Is there a Second Coming in the New Testament?

[Duvduv]

Jesus doesn't refer to himself as Son of Man. He is speaking about somebody else.

 

[Serving Zion]

Jesus doesn't refer to himself as Son of Man. He is speaking about somebody else.

It's more for me to understand what is the fullness of the expression "son" (begotten, coming-forth, fruit) of "man" (mankind, the created, the fallen, worldly) etc. There is also mention of a son of destruction in 2 Thessalonians 2, that probably the same concept can be applied to form a bigger picture of what the original writers were saying 2,000 years ago.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus doesn't refer to himself as Son of Man. He is speaking about somebody else.

No, Jesus often referred to Himself as the son of man.
The Jews in the time He was walking on earth knew what He meant, and what son of man meant.

You might learn from Yahweh, His Word, Jesus, of those Jews who knew, or those Jews who know.

You might not learn. Unwillingness prevents learning, and caused the destruction of many in Jerusalem, instead of them being saved.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't know what you are referring to. There are a lot of common teachings accepted by many people that are outright false all around the world.

See? (recent post(s) ) ....
Such as the false teaching that Jesus was not the son of man, and that Jesus was referring to someone else.

Very common false teachings are everywhere....... everywhere.....

 

[Serving Zion]

See? (recent post(s) ) ....
Such as the false teaching that Jesus was not the son of man, and that Jesus was referring to someone else.

"Sons of men" is a plural expression - showing that it's a broader expression than Messiah (a singular human role which we Christians understand Jesus to have been born and anointed for).

Very common false teachings are everywhere....... everywhere.....

It is unavoidable in these days

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Sons of men" is a plural expression - showing that it's a broader expression than Messiah (a singular human role which we Christians understand Jesus to have been born and anointed for).

It is unavoidable in these days

"sons of men" is a much much much different expression and NEVER to be mixed up with

the son of man.

 

[Serving Zion]

"sons of men" is a much much much different expression and NEVER to be mixed up with

the son of man.

That requires a sufficient explanation, and if you can do that, then it should prove very valuable to the thread. Thank you

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That requires a sufficient explanation, and if you can do that, then it should prove very valuable to the thread. Thank you

A sufficient explanation is not going to be posted on this thread nor on this forum. There is too much unbelief to do any good overall .

Decades ago (and/as in the first century) , the knowledge of the son of man was known and received by the Ekklesia and shared with one another without the massive distractions, deceptions, and even lies that are today abounding all over the country , the world, and the internet. There are too many false teachers active to do much for most people - even when they admit who they learned from, they often refuse to test by Scripture or to accept the truth from Scripture that shows they were duped by a false teacher and false teaching.

The link I posted earlier has "sufficient" information to proceed outside of this forum for truth, and
Yahweh may then provide more direction to anyone seeking the truth, who keeps seeking the truth, as He Says in His Word.

 

[Serving Zion]

A sufficient explanation is not going to be posted on this thread nor on this forum. There is too much unbelief to do any good overall .

Decades ago (and/as in the first century) , the knowledge of the son of man was known and received by the Ekklesia and shared with one another without the massive distractions, deceptions, and even lies that are today abounding all over the country , the world, and the internet. There are too many false teachers active to do much for most people - even when they admit who they learned from, they often refuse to test by Scripture or to accept the truth from Scripture that shows they were duped by a false teacher and false teaching.

The link I posted earlier has "sufficient" information to proceed outside of this forum for truth, and
Yahweh may then provide more direction to anyone seeking the truth, who keeps seeking the truth, as He Says in His Word.

It will have to remain an unsubstantiated claim unless you can support it with a sufficient explanation. If your claim is right, then that would be a sad loss of an opportunity for truth to prevail at your hand. I wonder whether you might pray about it and ask Adonai to allocate sufficient resources? Thank you.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It will have to remain an unsubstantiated claim unless you can support it with a sufficient explanation. If your claim is right, then that would be a sad loss of an opportunity for truth to prevail at your hand. I wonder whether you might pray about it and ask Adonai to allocate sufficient resources? Thank you.

Sorry, you missed the point. There are plenty of resources in Christ Jesus for all who are seeking Him.

(And there is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT explanation in previously posted link (A LOT MORE than I knew before, btw) .)

There is no opportunity for truth to prevail by anyone's hand in current situation on the forum. Haven't you noticed that even if the truth is not opposed, it is soon simply 'gone' under an onslaught / tsunami of other threads/ posts/ etc etc etc ........ If you want truth to prevail someplace, you must go where it is permitted and where the lies are not permitted - i.e. God's Order of fellowship for Ekklesia.

 

[Serving Zion]

Sorry, you missed the point. There are plenty of resources in Christ Jesus for all who are seeking Him.

(And there is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT explanation in previously posted link (A LOT MORE than I knew before, btw) .)

There is no opportunity for truth to prevail by anyone's hand in current situation on the forum. Haven't you noticed that even if the truth is not opposed, it is soon simply 'gone' under an onslaught / tsunami of other threads/ posts/ etc etc etc ........ If you want truth to prevail someplace, you must go where it is permitted and where the lies are not permitted - i.e. God's Order of fellowship for Ekklesia.

Well, I can see that it is only going to be a sad loss of an opportunity today. I still do not understand how you can believe that "sons of men" is a much much much different expression and NEVER to be mixed up with the son of man.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well, I can see that it is only going to be a sad loss of an opportunity today. I still do not understand how you can believe that "sons of men" is a much much much different expression and NEVER to be mixed up with the son of man.

Did you read the previously posted link ? If not, why are you asking for more ?
Whether you did or not, ask Yahweh, for His Understanding. If as your caption says you are truly seeking His Kingdom first , and His Righteousness, you would already have read that previously posted link.

The confusion all around us, including on the forum, and in many groups, will continue to pull you away, or try to, all of your life.

 

[Serving Zion]

Did you read the previously posted link ? If not, why are you asking for more ?
Whether you did or not, ask Yahweh, for His Understanding. If as your caption says you are truly seeking His Kingdom first , and His Righteousness, you would already have read that previously posted link.

The confusion all around us, including on the forum, and in many groups, will continue to pull you away, or try to, all of your life.

Yes, it is clear for you from what I said in post #19 that I had read that link.

When you give an opinion as you did in post #26, you need to include an explanation with it that shows how you have arrived at that opinion, so that the person you offer the opinion to can see a good, logical reason to accept that opinion.

An opinion that does not have sufficient explanation is an unsubstantiated opinion, and it is not fair to expect a person to believe an unsubstantiated opinion when that opinion is opposed to an opinion that they have already understood and taken to be true.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, it is clear for you from what I said in post #19 that I had read that link.

When you give an opinion as you did in post #26, you need to include an explanation with it that shows how you have arrived at that opinion, so that the person you offer the opinion to can see a good, logical reason to accept that opinion.

An opinion that does not have sufficient explanation is an unsubstantiated opinion, and it is not fair to expect a person to believe an unsubstantiated opinion when that opinion is opposed to an opinion that they have already understood and taken to be true.

I don't remember the posts you refer to.
I did not give my opinion. (not in any post that you asked about anyway, as far as I know).

I don't expect any person to believe anything they read on this forum - it is too much wrong on this forum to trust anything - simply don't do it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Thank you for that link. It doesn't really get into the issue that I brought to light though, it's rather more reflective of a common teaching in Christianity, that I have shown is somewhat lacking.

I don't know what you are referring to. There are a lot of common teachings accepted by many people that are outright false all around the world.

A while back I replied to your post, then forgot about it. I still don't know what you are referring to.

I thought/ think the Scripture says enough to show you (I think it is referenced fully in the link)
what you need today.

 

[Serving Zion]

A while back I replied to your post, then forgot about it. I still don't know what you are referring to.

I thought/ think the Scripture says enough to show you (I think it is referenced fully in the link)
what you need today.

That link does not mention the expression "sons of men" as a plural, let alone does it explain how that is "much, much different" to the singular expression "son of man", so it isn't really sufficient as a supportive explanation.

Nevertheless, if you cannot recognise what you need to offer in order to explain your opinion, then I will not ask you to provide it. Just allow it to remain as it is and I will continue to concentrate on what is valuable for OP's topic.

(I am sorry, OP, that I have been engaged in this derailment, hopefully it will have produced at least something of value in the process).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That link does not mention the expression "sons of men" as a plural, let alone does it explain how that is "much, much different" to the singular expression "son of man", so it isn't really sufficient as a supportive explanation.

Nevertheless, if you cannot recognise what you need to offer in order to explain your opinion, then I will not ask you to provide it. Just allow it to remain as it is and I will continue to concentrate on what is valuable for OP's topic.

(I am sorry, OP, that I have been engaged in this derailment, hopefully it will have produced at least something of value in the process).

You could have looked up sons of men any time. There is nothing about it that relates it to son of man. Son of man was well known among the Jews as referring to the expected Messiah. Sons of men as a phrase has nothing to do with the Messiah , per se, so is not needed to provide any definition for in order to understand what / who the son of man is.

Your logic and search techniques are more inadequate than I expected.

 

[Duvduv]

Hi Duvduv,........ I find this to be quite an interesting observation. I'd like to see what your thoughts are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Judaism)
At least the summary in Wikipedia shows that it is in Ezekiel and in Daniel where Ben Adam is used as a name for the prophet and then the Messiah. In other places it's just a reference for an ordinary person. It still remains ambiguous in Matthew etc. that Jesus is referring to anyone other than the future Messiah or at most if people want to read into it that he refers to himself, well, then simply as a holy man, which is not Christological, and certainly has nothing to do with the separate notion of the triune God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Judaism)
At least the summary in Wikipedia shows that it is in Ezekiel and in Daniel where Ben Adam is used as a name for the prophet and then the Messiah. In other places it's just a reference for an ordinary person. It still remains ambiguous in Matthew etc. that Jesus is referring to anyone other than the future Messiah or at most if people want to read into it that he refers to himself, well, then simply as a holy man, which is not Christological, and certainly has nothing to do with the separate notion of the triune God.

.....I think it's fairly obvious in the two and a half dozen references Matthew makes to the Son of Man that the term is applied/reapplied to Jesus Himself.

 

[Duvduv]

Then why bother writing about it in the third person?!:At least admit that it reads like it refers to somebody else.