Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
Well, I have to say it's one thing to admit we may not be able to be crystal clear on the nature of the TG, but it's another to see all the verses in the New Testament that talk about the Son and the Father in ways that are undeniably distinct one from the other and yet take one verse from the OT to undo all that.
"I am in the Father" - two things can't be in each other if they are each other.
"I am in the bosom of the Father" - pretty hard to be in your own bosom.
"I don't do my will but the will of Him who sent me" - they have different wills!
I could go on and on, but it would just be more of the same.
As for John 14:9.....well.....Jesus is the image of the invisible God. God is invisible, but Jesus is His image. So if you've seen Jesus, the image of God, you've seen God, because Jesus is His image.
As far as Isaiah 9:6 - this is not a question to challenge anyone, but a real question of curiosity. If the child in that verse "will be called...everlasting Father", then where do we see that fulfilled? Is there a record of Jesus being called "The Father" somewhere later on? I'm not aware of it, but it seems like if "the Son is the Father" is true, then this prophesy should be shown to be fulfilled somewhere.
|
I appreciate the critical thought here, Trapped. Many members of the Lord's Recovery have lost that ability beyond the parameters set by Local Church doctrine. That goes for those in Catholic and many protestant circles (such as in Calvinism) as well, especially when it comes to Christology. When you're taught year after year that your soul is totally depraved and outside the group exists no truth only total darkness it's easy to lack the self esteem to allow yourself the permission to think and question.
As for Christology, on the one hand you have those that strictly hold to the trinitarian tradition decreed in the early Roman ecumenical counsels of the 4th century and then you have those that fall into other heretical teachings such as modalism, as you find in the LC's, and also arianism like that of the Mormons and JW's.
I personally take the safe route and stick to the plain and explicit words of scripture. If scripture says we have one God, the Father, I believe it. If scripture says Christ is God's only begotten son, I believe that as well. That's my Christology. I try my best not to read into the text.
Going by this discipline and shedding all preconceived notions and biases pressed on me by whatever majority I was surrounded by, verses like John 14:9 and Isaiah 9:6 became clear and rather simple to understand.
In John, "horao" is the Greek term for "seen". People often presume this verses use of the term is for the the type of sight that comes by our physical senses but this word can also mean to perceive or see with the mind. It's clear to me Christ's usage of the term was that of the latter, meaning to perceive, because he would not break scripture and scripture specifically says that "no one has seen God" (as in physically seen). So the only way to see (or horao) the Father is through perception. And the only way to perceive an invisible God is by revelation. Like you said, Christ is the image of God. Since Christ was not separated from God by sin, thereby in close relationship with Him, he was able to embody the truth or nature of God. Why does Thomas say "my Lord and my God" at the feet of Jesus? It's not that he was necessarily declaring Jesus to be Almighty God, he happened to get the revelation right there and then not only of the reality of God the Father but also of Jesus as His actual son. He doubted until that point. It's these verses you'll see twisted in trinitarianism and modalism to suite their dogma.
As for Isaiah 9:6, the keyword to recognize is; “and his
name shall be called”
Names in the Hebrew culture were symbolic and believed to be prophetic. Jesus, in John 1:42, ‘called’ Simon by a new name (Cephas/Peter which means “rock”) to signify his future ministry as representative of being the “rock” or foundation of his gospel spreading to the entire world.
Just as Simon was to represent the rock of Christ's church, in the same way the Messiah’s names given in Isaiah 9:6 and in Matthew 1:23 were meant to signify whom Jesus would represent in this ministry on earth (Hebrews 1:3). Isaiah is not to be interpreted as who Jesus will be but what he will represent.
The fact is if you're tied down to a specific tradition, you simply won't be allowed to reach these conclusions. It's why I encourage the individual relationship with God first and then the corporate. This is so you can allow yourself to think critically outside of the confines of any given group and to also have the confidence to approach God directly for an answer or revelation of scripture rather than having to go through the "priesthood". Local Church members know well enough where following man leads you. Critical thought may help you avoid indoctrination but it should also help bring you to God Himself. Cynicism is absolutely a good thing in the correct context.
"And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His TRUE and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught. " 1 Jn 2:27