Based on your website, you seem to state that the Son was the first created being by the Father. Considering that only God who was there from the beginning could atone man’s sins, how do you support this belief?

Yahshua     Based on your website, you seem to state that the Son was the first created being by the Father. Considering that only God who was there from the beginning could atone man’s sins, how do you support this belief?

Yahshua     The Bible is quite clear that Yahshua (the Son) had a beginning and was the first of His Father’s creation. Consider the below passages from the Apostle Paul and Yahshua the Messiah.

“Who is the image of the invisible El, the firstborn of every creature,” Colossians 1:15. In Greek, firstborn literally means, “first begotten.”

“And unto the angel of the assembly of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Elohim,” Revelation 3:14.

Both the Apostle Paul and Yahshua state that Yahshua was the firstborn and the beginning of the creation of Elohim. Knowing this, logic dictates that Yahshua had a beginning.

Beyond this, Paul in 1 Timothy 6:16 confirms that only the Father contains immortality, i.e., has always existed: “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”

The belief that the Son had to be “God” to atone for man’s sin is the same misguided rationale used by Athanasius at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, who first proposed the Father and son were co-eternal, co-equal, and consubstantial. According to author Earl E. Cairns, Athanasius “…insisted that Christ had existed from all eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, although He was a distinct personality. He insisted upon these things because he believed that, if Christ were less than He had stated Him to be, He could not be the Saviour of men. The question of man’s eternal salvation was involved in the relationship of the Father and the son according to Athanasius. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father…” (Christianity Through the Centuries, pp. 142-143).

The problem with this reasoning is the Bible never states that the Son had to be “God” to atone for man’s sins. The Bible confirms that the Son was given this authority: “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins…,” Matthew 6:16. Who gave the Son this authority? John 5:26-27 is clear that He received it from the Father: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.”

Interestingly, the word “authority” in John 5:27 comes from the Greek exousia. Strong’s defines this word as, “…privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence.” Notice that this authority can be “delegated.” In the case of the Son, the Father delegated this authority to Him. The fact that the Father granted this authority to the Son verifies the needlessness for the Son to be “God” to atone for man’s sin. This also shows the error in this common notion.

For additional information see our booklet: Identifying Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Also, watch Pastor Randy Folliard’s message, Yahshua’s Pre-existence:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Posted in Q&A - Trinity - Oneness, Q&A - Messiah.

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of