- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
WJ,
What had happened to you.
You appear to have become retarded. Is this part of the madness I spoke to you about, that I said God turns them mad before he destroys them?
Nick, beware. You, too, are going that way!
Quote (JustAskin @ June 18 2010,06:49) All, “SON OF MAN” simply means “Born in the flesh” a human Being, one of Man. Nothing freaky or deep or mysterious about it.
Jesus refered to himself as “Son of Man” to indicate his Earthly Being. He knew where he came from and was making the distinction but it would not have made any [startling] sense to his listenere who wold think it was just a simple title (After all, it is uesd in the Scriptures that they would have read)“SON OF GOD” means born of the Spirit in a state of Sinlessness which he was also and those of mankind who attain 'Spiritual Cleansiness” will also become “Sons of God”, “Spiritually Sinless in the eyes of God” until judgement day when they will become truly Sinless, all sins wiped away and become Fully Begotten Sons of God – theses are the Saints and the Apostles and the rest of the 144,000.
Nothing is hard to understand – unless you want it to be – if all you want to do is continue a futile debate – then yes, it's hard to understand (The two mice in “The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy” got it right. Violently disagree with each other in a paid public debate and they can live on the gravy train for life and …”to infinity – and beyond!” (according to 'Buzz Lightyear') or “Until Kingdom come”
JA………..I see it that way also , the Son of Man is a Man himslef Right, it (think) we are in agreement on this brother.peace and love………………gene
Quote (JustAskin @ June 18 2010,08:39) Nick, can you please, if possible, stop your pointless one liners. Do you have a medical condition?
We can sympathise if you do, but until you say so whst you just posted makes you sound like a 'Bradawl'.
Do you know what that is?Please explain yourself?
Wow finally someone said what i have been trying to say for the longest time!Hip hip hooray!! hip hip hooray!!!
Hi SF,
We keep knocking down the fabrications of men to build on what is solid.
But they are quick to put the shonky buildings up againQuote (Is 1:18 @ June 17 2010,19:47) I gave you good inferencial proof. Check some commentaries I'd be very surprised if any one of them ascribe the subject in Matthew 26:2 to the thief on the cross. Why? Because the contextual details in the passage make it plain that it is Christ. And of course you would concur with them, if you were being honest with yourself.
Come on now, Paul. I refuted your scripture plainly. You cannot PROVE that Jesus is the Son of Man from it, so move on to one that actually proves it.
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 18 2010,00:30) Nike………..I must be missing something here , what are you trying to say, don't you believe that Jesus is indeed a son of Man.
Hi Gene,Read the first post on this page. The one from Simply forgiven – I think it is the first post. Read the quotes from me.
Sorry Gene,
I forgot how many pages I was behind in this thread. This will explain it:
Dennison, you missed the earlier joke. I was challenged to prove that every mention of El Shaddai referred to the Father. It can't be done. So instead of letting Is 1:18 win the point, I challenged him to prove from scripture that Jesus is the Son of Man. As far as I know, it can't be done either. I think he gave up on trying, so I made my point.
But feel free to keep trying. I don't KNOW that it can't be done, but I haven't seen proof yet.
peace and love to you, Gene,
mikeYes but who's defining the requisite standard of proof in the son of man proof texts? You. It's no great accomplishment to tighten up the criteria to such a degree that almost nothing could be proven scripturally.
By contrast I'm making it super easy for you Mike. I only want some inference in the El Shaddai = the Father of Yeshua Genesis passages. That's all.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,03:55) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:59) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 17 2010,14:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,12:22) Hi Dennison, Sorry, bro. There is nothing in those scriptures that says Jesus is this “Son of Man” he keeps talking about in the third person.
peace and love,
mike
I didnt say that scripture specifically say that Jesus was the Son of Man,But Jesus and Scripture confirms what the Son of Man is,
and what will happen to the Son of Man,and that happen with Jesus.
Unless your stating that there is another Son of Man?
I am stating that you cannot prove scripturally that Jesus is in fact the Son of Man. Can you?Dennison, you missed the earlier joke. I was challenged to prove that every mention of El Shaddai referred to the Father. It can't be done. So instead of letting Is 1:18 win the point, I challenged him to prove from scripture that Jesus is the Son of Man. As far as I know, it can't be done either. I think he gave up on trying, so I made my point.
But feel free to keep trying. I don't KNOW that it can't be done, but I haven't seen proof yet.
mike
MikeWhen Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Matt 16:13
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matt 16:27
These two scriptures by themselves prove that Jesus when speaking of the Son of man means he is speaking of himself!
WJ
Hi WJ,Sorry, neither scripture you quote clearly PROVES Jesus to be the Son of Man. And I think you misquoted one of them.
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15″But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus first asked who they thought this “Son of Man” was. Then he asked, “Who do you think [b]I am?”
You second scripture doesn't clarify that it is Jesus coming in the glory of his Father, does it?
Keep trying WJ! This is kind of cool. It gives you trinitarians a taste of your own “grasping at straws” medicine.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,04:29) Mikeboll said: Quote It can't be done. So instead of letting Is 1:18 win the point, I challenged him to prove from scripture that Jesus is the Son of Man. As far as I know, it can't be done either.
What! Is Mike really serious? Jesus expressly declared that He Himself is the Son of Man.13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” Matt. 16:13
Mike is making up his theology as he goes along. In our debate he confessed that Christ is the Son of Man!
the Roo
Hi Jack,Like I just showed WJ, your verse doesn't have the “I” in the Greek. Nice try, but you've failed. Please try again!
mike
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:02) Yes but who's defining the requisite standard of proof in the son of man proof texts? You. It's no great accomplishment to tighten up the criteria to such a degree that almost nothing could be proven scripturally. By contrast I'm making it super easy for you Mike. I only want some inference in the El Shaddai = the Father of Yeshua Genesis passages. That's all.
I have given that to you, Paul.If there is ONLY ONE Almighty – which is what the word means – the mightiest of the mighty, and the Almighty is the “God of gods”, and Jesus calls the Father “our God and his God” and further calls Him “my God”, then how much more do you want me to infer?
The Father is THE GOD of your God #2, therefore he MUST be the Almighty. Ergo (I love Jack's words), since there is ONLY ONE Almighty, it MUST ALWAYS refer to the Father.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,06:42) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2010,14:02) hi,
Discussion has wandered away from the trinity.
what trinity?
NHNot really, because Jesus being the “Son of man” is proof of his Deity!
WJ
Then you are in a real pickle here, WJ. Because you can't even prove that Jesus IS the Son of Man. Maybe Jesus is just a regular man, and this “Son of Man” is your real God #2!
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,14:07) your verse doesn't have the “I” in the Greek. Nice try, but you've failed. Please try again!
Are you sure about that? It certainly is in the Textus Receptus. See for yourself:Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:30) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,14:07) your verse doesn't have the “I” in the Greek. Nice try, but you've failed. Please try again!
Are you sure about that? It certainly is in the Textus Receptus. See for yourself:
You have to be careful with that site, Paul. For example, John 1:18 on that site shows the Greek word “theos”, but the KJV has “son”. But the word “son” is blue and you can click on it and it comes up with the definition. The only problem is that the word “son” isn't even in the Greek. That one threw me for a loop a while back.So look again. You will NOT find the word “I” in the Greek at all.
TRY AGAIN!
mike
Yes, evidently in the received text, you do. Gr. me – click on the blue “I”.Should pull up a screen with this text:
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 3165
Original Word Word Origin
me a shorter (and probably originally) from of (1691) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Me None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mehDefinition
I, me, my, etc.
King James Word Usage – Total: 301
me 262, I 37, my 1, not translated 1Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,14:48) Yes, evidently in the received text, you do. Gr. me – click on the blue “I”.Should pull up a screen with this text: The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 3165
Original Word Word Origin
me a shorter (and probably originally) from of (1691) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Me None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mehDefinition
I, me, my, etc.
King James Word Usage – Total: 301
me 262, I 37, my 1, not translated 1
I'm telling you that, man! Don't believe me? Check out John 1:18:http://www.biblestudytools.com/interli….8&t=kjv
You can click on Son, and it will take you to the definition fro Son, but Son isn't actually in the Greek text below. Just like “I” is not actually in the Greek text below.
mike
You do understand there's more than one Greek texts, don't you? And that there's textual variations between them?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,15:19) You do understand there's more than one Greek texts, don't you? And that there's textual variations between them?
Yes. Do you understand the one used in Online Bible Study Tools that you linked does NOT have the Greek word “I” in the text? It is in the English of the KJV, but it is NOT EVEN THERE IN THE GREEK.Can you SEE this?
mike
ps good night pagan
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,15:00) You can click on Son, and it will take you to the definition fro Son, but Son isn't actually in the Greek text below. Just like “I” is not actually in the Greek text below. mike
The Textus Receptus reads “ho monogenês huios (Son)”. Son is indeed there. Read for yourself the Greek-English transliteration from the KJV received text:http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=John%201:1-18&tab=kjv
Need more? Here's a NetBible note on John 1:18:
45 tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc….
Do you never concede even when proven unequivocally that you're wrong??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
