Is Jesus inferior because He was "sent" by the Father?

by hooberus 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  The Watchtower implies that since Jesus was "sent" by the Father that therefore he must be inferior to the Father:

  "Is not the sender superior to the one sent?" Should You believe in the Trinity

  While it is true that a sender can at times occupy a superior position that the one who is sent, the fact remains that a sender and the one sent can be equal in terms of nature. A man may send another man, however they are both equally human. Likewise the fact that Jesus was sent by the Father does not mean that he has a lower nature than the Father.

  The Watchtower says: "Thus Jesus illustrated his own position as one being sent by God to do God's will, just as a father sends a submissive son." Should You believe in the Trinity

  The watchtowers example is heplful: A human father can send a submissive son, yet this does not mean that his son is inferior by nature (ie. less human) than his father. In fact human sons are always considered equal by nature to their fathers !

  A son who comes to you sent by his father should be given equal honor as his father, and should not be demoted by claiming that he is some sort of lesser being by nature than his father.

  "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." John 5:23
• 

  hooberus

  But how could God send God?

  "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee." Zechariah 2:10-11

  It is also important to remember that the trinity teaches that while Jesus and the Father are the same God that they are different persons. Hense, the trinity teaches that the Father sent the son.
• 

  A Paduan

  • Husband "Can I do something for you dear?"
  • Wife "Yes, could you go to the store and get some fruit and veges"
  • Jw fruiterer "Well hi, I see you're getting some fruit for your wife - obviously she is superior to you, or she'd be the one here getting them herself."
  • Husband "Look, behind you, is that an African ant on the shelf? ......runs away out the door and goes to another shop."

  ----------------------------------------------

  "... and His name will be Emmanuel (God with us)"
• 

  herk

  hooberus,
  

  A human father can send a submissive son, yet this does not mean that his son is inferior by nature (ie. less human) than his father. In fact human sons are always considered equal by nature to their fathers !

  It is also important to remember that the trinity teaches that while Jesus and the Father are the same God that they are different persons.

  Your view is that a "divine person" is not an individual, that three persons are not three beings, entities, objects or organisms. On what basis then can you use the illustration of a human father sending his human son? In order for your illustration to make any sense, you have to block the Trinity idea from your mind, at least momentarily. Your belief in the Trinity is not only contrary to scripture, but hostile to sound logic and reason as well.

  A human father is an individual being. So is a human son. But your theory says the heavenly Father is not an invidual being, that without the Son and without the Holy Ghost, God would not be God. In other words, the Father would not be God. I'm amazed that you can't see the blasphemy that is strikingly embodied in the teaching of the Trinity.

  A son who comes to you sent by his father should be given equal honor as his father, and should not be demoted by claiming that he is some sort of lesser being by nature than his father.

  The apostles were sent by Jesus. Should they have been given equal honor as Jesus their sender if he was God? If Jesus was God and they were not, were they not lesser than he by nature?

  "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." John 5:23

  You misunderstand what Jesus meant here. He was not saying men should "honour the Son, equally as they honour the Father." "Even as" does not mean "equally as." If it did, Jesus' intention would also have been that all his disciples become part of the Trinity:

  John 17:11, 20, 21 - "Holy Father, keep them in your name, the name which you have given me, that they may be one even as [equally as?] we are. ... [I ask] that they may all be one; even as [equally as?] you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us."

  herk
• 

  cypher50

  I accept the divinity of Jesus (John 1:1 & 18 certainly show that) but after much research of pro-Trinity sources, I still cannot support the theory. It is certainly a valid one but I find the scriptures to make much more sense when viewed as Jesus being sent by his father.
• 

  gumby

  and His name will be Emmanuel (God with us)"

  Funny......not ONE person EVER called him by that name......yet the angel said that would be his name. Why in the hell didn't the angel just come out and say his name will be Jesus? That was his name wasn't it?

  What a lame excuss to use this scripture to prove this meant god was physically "with them". God was with the Israelites also in a cloud and by fire.....he didn't need an earthly representative to be there in person to be "with them". Another cheap shot to prove a heathen belief with a christian label.

  Gumby
• 

  hooberus

  Your view is that a "divine person" is not an individual, that three persons are not three beings, entities, objects or organisms. On what basis then can you use the illustration of a human father sending his human son? In order for your illustration to make any sense, you have to block the Trinity idea from your mind, at least momentarily. Your belief in the Trinity is not only contrary to scripture, but hostile to sound logic and reason as well.

  The illustration comes from scriptures (and was used by the WT in their Trinity brochure):

  "Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours." Luke 20:13-14

  http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

  I will send my son [Jesus] the beloved. Likely they will respect this one." But the corrupt cultivators said: "'This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may become ours.' With that they threw him outside the vineyard and killed him." (Luke 20:9-16) Thus Jesus illustrated his own position as one being sent by God to do God's will, just as a father sends a submissive son.

  As I said before: "The watchtowers example is heplful: A human father can send a submissive son, yet this does not mean that his son is inferior by nature (ie. less human) than his father. In fact human sons are always considered equal by nature to their fathers !" My point was that even the watchtowers illustration does not demonstrate the point that they are trying to make (ie: that a Son is inferior by nature to his father that sends him).
• 

  hooberus

  The apostles were sent by Jesus. Should they have been given equal honor as Jesus their sender if he was God? If Jesus was God and they were not, were they not lesser than he by nature?

  Trinitarians do not claim that one who is sent always has the same nature as the sender (thus the apostles are not divine by being sent), but instead Trinitarains believe that the fact one is said to be "sent" does not in itself mean that they cannot have the same nature. Even unitarians admit that one "sent" can have the same nature, however when it comes to Jesus they claim that his being "sent" is evidence of an inferior nature.

  Trinitarians do not claim that the fact of Jesus being "sent" in itself means that he is divine (that He shares the fathers same nature), but that him being "sent" does not prove that He is inferior by nature. The fact that Jesus is sent does not necesarily prove that he is by nature equal to his father, his equality is shown by his being God's Son.

  The fact that God sent his son does not mean that his Son has an inferior nature anymore than a human father sending his son implies an inferior nature (in fact "sent" sons are considered equal by nature to their fathers).
• 

  A Paduan

  Funny......not ONE person EVER called him by that name......yet the angel said that would be his name.

  Well, I know plenty of people who've called him that.

  Why in the hell didn't the angel just come out and say his name will be Jesus? That was his name wasn't it ?

  Why didn't the Magi say "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews Jesus?"
• 

  Kenneson

  "...without the Son and without the Holy Ghost, God would not be God. In other words the Father would not be God."

  If there ever was a time when God was alone, then He was not Father. One cannot be Father to self. Without the Son, God could not have been Father. If, however, he is eternal Father, then he has an eternal Son.