Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Question. Do you have a differential definition of "son of man" compared to "son of God"?We aren't talking about second coming. The text says, "coming of the son of man". It seems you're having difficulty separating the two.
You seem to have forgotten that you yourself said this coming was the second coming of Christ back a few posts.... I had reposted what you wrote in post #152.We aren't talking about second coming. The text says, "coming of the son of man". It seems you're having difficulty separating the two.
What Matthew had written about "the coming of the Son of Man":
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (NIV)~Matthew 16:27-28
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.~Matthew 10:23
4 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.~Matthew 24:34
And responding to the high priest, Jesus said, “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”~Matthew 26:63-64
I explained that I was quoting someone else for other information (and also admitted that I should have been more clear at the time). I have posted that three times already.You seem to have forgotten that you yourself said this coming was the second coming of Christ back a few posts.... I had reposted what you wrote in post #152.
Not at the moment, I don't.Question. Do you have a differential definition of "son of man" compared to "son of God"?
I see no reason to disagree with anything written here:Question. Do you have a differential definition of "son of man" compared to "son of God"?
After :41 in Mark He goes on to talk about what will happen to those who offend one of the little ones.I don't think we often realize how much of what we've been told for years (and read) shadows our understanding of Scripture. It's difficult to look at things with fresh eyes. The Mark passage seems to be one that comes up often in this discussion....but maybe try to look at it with the word "punishment" in place of "hell"? Try to strip away ideas of what sort of punishment that means. I happen to believe whatever sort of punishment it is....it has to be restorative and within the framework of love.
Jesus and His disciples are in Jerusalem....to the valley of Gehenna is near to them (I've even read it was within their view):
---->They went on from there and passed through Galilee. He did not want anyone to know it; 31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, ‘The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.’ 32 But they did not understand what he was saying and were afraid to ask him.~Mark 9:30-32
Another Exorcist
38 John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ 39 But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever is not against us is for us. 41 For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.~Mark 9: 38-40
and the parallel:
The Reward of Service
…41Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward.And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.~Matthew 10:42
.....then it goes into the famous text about sin.
Welcome to 'the walk' in 'the Spirit of truth'. Some of what I tore down I rebuilt with, some I discarded.To be honest.....I've torn down most of what I'd previously been taught and am still in the process of rebuilding (and probably will NEVER complete that process).
I believe that Jesus was the "son of man" after the flesh, and He was "son of God" after the spirit of Christ which was in Jesus when He was born. He never had 'the Holy Spirit' until He was 30.Do you have a distinction you can share between the "son of man" and "son of God"?
I see no reason to disagree with anything written here:
From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America------>......According to Orthodox Faith, Jesus is much more than a pious man or a profound teacher of morality. He is the "Son of God who became the Son of Man.” The doctrine of the Incarnation is an expression of the Church's experience of Christ. In Him, divinity is united with humanity without the destruction of either reality. Jesus Christ is truly God who shares in the same reality as the Father and the Spirit. Moreover, He is truly man who shares with us all that is human. The Church believes that, as the unique God-man, Jesus Christ has restored humanity to fellowship with God.
------>the Athanasian standards examined the incarnation of Jesus and affirmed that in the mystery of the incarnation the divine nature did not mutate or change into a human nature, but rather the immutable divine nature took upon itself a human nature. That is, in the incarnation there was an assumption by the divine nature of a human nature and not the mutation of the divine nature into a human nature. ~The Athanasian Creed by R.C. Sproul
As I understand it, the distinction is between the un-incarnate Christ (Son of God) and the incarnate Christ (Son of Man). "Son of man" is Jesus of Nazareth who although "emptied Himself" was still fully God....while still being fully human.
Most of that I agree with.So, how ya doing with all this?
Right.....I do prefer the use of "Word" instead of Son of God as well (but I think it's also necessary to make the distinction between "Son of God" and "Son of Man" as well, since those terms are used in the Bible--does that make sense?I lean toward the un-incarnate WORD, became 'sinful flesh' 'and dwelt among us' as the son of man. But the WORD, after it was incarnated as sinful flesh, was then given 'the spirit of Christ' from God as the human spirit which dwelt in the flesh of the 'son of man'. And it was that 'spirit of Christ' from God, which made Jesus the 'Son of God'.
I can't tell, are you having trouble with the verbiage or the actual concept that the Word is the same as the Son of God? IOW......do you believe the Word is distinct from the Son of God?Personally I struggle above with "he was the son of God who became the son of man".
"In the beginning was THE WORD" not 'the son of God'. And THE WORD was God as a spirit because "God is spirit". And 'THE spirit WORD gave up equality with spirit God' and "became ('sinful') "flesh and dwelt among us" as a son of man."
Fire is restorative and purifying in the purging of impurities in metals (like gold) which is the imagery that's often mentioned in the Bible .......and God is our consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29).....and His power is unique.There is nothing restorative about a fire that will not be quenched.
We aren't "saved by fire purification". We are ALL saved by His grace and mercy. Remember.....we are all penned in together in disobedience so that He can have mercy on us ALL (Romans 11:32). And that's actually the point....He didn't *have to* go through what He went through on the cross.....He *chose* to of His own free will so that we will be saved. He demonstrated His love for us on that cross (while we were still sinners).Also, if someone could be saved by fire purification, why did Jesus Christ have to go through all of what He went through?
You're still holding onto the idea that a person has to say certain words (it seems). I believe that once ALL see God in His glory....there will be no resisting His powerful love. "Every knee will bow.....every tongue will confess". I don't pretend to know the chronological timeline of events.....or how things will happen....that's not our place.....I just trust that He is powerful and loving enough to transform ALL hearts.Or do you think that after being punished for an age they will be given the choice to accept Christ as Savior?
That question always stuns me to where I am not even sure what to say. It makes me wonder what sort of experiences the person asking (because this is asked ALL the time in this discussion) has had with relationships. The only thing I can think of as a response is that we love because He first loved us. And.....And if people were allowed to make a choice after a period of punishment, why would anyone accept Christ in this life?
There are many people today who are trying to earn salvation by there good works.
Many people feel they must be punished for there own sins, and they would accept burning for an age.
I also wanted to add on to this that we--most likely--differ in our views on the cross (which is connected to our views on the afterlife). I don't any longer believe in the substitutionary atonement “theory” (and that’s all it is)---I believe in His incarnation to demonstrate His love for us. This article explains well what I mean (if you're at all interested in reading it) The main point is this:if someone could be saved by fire purification, why did Jesus Christ have to go through all of what He went through?
As I said in my post, I believe that he did inherit the sin nature, and that it came from the seed of man (mankind). And that seed of mankind was Mary. After all it was EVE who first sinned, not Adam. For Jesus to not have "lust of the flesh" kind of nullifies Him ever being tempted 'in the flesh' like we are IMO.Most of that I agree with.
But, I don't believe Jesus had a sin nature, as that is what is passed on by the seed of man.
But Jesus did not have a human father. But He did the LIKENESS of sinful flesh.
But, because you do state that Jesus never sinned even once I don't see how this is a point to quibble over.
We may differ since I'm also dealing with man on a spirit, soul, body basis here.Then right at the end you state that Jesus did not need to be born-again.
Being resurrected from the dead is being born again.
We are raised from the dead just as Jesus was raised from the dead.
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Acts 13:33
I look at this prophetic and Messianic verse as foretelling that Jesus would be begotten in spirit at birth. We become 'begotten' with the 'rebirth' or as translations say "born again", "born from above", "born anew". And the context of those terms are from when Jesus talked to Nicodemus about the spirit being regenerated....not resurrected.God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee
I do see them as totally distinct. And you? How do you see it? And can you support your POV with scripture, like I did? Or should I say, tried to support?I can't tell, are you having trouble with the verbiage or the actual concept that the Word is the same as the Son of God? IOW......do you believe the Word is distinct from the Son of God?
Interesting. I've never heard that perspective before. So....you believe He "undid" sin by dwelling in sinful flesh (yet not sinning).....is that correct?For Jesus to not have "lust of the flesh" kind of nullifies Him ever being tempted 'in the flesh' like we are IMO.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?