- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Bodhitharta said:
Quote They were not saying he blaphemed because he called himself the Son of Man but because he was claiming the right hand of Power bodhitharta then said:
Quote Son of Man simply means mankind, children of Adam. I have already given numerous examples of this but for the sake of argument I will give a few here again: They accused Him of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of Man and for claiming the right hand of power. They had said to Him, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Then He replied claiming to be the Son of Man and claiming the right hand of power. After this they charged Him with basphemy because the “Son of Man” to them was the Christ, the Son of God.
Do you expect me to believe that the high priest tore off his clothed because Christ claimed to be a mere son of Adam? Come on! Your use of old testament scriptures do not prove your definition. The expression “Son of Man” in reference to Jesus was NOT equivalent to the term as it was used of His old testament counterparts. Jesus said this:
Quote What then if you should see the Son of Man ASCEND WHERE HE WAS BEFORE? (6:62) again,
Quote No man has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man Who came down from heaven This Son of Man was from heaven while the old testament counterparts you mentioned originated from Adam.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 10 2009,07:04) Bodhitharta said: Quote They were not saying he blaphemed because he called himself the Son of Man but because he was claiming the right hand of Power bodhitharta then said:
Quote Son of Man simply means mankind, children of Adam. I have already given numerous examples of this but for the sake of argument I will give a few here again: They accused Him of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of Man and for claiming the right hand of power. They had said to Him, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Then He replied claiming to be the Son of Man and claiming the right hand of power. After this they charged Him with basphemy because the “Son of Man” to them was the Christ, the Son of God.
Do you expect me to believe that the high priest tore off his clothed because Christ claimed to be a mere son of Adam? Come on! Your use of old testament scriptures do not prove your definition. The expression “Son of Man” in reference to Jesus was NOT equivalent to the term as it was used of His old testament counterparts. Jesus said this:
Quote What then if you should see the Son of Man ASCEND WHERE HE WAS BEFORE? (6:62) again,
Quote No man has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man Who came down from heaven This Son of Man was from heaven while the old testament counterparts you mentioned originated from Adam.
thinker
6:62?What book?
bodhitharta said:
Quote Psalm 89:5-7 (Darby Translation) 5And the heavens shall celebrate thy wonders, O Jehovah, and thy faithfulness in the congregation of the saints.
6For who in the heaven can be compared to Jehovah? [who] among the sons of the mighty shall be likened to Jehovah?
Why does it say “who” in the heaven? If there are no residents?
Also Why do you assume that Elijah was a sinner? I suppose you will say because the scripture says “All have sinned” but you don't include Jesus in “All” so All have not sinned, right?
Jesus said:
Matthew 9:12-14 (King James Version)
12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
So who is righteous?
Malachi 3:17-18 (King James Version)
17And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
18Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
Wait a minute, did God just say I will spare them like a man spareth his own son that serveth Him?
bd,
As usual you rely heavily on old testament texts. The new testament says that the prophets died in faith having not received the promise. Elijah was a prophet. It says also that the OT saints, including the prophets “should not be made perfect without us.”According to Strong's Concordance the word “heaven” in 2 Kings 12 is the “sky”, “the visible arch where the clouds move”, “the celestial bodies” (#8064). Elijah did NOT go to God! There is no evidence from the Hebrew word that implies this and Hebrews 11 and John 3 plainly contradict that Elijah went to God.
Your view means that Elijah went to God apart from Christ. But Christ said that “no man comes to the Father but through Me.” Your view fails because it makes the cross unnecessary. You said that Trinitarianism is anti-Christian because it elevates Christ too high. Yet anti-Trinitarianism is no better because it belittles the work of Christ and allows for salvation apart from His atoning death on the cross.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 10 2009,07:23) bodhitharta said: Quote Psalm 89:5-7 (Darby Translation) 5And the heavens shall celebrate thy wonders, O Jehovah, and thy faithfulness in the congregation of the saints.
6For who in the heaven can be compared to Jehovah? [who] among the sons of the mighty shall be likened to Jehovah?
Why does it say “who” in the heaven? If there are no residents?
Also Why do you assume that Elijah was a sinner? I suppose you will say because the scripture says “All have sinned” but you don't include Jesus in “All” so All have not sinned, right?
Jesus said:
Matthew 9:12-14 (King James Version)
12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
So who is righteous?
Malachi 3:17-18 (King James Version)
17And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
18Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
Wait a minute, did God just say I will spare them like a man spareth his own son that serveth Him?
bd,
As usual you rely heavily on old testament texts. The new testament says that the prophets died in faith having not received the promise. Elijah was a prophet. It says also that the OT saints, including the prophets “should not be made perfect without us.”According to Strong's Concordance the word “heaven” in 2 Kings 12 is the “sky”, “the visible arch where the clouds move”, “the celestial bodies” (#8064). Elijah did NOT go to God! There is no evidence from the Hebrew word that implies this and Hebrews 11 and John 3 plainly contradict that Elijah went to God.
Your view means that Elijah went to God apart from Christ. But Christ said that “no man comes to the Father but through Me.” Your view fails because it makes the cross unnecessary. You said that Trinitarianism is anti-Christian because it elevates Christ too high. Yet anti-Trinitarianism is no better because it belittles the work of Christ and allows for salvation apart from His atoning death on the cross.
thinker
What are you talking about the scripture doesn't say Elijah went up to heaven by himself it says that The Lord took him “into” heavenDeuteronomy 33:26
26 There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.Job 37:18 (King James Version)
18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Now these scriptures are from the old testament so what does the word sky mean here?
Elijah was taken up into heaven by the Lord, I have shown you by the scriptures.
BTW, You say you believe in progressive revelation so have you or will you read the Quran?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 10 2009,15:28) Hi BD,
Can men add to the sacred words those of a latecomer who claimed to be a prophet?
NH,You certainly have pure religion so I cannot really argue with you because I feel that we are closer than you even know. However, The entire bible is simply a compilation of books over time.
How many years passed between Abraham and Moses or between Moses and Jesus or between Jesus and Paul.
There really are no more sacred words that came from a man than that came from Jesus Christ and did not Paul add to those words?
You must understand that in Muhammad God has perfectly completed His promise to Abraham.
Jesus completed his Promise in Isaac and Muhammad completed his promise in Ishmael.
I'm really not worried about you though because you know and worship the ONLY TRUE GOD.
You are a very direct and gracious person. God Bless you!
Quote (thethinker @ June 10 2009,04:23) bodhitharta said: Quote BTW, Jesus did not get charged for blasphemy for saying he was the son of man. Let me make this clear: You are completely incorrect…. bd,
You are only partially correct. Jesus was charged with blasphemy for making Himself the Son of God and ALSO for making Himsef the Son of Man. When He claimed to be the Son of Man Caiaphas the high priest tore off his clothes which was a sign to all that Jesus had blasphemed (Matt.26).Both terms “Son of God” and “Son of Man” were divine titles. This is why Jesus was charged with blasphemy for claiming both titles for Himself.
thinker
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither THE SON OF MAN, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?So, God is divine.
Man is NOT divine.
Son of man is divine.
Divine is not a man.
Divine is not divine?
Sound about like trinitarian logic.Quote (thethinker @ June 10 2009,04:23) bodhitharta said: Quote BTW, Jesus did not get charged for blasphemy for saying he was the son of man. Let me make this clear: You are completely incorrect…. bd,
You are only partially correct. Jesus was charged with blasphemy for making Himself the Son of God and ALSO for making Himsef the Son of Man. When He claimed to be the Son of Man Caiaphas the high priest tore off his clothes which was a sign to all that Jesus had blasphemed (Matt.26).Both terms “Son of God” and “Son of Man” were divine titles. This is why Jesus was charged with blasphemy for claiming both titles for Himself.
thinker
(thinker)Quote Both terms “Son of God” and “Son of Man” were divine titles. Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?
Divine WORMS? Is the son of a worm divine?
bodhitharta said:
Quote What are you talking about the scripture doesn't say Elijah went up to heaven by himself it says that The Lord took him “into” heaven bd,
Are you serious? I assumed you would know that “no man can come to the Father but through me” was a reference to Christ's work on the cross. I marvel that I find myself explaining this to you. It does NOT say that the Lord was with Elijah or that the Lord took Elijah to God. It simply means that the Lord caught up Elijah to the sky. You read more into the statement then what is said. I have already showed you from Strong's that the word for heaven is “sky”. Eliijah may have been ushered into paradise from that point. He could not go to be with God until Christ completed His atoning work.You are wasting your time with all the old testament verses you give me. Jesus said that NO MAN had ascended into heaven. You have ignored this. Hebrews 11 says that they ALL died in faith having not received the promise. This included the prophets. Elijah was a prophet. Ergo…. It says also that they could not be made perfect without us.
You have ignored Hebrews 11 also.
thinker
Paladin wrote:
Quote Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm? Divine WORMS? Is the son of a worm divine?
To All,
Let's see if Paladin's definition of the term “Son of Man” in reference to Jesus is in agreement with God the Father's definition. The Scripture says this:Quote When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philipi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man am?” So they said, “Some say John the baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets,” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered him and said, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN” (Matthew 16:13-17)
To Peter there was an identity of the terms “Son of man”, “Christ” and “Son of God.” Jesus affirmed Peter's definition by saying that His Father revealed this to him. It certainly looks like Paladin is at odds with the Father whom he says is his God.
thinker
Hi tt,
Where is the dissonance between for Jesus Christ the Son of man and Son of God?
Jesus was anointed man just as we can be though he is Lord.Certainly Jesus was both and because he inherited our lowly estate we can now be reconciled with the Father God by following him.
And of course he is not that God with who he, the mediator, reconciles us.
There is no trinity.Quote (thethinker @ June 11 2009,03:25) bodhitharta said: Quote What are you talking about the scripture doesn't say Elijah went up to heaven by himself it says that The Lord took him “into” heaven bd,
Are you serious? I assumed you would know that “no man can come to the Father but through me” was a reference to Christ's work on the cross. I marvel that I find myself explaining this to you. It does NOT say that the Lord was with Elijah or that the Lord took Elijah to God. It simply means that the Lord caught up Elijah to the sky. You read more into the statement then what is said. I have already showed you from Strong's that the word for heaven is “sky”. Eliijah may have been ushered into paradise from that point. He could not go to be with God until Christ completed His atoning work.You are wasting your time with all the old testament verses you give me. Jesus said that NO MAN had ascended into heaven. You have ignored this. Hebrews 11 says that they ALL died in faith having not received the promise. This included the prophets. Elijah was a prophet. Ergo…. It says also that they could not be made perfect without us.
You have ignored Hebrews 11 also.
thinker
So tell me of this paradise is this the same paradise that Jesus said:Luke 23:42-44 (King James Version)
42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
So wherever Jesus was this man also went so did Jesus go to heaven or paradise and is heaven, “paradise” because Jesus went there according to Jesus.
Also Jesus was talking to those who didn't accept him when he said no man comes to the Father but through him, but Jesus also said unless you accept the least of these you do not accept me
Matthew 25:39-41 (King James Version)
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Trust me thinker you will find nothing but a friend in me.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2009,13:56) Hi BD,
Does Jesus know you among HIS brethren?
Yes, (God willing ) he does as I strive to do the Will of the Father.bodhitharts said:
Quote So wherever Jesus was this man also went so did Jesus go to heaven or paradise and is heaven, “paradise” because Jesus went there according to Jesus. bd,
We are in agreement that the thief on the cross went to paradise with Jesus. But paradise was NOT heaven. It was a place where the righteous dead went until Christ completed His work of atonement. Men could not go directly to God apart from Christ's atoning work. If so then it would not have been necessary for Christ to die. I give you a note about “paradise.”Quote Paradise: A Persian word for “garden”, which came to mean the place of the righteous dead (Reformation Study Bible note on Luke 23:24) Men could not go directly to God without the sacrificial death of Christ. Before Christ's atoning work men went to hades which was divided into separate compartments for the righteous and the wicked. The righteous went to that part which was called “paradise.” I believe that Enoch and Elijah and David and all the righteous went there before the cross. I believe that after Christ reconciled men to God they went directly to God. Therefore, “paradise” is no longer necessary now. Men go directly to God now.
How could men have gone directly to God before Christ reconciled them to God? Jesus literally said, “Not one man has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven.” Note that He said “NOT ONE.” But men go directly to God now!
Quote Trust me thinker you will find nothing but a friend in me. Thank you! I will try to be more patient in my posts to you.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2009,15:23) Hi BD,.
The will of the Father is that you believe in the Son.
The Son said you must be born again.
John 3:8 (King James Version)8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
It is the will of the Father that you believe in all those he sent, do not think you can believe in Jesus and disregard everyone else God has sent.
Jesus believed in Moses, Jonah, Noah….. and so should you.
So, I not only believe in Jesus I believe in the entire Word of God and his messengers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
