The one mentioned in Revelation 4:2 is not Jesus Christ, the son of man; but the father, the Ancient of Days. Notice that that one has no form of a person, but is merely described as color, i.e., jasper stone and sardius in appearance. Jesus Christ, the one who does have the from of a person, comes to this one and receives a kingdom, glory, and dominion,
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. Daniel 7:13-14
The father may be called Jesus, but he is not Jesus Christ. That title is reserved to the son of man, who sat with the father in
his throne.
It's not that Jesus had a dual personality, or even a dual nature. God, the father, through him created a
new thing. By making the word (i.e., the lord of hosts) flesh, he made man and God one. God didn't diminish himself by taking the form of a man, but instead assimilated man who was made in God's image into the godhead.
Whichever one we pick has to be determined by context. Sometimes it's irrelevant.
I certainly hope you would be better able. That's an Islamist website. Why would you even use such a website to argue your case?
[/color]
This prophecy refers to Revelation 5:6-7 onward when the son (my lord)
sits at the right hand of the father
(YHWH) until his enemies are made his footstool.
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he [i.e. the father] is excepted, which did put all things under him [i.e., the son]. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [i.e., the father] that put all things under him [i.e., the son], that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 11:15
That's an absurd statement. The sciptures unequivocably teach that the son is subject to the father. How does that undeify him?
Jesus stating that he would raise the temple of his body in three days, doesn't prove your point. He could have been speaking obliquely to the Pharisees, maybe even to make them stumble, much like when he said, "except you drink my blood".
You make some good points, Angelina.
I will add that when the son was suffering agony, the father was not, but was in fact pleased that through his son the separation between man and God was finally coming to an end.