only Christ is seen. In like manner, Christ emptied himself so that when people saw Christ they saw God.
I could share much more, but I think this is enough to get people to think twice about some of our long standing traditions and interpretations of Scripture and sensitive subjects like this on the nature of Christ.
Thank you for allowing me the freedom to express my views on this subject.
I say dear and not @ because I want to be dear to you. But make no mistake I have zero tolerance for twisting scripture and even less (if that were possible) for defining the nature of God and Jesus other than how scripture defines. When you re- define God you set your own god up ; the equivalent of a idol. When you re- define Jesus you pervert the gospel and do the work of a anti-christ.
I share this in Love robert because at this time you have given no cause to assume this was intentional or malicious on your part. Therfore, for the time being I will assume you are a brother in the Lord trying to sort this out for yourself. In my next post I will address the mistakes in your post specifically.
You have ASSUMED using a metaphorical description (Father/Son) and made a conjecture that the Father must be older than the Son. In other words; you have carried a analogy to far reaching a conclusion which is error.
The. Metaphorical description of the Father and Son describes 'something' of the spiritual relationship in terms that we as humans can relate to.
If you do a search of scriptures you will find all things are created except for Jesus and Wisdom. These two are "begotten" by God. The greek word meaning 'brought forth from the bossom of'
Again in other words; Jesus has always existed in God just as Wisdom has.
You have assumed that since the Father is referred to as the Ancient of Days he must be older. Rev 12:9 & 20:2 refer to Satan as the "ancient serpent" ......would you therefore conclude that Satan is older that Jesus.....of course not......it is just a descriptive title.
Your misunderstanding may stem from the fact that Jesus was not OPENLY REVEALED to the majority until thousands of years after creation.
Friend, you are certainly free to express your opinions and I would hope you would use scripture to support your understanding as this is the only thing that I can respect and take a look at. But one's own human reasoning, I pay very little attention to for scripture is of no private interpretation. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. My method of understanding scripture is as far ad possible let the Bible interpret itself.
In your first point of refutation you gave no scriptural support, only human reasoning and therefore there's nothing there for me to really reflect upon and reconsider. The Holy Spirit uses the words of scripture to convince one of truth. (See Heb 4:12.)
Secondly when I read such harsh heavy-handed words like "I have zero tolerance...", this too I will not respond to in kind. When I see the fruit of the spirit in ones words, and a spirit of meekness and humbleness, then even though I may disagree with there understanding of scripture, I still have respect for them and will take a second look at what they are saying, especially if they uses scripture to support their belief.
So I ask of you in responding to the points I have made please pray first then write, and please use Scripture to support your belief and not a lot of human reasoning, church fathers, traditions, ect. and then I will ponder what you have to say. I love God very much as you do. We are all wanting to know him better and we each study the Word of God with a sincere desire to know what is truth and then live by it that God may be glorified.
Ok I can already clearly see where this is going with a lot of yelling (using capital letters and exclamation points). I have a response for your objections, however I do not like the spirit of your words. I do not wish to get into this kind of harsh theological debate with you. People deserve to hear another opinion then just mainstream. So please feel free to express your opinions as well, but I have already stated my understanding and others can choose which makes more sense to them and ask you or myself further questions if they like.
You have concluded that since "no man has seen God" and men have seen Jesus, Jesus must therefore not be God.
It is true no man can see God and live. What men saw in Christ was the representation of the Father; a tiny glimpse of God. Much like Elijah in Kings chapter 19. And Moses in Exodus chapter 33.
ASSUMING JESUS IS NOT GOD IS A HUGH ERROR .......THIS IS HOW CULTS ARE STARTED!
On a lighter note Robert; I wish you would communicate. For I am trying to discern where you are coming since you espouse doctrine typical of Jehovah Witnesses, Moroms and some Jewish groups. (Not referring to Messianic Jews.....they are awesome)
Ok, Robert, sorry about the capital letters and exclaimation points. I did not mean to be yelling (at you). I just wanted to make others aware the aforementioned doctrine is heresy.
