The Man from heaven

This topic contains 190 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  NickHassan 10 months, 2 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #13557
     Sammo 
    Participant
    • Topics started 1
    • Total replies 234

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 12 2006,07:42)
    Since when did
    “sent from God”
    have the same meaning as
    “sent from heaven”?


    Hi Nick

    Both 1 John 4:9 and John 8:42 both say that Jesus was sent from God, not that Jesus was sent from heaven. We can go through passages that say that Jesus was sent from heaven, but you should give them first!

    But if you want to be picky, since God is unquestionably in heaven, no, I don't see that much of a difference – neither involve anything literally coming down from heaven to earth.

    #13558
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    Quote (Sammo @ May 12 2006,08:03)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 12 2006,07:42)
    Since when did
    “sent from God”
    have the same meaning as
    “sent from heaven”?


    Hi Nick

    Both 1 John 4:9 and John 8:42 both say that Jesus was sent from God, not that Jesus was sent from heaven. We can go through passages that say that Jesus was sent from heaven, but you should give them first!

    But if you want to be picky, since God is unquestionably in heaven, no, I don't see that much of a difference – neither involve anything literally coming down from heaven to earth.


    Hi Sammo,
    It is not a case of being picky but rather

    protecting the integrity of the precious words of God
    by correctly comparing
    verse with verse,
    line with line and
    word with word.

    That is what God wants us to do,
    to show Him
    due respect.

    #13711
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    Quote (Sammo @ May 12 2006,08:03)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 12 2006,07:42)
    Since when did
    “sent from God”
    have the same meaning as
    “sent from heaven”?


    Hi Nick

    Both 1 John 4:9 and John 8:42 both say that Jesus was sent from God, not that Jesus was sent from heaven. We can go through passages that say that Jesus was sent from heaven, but you should give them first!

    But if you want to be picky, since God is unquestionably in heaven, no, I don't see that much of a difference – neither involve anything literally coming down from heaven to earth.


    Hi sammo,
    Of course Jesus was a prophet too so was sent from God as all prophets were. He is the Prophet that the woman at the well knew was going to be sent as prophesied by Moses.

    He was sent from heaven.
    He came from heaven.
    He descended from heaven where he had glory with his Father and the other heavenly beings.

    And he ascended again to whence he had come.

    #13714
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,008

    Amen, Nick.

    #13715
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,008

    Quote (Sammo @ May 13 2006,03:03)
    But if you want to be picky, since God is unquestionably in heaven, no, I don't see that much of a difference – neither involve anything literally coming down from heaven to earth.


    John 6:38-40
    For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    Acts 1:11
    “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

    Notice that it uses the word “sky/universe”.

    #13725
     Sammo 
    Participant
    • Topics started 1
    • Total replies 234

    Quote (t8 @ May 17 2006,07:10)

    Quote (Sammo @ May 13 2006,03:03)
    But if you want to be picky, since God is unquestionably in heaven, no, I don't see that much of a difference – neither involve anything literally coming down from heaven to earth.


    John 6:38-40
    For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    Acts 1:11
    “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

    Notice that it uses the word “sky/universe”.


    True, it's like the bread that floated down from heaven too, back in the days of Moses. (v31)

    #13730
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,008

    So Jesus will come on a frosty morning?
    He was taken up and he shall come back in like manner. It seems that you are being setup to believe reports that he is here or there, which scripture warns us about.

    If you do not believe the manner in which scripture reports the return of the messiah, then what manner do you think he will come?

    #13733
     Sammo 
    Participant
    • Topics started 1
    • Total replies 234

    I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself very well, and I hope I didn't come across as sarcastic. What I meant was that Jesus said he came down from heaven as true bread, as opposed to the manna that also came down from heaven (v31).

    So Jesus only came down from heaven in the same way that the manna came down from heaven – ie not literally, unless you can imagine that the manna literally floated down from the sky each day.

    #13734
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 905
    • Total replies 19,008

    Well it is obvious that Jesus didn't float down from heaven, rather he was born through a woman. But Jesus was taken up at the resurrection and he will return in the same manner he left.

    Jesus return is not supported by the verses that say he was from heaven, but that he will return in the same manner he left the earth in the resurrection. I hope that you are not leading people to believe that the Christ can be found here or over there?

    Revelation 1:7
    Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

    #13737
     Adam Pastor 
    Participant
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 326

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2006,22:44)
    Hi,
    1Cor 15.45f
    “So also it is written
    'The first man, Adam, became a living soul'
    The last Adam became a lifegiving spirit.
    However the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
    The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As to the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as to the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthy we shall also bear the image of the heavenly”

    So Christ was first natural. He had a weak perishable body like us. He had to die and his seed was planted in the soil [v36, Jn 12.24]for him to be resurrected in new life, a life which has become a source of eternal life for us.

    He was not a man in heaven who came but a spirit of divine nature who was sent from heaven to come in flesh. He was not yet fully the man from heaven when he was born like us but is the man from heaven on his return to heaven and when he returns to earth.


    Greetings Nick

    If Jesus was first “a spirit of divine nature who was sent from heaven to come in flesh,” to use your words,
    it would contradict the very point that Paul is making.

    Paul said “However the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual”.

    In other words, Paul simply has no concept of Jesus being something or someone else before being a man; he has no concept of Jesus being “a spirit of divine nature” before being conceived in the womb of Mary, his mother.

    To Paul, the man Jesus was a natural albeit sinless, supernaturally conceived human being right up to his death.
    Whereby after 3 days, GOD raised him from the dead, immortalized, glorified and exalted him, and made him,
    'a life-giving spirit'

    Hence, “first the natural; then the spiritual”

    #13739
     Adam Pastor 
    Participant
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 326

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 12 2006,07:42)
    Since when did
    “sent from God”
    have the same meaning as
    “sent from heaven”?

    God is not a synonym for heaven.


    Greetings Nick
    In Jewish writings, 'heaven' is indeed used as a synonym for 'GOD'

    For example, Matthew whose Gospel was more geared to a Jewish audience, rather used the term 'Kingdom of Heaven' as opposed to 'Kingdom of GOD'; although they mean the very same thing.

    Another example would be
    (Mat 21:25)  The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

    'From heaven' is simply a synonym for 'From GOD'
    That is, how Christ's audience would have understood him.

    John's baptism didn't descend from Heaven … it came from GOD! In this context,
    'From heaven' means 'From GOD'

    Hence, when Christ spoke of himself as one 'from heaven', come down 'from heaven' or the true bread 'from heaven.';
    he was simply stating that he was 'from GOD', he was come from GOD, he was the true bread 'from GOD'.

    'From heaven' is a synonym for 'From GOD'
    There are many examples of this usage throughout Jewish writings including the Scriptures.

    #13746
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    Quote (Sammo @ May 17 2006,12:58)
    I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself very well, and I hope I didn't come across as sarcastic. What I meant was that Jesus said he came down from heaven as true bread, as opposed to the manna that also came down from heaven (v31).

    So Jesus only came down from heaven in the same way that the manna came down from heaven – ie not literally, unless you can imagine that the manna literally floated down from the sky each day.


    Hi sammo,
    The word used in Jn 6 for “heaven”

    ouranos 3772

    is occasionally translated as “sky” or “air” but once again 90% of the time it is translated as the “heaven” we know as the throne of God.

    Surely you would not choose an unusual translation again just for verses you do not accept the straightforward understanding of?

    If you do why and when was he up in the sky?

    #13747
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    Hi Adam,
    “Heaven” is not, and has never been a synonym for “God”.

    The words have entirely different meanings and to substitute them is to alter the Word of God and we do not do that.

    #13751
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    ps
    If a word is a synonym then truth demands that it be consistently able to be substituted.
    So.
    How would Jn 1.1 read if “God” was substituted with “heaven”?
    Or
    If in the “our Father” if “heaven” was substituted with “God”?

    #13754
     Sammo 
    Participant
    • Topics started 1
    • Total replies 234

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 17 2006,18:52)

    Quote (Sammo @ May 17 2006,12:58)
    I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself very well, and I hope I didn't come across as sarcastic. What I meant was that Jesus said he came down from heaven as true bread, as opposed to the manna that also came down from heaven (v31).

    So Jesus only came down from heaven in the same way that the manna came down from heaven – ie not literally, unless you can imagine that the manna literally floated down from the sky each day.


    Hi sammo,
    The word used in Jn 6 for “heaven”

    ouranos 3772

    is occasionally translated as “sky” or “air” but once again 90% of the time it is translated as the “heaven” we know as the throne of God.

    Surely you would not choose an unusual translation again just for verses you do not accept the straightforward understanding of?

    If you do why and when was he up in the sky?


    Hi Nick

    Completely not following what you mean – all I've quoted is the KJV, not as unusual translation. If you're talking about my reference to sky, then you want to discuss this with t8, not me, since that was his point.

    Either way, the point stands – was the manna literally in heaven before it came “from heaven”? In that case, why should Jesus have been?

    So you can't use v38 to prove that Jesus was literally in heaven before he was born.

    God bless

    #13755
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    Hi sammo,
    Jn 6.31
    “They said therefore to him
    'What then do you do for a sign, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written
    'He gave them bread out of heaven to eat'
    Jesus therefore said to them
    'Truly, truly I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which come down out of heaven and gives life to the world…..For I have come down out of heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me..”

    So Manna, the food of angels, came down from heaven
    and from the heavens
    from God and
    from Moses
    to the Israelites.

    Jesus uses their ploy to teach about himself.

    Jesus, the bread of life,
    was sent from heaven by the Father,
    came out of heaven as the Word of life,
    and men must eat of that true Word to live.

    #13803
     malcolm ferris 
    Participant
    • Topics started 4
    • Total replies 928

    Quote (Sammo @ May 12 2006,00:32)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2006,22:44)
    Hi,
    1Cor 15.45f
    “So also it is written
    'The first man, Adam, became a living soul'
    The last Adam became a lifegiving spirit.
    However the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
    The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As to the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as to the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthy we shall also bear the image of the heavenly”

    So Christ was first natural. He had a weak perishable body like us. He had to die and his seed was planted in the soil [v36, Jn 12.24]for him to be resurrected in new life, a life which has become a source of eternal life for us.

    He was not a man in heaven who came but a spirit of divine nature who was sent from heaven to come in flesh. He was not yet fully the man from heaven when he was born like us but is the man from heaven on his return to heaven and when he returns to earth.


    Hi Nick

    I would read those same verses and say that therefore Jesus didn't literally exist at all before he was born, because “the spiritual is not first, but the natural”.

    What you're saying is that before he was born, Jesus was a spirit of divine nature – yet Paul clearly says that Jesus “became a lifegiving spirit” when he was resurrected. The order that Paul gives is natural -> spirit, not spirit -> natural -> spirit.

    Peter says that Jesus “was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you” (1 Pet 1:20) – I don't see how you can be foreordained if you already exist.

    Sam


    Quote
    I would read those same verses and say that therefore Jesus didn't literally exist at all before he was born, because “the spiritual is not first, but the natural”.

    You would have to read that in correct context.
    He is speaking here of bodies, and in particular the glory of those bodies.
    And the context is as they relate to us humans, and the resurrection.
    If we were to take any other context and try to 'logic' it out we would have to also conclude therefore that God did not exist before anything natural was made.
    That doesn't quite pan out right.
    God is an eternal being, and even if you consider the meaning of the word 'God' which is – 'an object (or subject) of worship' so as to perhaps say that He existed as an eternal one but not God in this sense until He had made something to worship Him.
    Even in this sense you have to face the fact that He made heaven and the angelic hosts which are all celestial – spiritual, before He made any physical creation.
    In my humble opinion that is.

    #13804
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    Quote (Adam Pastor @ May 17 2006,16:53)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2006,22:44)
    Hi,
    1Cor 15.45f
    “So also it is written
    'The first man, Adam, became a living soul'
    The last Adam became a lifegiving spirit.
    However the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
    The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As to the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as to the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthy we shall also bear the image of the heavenly”

    So Christ was first natural. He had a weak perishable body like us. He had to die and his seed was planted in the soil [v36, Jn 12.24]for him to be resurrected in new life, a life which has become a source of eternal life for us.

    He was not a man in heaven who came but a spirit of divine nature who was sent from heaven to come in flesh. He was not yet fully the man from heaven when he was born like us but is the man from heaven on his return to heaven and when he returns to earth.


    Greetings Nick

    If Jesus was first “a spirit of divine nature who was sent from heaven to come in flesh,” to use your words,
    it would contradict the very point that Paul is making.

    Paul said “However the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual”.

    In other words, Paul simply has no concept of Jesus being something or someone else before being a man; he has no concept of Jesus being “a spirit of divine nature” before being conceived in the womb of Mary, his mother.

    To Paul, the man Jesus was a natural albeit sinless, supernaturally conceived human being right up to his death.
    Whereby after 3 days, GOD raised him from the dead, immortalized, glorified and exalted him, and made him,
    'a life-giving spirit'

    Hence, “first the natural; then the spiritual”


    Hi Adam,
    Paul speaks of those in the first resurrection.
    It is a resurrection of the body
    1Cor 15.42
    “So also with the resurrection from the dead. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body
    So also it is written
    'The first man, Adam, became a living soul'
    The last Adam became a life giving spirit.
    However the spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual.
    The first man is from the earth, earthy.
    The second man is from heaven”

    So speaking of the body the first man was of earth.
    All men are of earth including Christ.
    The natural is first for all “according to the flesh”.
    He died as we all do and his seed was planted and when he was raised and rose to heaven he had a new heavenly Body.

    The second man became a life giving spirit. Not 'was' but 'became'.
    When did he become a life giving Spirit?
    He only became a source of lifegiving Spirit for men from the time of pentecost, after his death and resurrection.
    He only became that source after he had been given a new body and became the man from heaven.
    The spiritual is second for him.

    And it is second for us when we receive of that Spirit and are later raised into our new body too.

    #21012
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    more homework for dunno

    #22085
     NickHassan 
    Blocked
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 71,005

    Hi Adam Pastor and Sammo,
    According to the dictionary a SYNONYM is when different words have similar or identical meanings.
    Now, perhaps you have chosen the wrong word to describe what you mean here but in no way does
    “God ”
    and
    “heaven”
    Have identical or similar meanings.
    If so then the words could always be substituted.

    So what if we tried that substitution in
    Gen 1.8,
    ” God called the expanse heaven”
    Or any of the other times the individual words occur.

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 191 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2019 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account