Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,891 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,815,451
Pageviews Today: 2,506,650Threads Today: 593Posts Today: 10,472
04:46 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/28/2012 08:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
To answer this question, one must be familiar with the Genesis epic, the book of Enoch, and the Nephilim. It is important to realize that during the time of Genesis and the hybrids called the Nephilim that sometimes it was difficult to know who was a hybrid and who was born of natural causes (birthed by a woman, conceived by a man).

Jesus is clarifying that He is a 'son of man'. And, why would God Himself refer to Himself as the 'son of Himself'?

He wouldn't.

Jesus is God.

FAQ:

What other evidences for Enoch's authenticity (as a sacred text) are there?

Why isn't it in the Bible today?

Jesus said that angels can't have sex, proving this book's falsehood...


The idea that Jesus said that angels cannot have sex is a very common objection to The Book of Enoch and the angelic understanding of Genesis 6 in general. However it is also a very common misinterpretation of what he actually said. Go Here to read what he said (Matt 22:30), and to study this topic. Beyond that misunderstanding, there is no doubt today that The Book of Enoch was one of the most widely accepted and revered books of Jewish culture and doctrine in the century leading up to Jesus' birth.

It is usually noted first that New Testament author Jude directly quotes from 1 Enoch - "Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints to execute judgment ..." (1 Enoch 2, Jude 14-15). Additionally, "the citations of Enoch by the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs... show that at the close of the second century B.C., and during the first century B.C., this book was regarded in certain circles as inspired" (1).

Aside from Jude, Peter and Paul's affirmations of the angelic/hybrid interpretation, recognition of 1 Enoch "... is given amply in the Epistle of Barnabus, and in the third century by Clement and Irenaeus" (1). The Catholic Church's Origen - known as "the father of theology" - affirmed both the Book of Enoch and the fact that angels could and did co-habitate with the daughters of men. He even warned against possible angelic and/or Nephilim infiltration of the church itself. Oddly, while thousands of his writings are still considered by them as "sacred," this very issue got him labeled as a heretic when the faulty Sons of Seth "doctrine" was conceived! (2)

Additionally, the Coptic Orthodox Churches of Egypt (est'd appx 50-100 A.D.) still include Enoch as canonized text in the Ethiopic Old Testament (2). This fact alone should carry great weight for Western Christians when honestly studying the "case" for Enoch. Given their 1900+ year history, the fact that they were never "ruled" by Rome's theology, and that they currently number over 10 million - this is a VERY significant portion of The Body of Christ that has historically esteemed 1 Enoch as inspired doctrine.

Some today (who do not seem to believe in the inspiration of scripture) claim that most major themes of the New Testament were in fact "borrowed" from 1 Enoch. "It appears that Christianity later adopted some of its ideas and philosophies from this book, including the Final Judgment, the concept of demons, the Resurrection, and the coming of a Messiah and Messianic Kingdom" (3). No doubt, these themes are major parts of 1 Enoch, and appear there as complete theologies a full 200 years before any other NT writings.

Christian author Stephen Quayle writes, "Several centuries before and after the appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, this book had become well known to the Jewish community, having a profound impact upon Jewish thought. The Book of Enoch gave the jewish people their solar calendar, and also appears to have instilled the idea that the coming Messiah would be someone who had pre-existed as God (4)." Translator RH Charles also stated that "the influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than all of the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books put together" (3). The conclusions are somewhat inescapable given Enoch's dating and wide acceptance between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. - either Christian authors, and especially the Nicene Council, did plagiarize their theology directly from Enoch, or the original version of Enoch was also inspired.

James H Charlesworth, director of Dead Sea Studies at Yale University, says in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha & The New Testament (Trinity Press International),
"I have no doubt that the Enoch groups deemed the Book of Enoch as fully inspired as any biblical book. I am also convinced that the group of jewish people behind the Temple Scroll, which is surely pre-Qumranic, would have judged it to be quintessential Torah -- that is, equal to, and perhaps better than, Deuteronomy....Then we should perceive the Pseudepigrapha as they were apparently judged to be: God's revelation to humans(2 & 5)."

But perhaps the most telling argument for 1 Enoch's "inspiration" may well be that the Jewish understanding of the term "Son of Man" as a Messianic title comes - not truly from our Old Testament canon - but from the Book of Enoch! Ever wonder why Jesus refers to himself in the gospels as the "Son of Man" rather than the Son of God? (2) Of over 100 uses of the phrase "son of man" in the OT, it refers almost always to "normal" men (93 times specifically of Ezekiel, and certainly not as Messiah!), but is used only one time in the entire OT, in one of Daniel's heavenly visions, to refer to divinity. Despite the Old Testament's frequent lack of divine application of the phrase, 1 Enoch records several trips to heaven, using the title "Son of Man" unceasingly to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ. Of particular Messianic significance, Enoch describes the following scene (2):

The angels "glorify with all their power of praise; and He sustains them in all that act of thanksgiving while they laud, glorify and exalt the name of the Lord of Spirits forever and ever... Great was their joy. They blessed, glorified and exalted because the name of the Son of Man was revealed to them (1 Enoch 68:35-38)." Both His disciples, and especially the Sanhedrein knew what Jesus was claiming - 84 times in the gospels! - when referring to Himself as the "Son of Man." This claim was considered an obvious blasphemy to the Pharisees & Saducees, but it is eternal life to all who confess that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, the Son of Man, The Messiah, God in the flesh, The Holy One of Israel, God's Christ - the Lord of All to whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:8-10).

Using "normal rules" of scriptural interpretation, we are never to draw firm doctrine from only one passage of scripture. Right? Daniel's single use of "Son of Man" (in a "night vision" at that - Dan 7:13), would not be sufficient to claim that the phrase is indeed Messianic, especially given the other 107 times it is not used in that way. 1 Enoch is the missing "second witness" needed (according to all other rules of interpretation) to understand the phrase's double meaning as an enduring Messianic title. It has been argued ever since Enoch's first English translation, that by using this title so familiar to the jewish people, Jesus was actually affirming the truth of this book, that the prophet was taken on many trips to heaven before his "final" translation, and that HE WAS THE ONE whom Enoch saw there - the pre-existent Son of Man, whom Enoch prophesied would judge the souls of all men.

Interestingly, Daniel is ALSO the only OT use of the term "watcher" to ever refer to angels (Daniel 4:13, 17, 23 KJV). Strong's Concordance defines a watcher as a "guardian angel" (Strong's 5894). "The distinguishing character of the Watcher (opposed to other angels in the canon) appears to be that it spends much time among men, overseeing what they are doing. It is also interesting to note that both times one of these angels appeared to Daniel, he took pains to note that it was "an holy one," suggesting that some Watchers are not aligned with God while others are (4)." Found nowhere else in the OT canon but the book of Daniel, "watcher" is patently Enoch's term for these angels. Likewise, Daniel alone used Enoch's term "Son of Man" to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ, adding further intrigue to the case for 1 Enoch's inspiration, and an overall understanding of it's doctrinal acceptance among both Old and New Testament writers.

What we lose out on today by not examining 1 Enoch - even if only for its historical significance - is that it is actually more splendid than ANY OTHER book in our canon in its exultation of Christ as King! It also gives clear, stern and oft-repeated warnings to the unsaved of swift destruction at the Coming of The Lord, but is also full of amazing promises of future glory for the elect! We are of course wise to stay clear of dangerous heresy, but... ask yourself if the below sounds like false doctrine? Keep in mind, this was written at least 200 years before Christ walked the earth, and perhaps before Noah's birth:

Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth, glorify Him who has dominion over all things, Him who was concealed; for from eternity the Son of Man was concealed, whom the Most High preserved in the presence of
His power and revealed to the elect.

He shall sow the congregation of the saints, and of the elect; and all the elect shall stand before Him in that day.
All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and those who rule
over the earth shall fall down on their faces before Him,
and shall worship Him. They shall fix their hopes on this Son of Man...

Then the sword of the Lord of Spirits shall be drunk from them (the lost); but the saints and the elect shall be safe in that day; nor the face of the sinners and the ungodly shall they thence-forth behold. The Lord of Spirits shall remain over them; And with this Son of Man shall they dwell, eat, lie down, and rise up for ever and ever...

Enoch 61:10-13


Literally Translated from the Ethiopic by Richard Laurence LL.D.
Archbishop of Cashel
Late Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford
 Quoting: Salt


Thread: The Book of Enoch, ETs, and the Church Coverup


There is a book in the Dead Sea Scrolls (and also the bible) that talks about how Lamech was not sure if his wife was pregnant from his own seed or was taken by one of the Watchers. (Lamech's son would be Noah). In the book in the Dead Sea Scrolls, he confronts his wife about it. She insists the unborn baby is Lamech's but Lamech doesn't believe her right away (even tho he wants to very much).




When Jesus says he is the 'son of man', He is clarifying that He was born of a woman.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19804788
United States
10/28/2012 08:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Adam 2

perfect

worthy


The End.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26501904
Australia
10/28/2012 08:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
abandonment issues?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24931021
United States
10/28/2012 08:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
"When Jesus says he is the 'son of man', He is clarifying that He was born of a woman."

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that Jesus would have us ponder and interpret multiple meanings for his sayings? He was a master of double entendre.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25861717
United States
10/28/2012 08:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
"This is my son in whom I am well pleased."
God was calling himself his son then?
Skin Suit

User ID: 22870849
United States
10/28/2012 08:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Because he was just a man, like the rest of us.

a good man, but just a man.

his message was you can be like me,

maybe skip being the martyr part, but he tried.

he tried
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/28/2012 08:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
"When Jesus says he is the 'son of man', He is clarifying that He was born of a woman."

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that Jesus would have us ponder and interpret multiple meanings for his sayings? He was a master of double entendre.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24931021


i don't think so. multiple facets of one truth, multiple layers that help us see the full view of the concept, yes. but, different meanings? no.
beebee

User ID: 25652452
United States
10/28/2012 08:14 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Maybe because he was intelligent enough to know you need human sperm to create a baby and not some spooky invisible mist.
beebee
Prometheus.Locke

User ID: 24941710
United States
10/28/2012 08:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
The Son of Man is the Singularity -- the creation of the human species.

[link to www.createspace.com (secure)]

Inside this book are the secrets of the ages, kept hidden from you by secret societies and governments since the dawn of time. Demonic possession explained, Satan has been hiding advanced technology from humanity since before recorded history.

A dark conspiracy against humanity has been hidden from you in plain view, and the evidence of it surrounds you in our written history.
God Loves ALL

User ID: 26279712
United States
10/28/2012 08:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Jesus as Michael of Nebadon, indeed is our God of Nebadon. And he refered to himself as both son of man and son of God. He after all had a earth mother. Which gave him citizenship of this world by the incarnation.
The actual Lord's Prayer Given by Jesus 2000 years ago.

"MY SPIRIT, YOU ARE OMNIPOTENT. YOUR NAME IS HOLY. MAY YOUR REALM BE INCARNATE IN ME. MAY YOUR POWER REVEAL ITSELF WITHIN ME, ON EARTH AND IN THE HEAVEN. GIVE ME TODAY MY DAILY BREAD, AND THUS, LET ME RECOGNIZE MY TRANSGRESSIONS AND ERRORS, AND I SHALL RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH. AND DO NOT LEAD ME INTO TEMPTATION AND CONFUSION, BUT DELIVER ME FROM ERROR. FOR YOURS IS THE REALM WITHIN ME AND THE POWER AND THE KNOWLEDGE FOREVER,
AMEN.

Nice video: [link to www.youtube.com] Make this World a Better One

Thread: Walter Russell Quotes Walter Russell thread
Paradise Havona

User ID: 1405948
United States
10/28/2012 08:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
He referred to himself as the son of man because man is the son of god
i get on this site... way too much
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25628182
United States
10/28/2012 08:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Because he wasn't a man. He was assumed to be a man for his Likeness. He was merely a surrogate to the rest of humanity.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Life and Love

User ID: 18613580
United States
10/28/2012 08:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
"When Jesus says he is the 'son of man', He is clarifying that He was born of a woman."

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that Jesus would have us ponder and interpret multiple meanings for his sayings? He was a master of double entendre.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24931021


i don't think so. multiple facets of one truth, multiple layers that help us see the full view of the concept, yes. but, different meanings? no.
 Quoting: Salt


Scripture continues to draw new things out of us as we mature in the faith and follow Jesus more closely.
We become like that to which we are devoted. Choose wisely.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26503882
United States
10/28/2012 08:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
so people were accusing him of being a nephilim? Where is that in the Bible? Jesus was just saying he was human like the rest of us.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/28/2012 08:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
from the above link:

But perhaps the most telling argument for 1 Enoch's "inspiration" may well be that the Jewish understanding of the term "Son of Man" as a Messianic title comes - not truly from our Old Testament canon - but from the Book of Enoch! Ever wonder why Jesus refers to himself in the gospels as the "Son of Man" rather than the Son of God? (2) Of over 100 uses of the phrase "son of man" in the OT, it refers almost always to "normal" men (93 times specifically of Ezekiel, and certainly not as Messiah!), but is used only one time in the entire OT, in one of Daniel's heavenly visions, to refer to divinity. Despite the Old Testament's frequent lack of divine application of the phrase, 1 Enoch records several trips to heaven, using the title "Son of Man" unceasingly to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ. Of particular Messianic significance, Enoch describes the following scene (2):


The angels "glorify with all their power of praise; and He sustains them in all that act of thanksgiving while they laud, glorify and exalt the name of the Lord of Spirits forever and ever... Great was their joy. They blessed, glorified and exalted because the name of the Son of Man was revealed to them (1 Enoch 68:35-38)." Both His disciples, and especially the Sanhedrein knew what Jesus was claiming - 84 times in the gospels! - when referring to Himself as the "Son of Man." This claim was considered an obvious blasphemy to the Pharisees & Saducees, but it is eternal life to all who confess that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, the Son of Man, The Messiah, God in the flesh, The Holy One of Israel, God's Christ - the Lord of All to whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:8-10).

Using "normal rules" of scriptural interpretation, we are never to draw firm doctrine from only one passage of scripture. Right? Daniel's single use of "Son of Man" (in a "night vision" at that - Dan 7:13), would not be sufficient to claim that the phrase is indeed Messianic, especially given the other 107 times it is not used in that way. 1 Enoch is the missing "second witness" needed (according to all other rules of interpretation) to understand the phrase's double meaning as an enduring Messianic title. It has been argued ever since Enoch's first English translation, that by using this title so familiar to the jewish people, Jesus was actually affirming the truth of this book, that the prophet was taken on many trips to heaven before his "final" translation, and that HE WAS THE ONE whom Enoch saw there - the pre-existent Son of Man, whom Enoch prophesied would judge the souls of all men.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22241004
10/28/2012 09:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
It isn't 'son of man'.

It's 'Son of man'.

Father, Son, Spirit = God

You're quarreling with the Trinity which nobody knows the clear definitive answer to.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22241004
10/28/2012 09:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
"When Jesus says he is the 'son of man', He is clarifying that He was born of a woman."

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that Jesus would have us ponder and interpret multiple meanings for his sayings? He was a master of double entendre.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24931021


i don't think so. multiple facets of one truth, multiple layers that help us see the full view of the concept, yes. but, different meanings? no.
 Quoting: Salt


Well here's another 'facet' of one truth.

He's also the Son of God.

Seeing isn't believing in the case of Truth. The devils in Christian Scripture all see and know of who the Son is (also the Father they see and know of)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22241004
10/28/2012 09:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
It isn't 'son of man'.
It's 'Son of man'.
Father, Son, Spirit = God
You're quarreling with the Trinity which nobody knows the clear definitive answer to.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22241004


And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

He's the Son not the son.

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.
S.O.S.

User ID: 23245990
United States
10/28/2012 09:19 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
That's right!!!! Because he said this:

JOHN 14:8-14

8Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

12“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask mee anything in my name, I will do it.

...and that last vese Jesus tells us to pray to Him... The bible makes it clear we are to pray to God only.

Yeshua was a God in the form of a man, but STILL A MAN, that came to fulfill a mission. To live a perfect life, sin fee, then to lay down that life for the sins fo the world.... AS A MAN. However, His own words tells us that He and the Father are one. If you look at Him you look at God.

He was called Emanuel in the old testament for a reason...


God WITH US!

Last Edited by S.O.S. on 10/28/2012 09:20 PM
SPAWN IS DEAD! LONG LIVE S.O.S. (Son of Spawn)!!!

Don't click it!!!! I'm warning you don't click that link.... no... no... STOP!!!!!

[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1190661
Australia
10/28/2012 09:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
And why does the Bible say this when Jesus called himself "Son of Man" all the time?

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?

AMAZING!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22241004
10/28/2012 09:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
"The key to this title and Jesus' use of it is the imagery of Dan. 7:13-14, where the term is not a title but a description of a figure who rides the clouds and receives authority directly from God in heaven. The Old Testament background to the title does not emerge immediately in Jesus' ministry, but is connected to remarks made to the disciples at the Olivet discourse and Jesus' reply at his examination by the Jewish leadership.

The title is appropriate because of its unique fusion of human and divine elements. A 'son of man' is simply an expression that describes a human being.

In contrast to the strange beasts of Dan. 7, this is a figure who is normal, except for the authority he receives.

In riding the clouds, this man is doing something otherwise left only to the description of divinity in the Old Testament (Exod. 14:20; 34:5; Num. 10:34; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1).

In addition, the title was in Aramaic an indirect way to refer to oneself, making it a less harsh way to make a significant claim. Despite its indirectness, the nature of Jesus' consistent use of the term makes it clear that he was referring to himself, not someone else"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22241004
10/28/2012 09:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
And why does the Bible say this when Jesus called himself "Son of Man" all the time?

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?

AMAZING!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1190661


read above

It's Son NOT son
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1190661
Australia
10/28/2012 09:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
And why does the Bible say this when Jesus called himself "Son of Man" all the time?

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?

AMAZING!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1190661


read above

It's Son NOT son
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22241004


Sorry BUT it can't be... Jesus spoke Aramaic...

There are no capitals in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Next false teaching!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26496167
United Kingdom
10/28/2012 09:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
It isn't 'son of man'.

It's 'Son of man'.

Father, Son, Spirit = God

You're quarreling with the Trinity which nobody knows the clear definitive answer to.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22241004


The father in me died when I Wouldn't surrender my love for her. He pulled me out in spirit and told me to come out of her to his right hand I sat down becoming the son with only love left in my being which is the true nature of the spirit my transition through all three which in essence is the the trinity


[link to upload.wikimedia.org]

Me and the father are one... :)

Bottom left and middle are the same? :)

[link to ldmart315.edublogs.org]

how do I begin to articulate the daily struggle of bringing the truth to light ? there's only one truth LOVE
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26508846
United States
10/28/2012 09:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
The ways Jesus used "Son of Man" was as in the Messianic title (See Enoch 1).

The way the OT typically used it was NOT a title but simply a description. Son of man, the description, essentially means Human being. When you are talking about angles and watchers etc. it becomes important to clarify when you are talking about a son of man..

So you and are a son of man, Jesus is THE Son of Man.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26510026
Thailand
10/28/2012 09:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
literaly it could be 'this man'

or 'a man' or 'just a man'

as a story, the apostles don't know that he is the messiah, and 'the story itself' is that he is relealing that he is the 'son of god'. they then only realize this, when he is raised up.

this is basic stuff..

everyone should know this..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26103646
United States
10/28/2012 10:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Nephilim is a Hebrew word from the book of Genesis, translated to English having nothing to do with actual giants or fallen angels. The uninspired gnostic book of Enoch was not written by Enoch, and again has no inspiration. Jesus did not use the book of Enoch. It is not to be used as scripture.

[link to www.apostolic-churches.net]

Physical giants was the Hebrew word: rapha (Deu 2:11)

Angels do not breed or procreate. The passage has nothing to do with fallen angels, and all early Christian Bible commentators understood this.

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to davelivingston.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18526910
Netherlands
10/28/2012 10:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Lol, gentiles.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22241004
10/28/2012 10:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
And why does the Bible say this when Jesus called himself "Son of Man" all the time?

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?

AMAZING!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1190661


read above

It's Son NOT son
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22241004


Sorry BUT it can't be... Jesus spoke Aramaic...

There are no capitals in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Next false teaching!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1190661


"The key to this title and Jesus' use of it is the imagery of Dan. 7:13-14, where the term is not a title but a description of a figure who rides the clouds and receives authority directly from God in heaven. The Old Testament background to the title does not emerge immediately in Jesus' ministry, but is connected to remarks made to the disciples at the Olivet discourse and Jesus' reply at his examination by the Jewish leadership.

The title is appropriate because of its unique fusion of human and divine elements. A 'son of man' is simply an expression that describes a human being.

In contrast to the strange beasts of Dan. 7, this is a figure who is normal, except for the authority he receives.

In riding the clouds, this man is doing something otherwise left only to the description of divinity in the Old Testament (Exod. 14:20; 34:5; Num. 10:34; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1).

In addition, the title was in Aramaic an indirect way to refer to oneself, making it a less harsh way to make a significant claim. Despite its indirectness, the nature of Jesus' consistent use of the term makes it clear that he was referring to himself, not someone else"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22241004


In addition, the title was in Aramaic an indirect way to refer to oneself, making it a less harsh way to make a significant claim. Despite its indirectness, the nature of Jesus' consistent use of the term makes it clear that he was referring to himself, not someone else"

As I said, read above.

Seeing isn't believing.

Matt 16:4\/\/\/

A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26508846
United States
10/28/2012 10:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Nephilim is a Hebrew word from the book of Genesis, translated to English having nothing to do with actual giants or fallen angels. The uninspired gnostic book of Enoch was not written by Enoch, and again has no inspiration. Jesus did not use the book of Enoch. It is not to be used as scripture.

[link to www.apostolic-churches.net]

Physical giants was the Hebrew word: rapha (Deu 2:11)

Angels do not breed or procreate. The passage has nothing to do with fallen angels, and all early Christian Bible commentators understood this.

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to davelivingston.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26103646


For one, Enoch was apocrypha but definitely not Gnostic. It was a 2nd temple Era Jewish text that all of Jesus' disciples would have understood. The book of Jude also clearly references it.

Now as for the Nephilim part of Genesis, how do you explain the "Sons of God" and "Daughters of Man" having offspring? It's pretty clear when you look at the Hebrew "Sons (plural) of Elohim" and "Daughters of Adam".

Why would it be wrong of me to understand the scriptures on my own without relying on an "official" meaning?
christian
Suited up and Armored in Christ!

User ID: 6038128
United States
10/28/2012 10:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
SON OF MAN means he will rule the nations as a MAN from Jerusalem that does not mean he will cease from being the SON of GOD

It is the Manifestation of GOD and MAN....
Susie

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.....Matthew 6:21

News