Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,909 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 712,798
Pageviews Today: 928,162Threads Today: 200Posts Today: 3,876
08:29 AM


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: 26544006
Ireland
10/29/2012 11:04 AM
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' is not God but the Son of God and the Son of Man.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26196597
United States
10/29/2012 11:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 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.
 Quoting: Salt


the bible is a ridiculous book of ancient beliefs, all proven to be BS..if one were to live the literal bible people would be getting murdered everyday for working on Sunday, your daughters would have to become prostitutes and you would beat your wife daily..

The bible is RIDICULOUS and anyone that believes this ancient HS is a damn fool
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26544006
Ireland
10/29/2012 11:05 AM
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' is not God but the Son of God and the Son of Man.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:17
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26544006
Ireland
10/29/2012 11:06 AM
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' is not God but the Son of God and the Son of Man.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:17
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


How can he be both the Son of God and God? It's absurd.
DaddysGirl

User ID: 25203105
United States
10/29/2012 11:18 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
Regardless of the 'truth' of this thread, may I make a small request???

Could we all agree to stop disagreeing for the next three days and concentrate our efforts and prayers toward those who live on the East Coast right now?

I think that is what we are supposed to be doing, rather than discussing religious theology and arguing about who is right or wrong....

Just my humble opinion....please pray for God to turn this hurricane around back into the sea and for Him to protect the people on the East coast...

Thank you!hf
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 911357
United States
10/29/2012 11:23 AM
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' is not God but the Son of God and the Son of Man.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:17
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


This is the verse that proves to me Jesus is not God. Because if he was, this verse teaches us two things.

1) Jesus is good at throwing his voice.
2) Jesus likes to praise himself.
ANHEDONIC

User ID: 23579473
United States
10/29/2012 11:59 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why does Jesus refer to Himself as the "son of man" and not the "son of God"?
cool i can still get in,lol...the bible is metaphor's of our own lives from paradise/the womb with our male /female spirit/adam and eve,through the old testament<childhood with laws) to the new testament<adulthood knowing good and bad) until our death to the world<we realize we are spirit and we have no beginning and no end(no alpha and no omega) for the concepts of gods,goddesses,saviors,prophets,devils ,demons,etc do have an alpha and an omega...but the shared spirit within us all does not, for we existed before the concepts and we created the concepts...hf
 Quoting: T Ceti H.C. Radnarg


thats very interesting. so adam and eve are metaphores for the human spirit; in the womb? birth is the consuption of the apple i.e. death of existence in the womb?
 Quoting: Dr.DoomLittle


On YouTube search this: 'Bill Donahue Hidden Meanings', excellent channel. : )

"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger"
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/29/2012 12:05 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"?
urantia books are false. period, end of sentence
 Quoting: Salt


I agree on the urantia, lol

Have you read the Nag hammadi? It says son of man and son of god a lot in there.

Son of man referring to humanity-adamas or pigeradamas.

Son of god referring to yaldebaoth, the gods that 'rule' or created this world.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17984635


I have not read the nag hammadi in its entirety, but huge chunks of it.

for the sake of this thread, the sons of God are referred to as angels (fallen or otherwise) and the sons of man are human.

this is the context and usage of these terms in scripture and the Enoch writings.

this in no way negates the deity of Christ when He says that he is the son of man (or Son of man).
anonymous
User ID: 1511037
United States
10/29/2012 12:13 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"?
Read John 1 and you will know the truth~
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/29/2012 12:27 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"?
Watchers and Children of God


"The Watchers" also named "The Angels of the Lord" were on the earth in those days and they learned "The Children of Cain" (Enoch) the knowledge of writing, I am pleased they did because we can read very important information in the books of Enoch.

There is no difference between "The Children of Seth", also called "The Sons of God" or "The Children of God" and "The Watchers" also called "The Angels of The Lord" When we read the following texts carefully we will see that "The Watchers" and "The Children of God" (the offspring of Seth) were one and the same.

The attended reader know that in the days this events took place Enoch was still under them and new that his relatives, the children of God, should go down from the mountain to mingle with the children of Cain.

In The book of Enoch we can read the same story :

note : Enoch was the son of Jared (not the son of Cain, called Enos), the first who learned writing from "The Watchers" and he wrote :

Chapter 6

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another:

’Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’

And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them:

’I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’

And they all answered him and said:

’Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’

Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders:

Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaqel, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel.

These are their chiefs of tens.

Enoch called the sinners "The Angels, the Children of the Heaven", why ?, I think this is obvious because he means that "The Children of Seth", went down from the mountain. We will soon see later that this is the truth. In "The Second Book of Adam and Eve", chapter 19:20, is written about 100 men and in The Book of Enoch" about 200 men, but what is the difference. The first book wrote only of the children of Seth and Enoch wrote about them in total (Watchers and children of Seth). We will see what happened with "The Watchers" or "Children of God" shortly before, during and after the Flood. In later chapters we will see that the Watchers were called Anunnaki by the Sumerians.

[link to www.bibliotecapleyades.net]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/29/2012 12:31 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"?
If you do a study of the term "Son of Man" in the Gospels you'll see that he didn't refer to himself most often as Son of God but as Son of Man. He said things like, in Mark 10:45, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." So he calls himself Son of Man very often.

I think the reason he did so is because, on the face of it, Son of Man is an ordinary phrase for "human being." He was born of a man. And there's no offense there: who isn't a son of man? But those with ears to hear could hear Daniel 7, in which he was claiming a very exalted role in the history of redemption. And he meant to do it.

Jesus was very subtle in that he was always opening his identity to those with eyes to see, but he wasn't opening it so blatantly that everybody would come and make him king. He had to steer a very narrow course in disclosing his identity, not just openly saying, "I'm the Messiah, I'm the King of the World. Come and acknowledge me as King." He didn't talk like that.

He was quiet. He was subtle. And he would make claims that were explicit in certain settings and implicit in others. And only when the time was right—mainly when he was on trial for his life, and they said, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the living God?"—did he say, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man coming with great power and glory." So he confessed his open deity right at the point where he knew he would be crucified for it.

So I hope that helps. "Son of Man" has the double meaning of human being and, according to Daniel 7, exalted heavenly one. And Jesus means to communicate both of those.

[link to www.christianity.com]
Life and Love

User ID: 18613580
United States
10/29/2012 12:48 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"?
Another tidbit to add to the "son of God" vs "son of man" mix is that in that time the Roman Emperor would refer to himself as a "son of (a) god."
We become like that to which we are devoted. Choose wisely.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6653259
United States
10/29/2012 12:50 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 was underscoring the hypostatic union- His being an entity unlike anyone ever to have existed= the God-Man.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/29/2012 12:58 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"?
Another tidbit to add to the "son of God" vs "son of man" mix is that in that time the Roman Emperor would refer to himself as a "son of (a) god."
 Quoting: Life and Love


true.

i find it fascinating that Jesus continues to refer to His humanity over revealing who He was overtly.

i think there is some significance of his human role before His death and after.
Dr.DoomLittle

User ID: 6231580
United States
10/29/2012 12:59 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 only logical conclusion one can reach is that it's a reference to Jesus as being the SUN. Astrotheology. Everything else leads to 'light of the world' 'resides in the heavens'.... it is his name. The Sun of god is the SAME as the SUN of man.

The rest is fantasy.

It is the only theory supported by reality.

Jesus is Mathew 21:12.

Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 10/29/2012 01:05 PM
Life and Love

User ID: 18613580
United States
10/29/2012 01:03 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"?
Another tidbit to add to the "son of God" vs "son of man" mix is that in that time the Roman Emperor would refer to himself as a "son of (a) god."
 Quoting: Life and Love


true.

i find it fascinating that Jesus continues to refer to His humanity over revealing who He was overtly.

i think there is some significance of his human role before His death and after.
 Quoting: Salt


Fascinating (academic) book called "Jesus and the Victory of God" by N.T. Wright goes into this a lot. Jesus being a Jew did what Israel as a nation was chosen to do and did not do.

The human significance is that all of us will one day be transformed just like Jesus was at his resurrection.
We become like that to which we are devoted. Choose wisely.
Stickyfoot

User ID: 26555961
United States
10/29/2012 01:38 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"?
bumphf
Stickyfoot,i think i stepped in something
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 10793047
Netherlands
10/29/2012 01:45 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' is not God but the Son of God and the Son of Man.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:17
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


How can he be both the Son of God and God? It's absurd.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


Exactly.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/29/2012 04:57 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"?
'Jesus' is not God but the Son of God and the Son of Man.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:17
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


How can he be both the Son of God and God? It's absurd.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


Exactly.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10793047


The Word Became Flesh

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The Word = Jesus
T Ceti H.C. Radnarg

User ID: 25547107
United States
10/29/2012 06:46 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 lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:17
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


How can he be both the Son of God and God? It's absurd.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


Exactly.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10793047


The Word Became Flesh

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The Word = Jesus
 Quoting: Salt
roflmao,the word is the spirit,the flesh is a jesus...why do you separate your spirit into created concepts that came later? did you not learn your lesson from the earlier religions? there's -nothing new- under the sun ,therefore there isn't any new religions or concepts or gods or saviors..our spirit existed before them allhearts...for here, the spirit translates those above scriptures correctly without numbers and without leading away from our spirit> before the beginning was our spirit,and our spirit was before god and our spirit created god...our spirit was without god before the beginning...through our spirit,all things were made,without our spirit nothing was made that has been made...with our spirit there is life and our spirit is the light within all mankind...our spirit shines in the ark as the ark does not overcome our spirit........<there's the spirits translation following the spirit instead of a later concept of a god..

Last Edited by T Ceti H.C. Radnarg on 10/29/2012 06:59 PM
How unfortunate for some rulers when men,women,and children continue to think... Keep repeating the lies loud enough and long enough and just maybe the people will start to believe the lies again and good luck with that...finding your energy open until mars becomes raging aries...
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/29/2012 09:06 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"?
...


How can he be both the Son of God and God? It's absurd.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


Exactly.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10793047


The Word Became Flesh

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The Word = Jesus
 Quoting: Salt
roflmao,the word is the spirit,the flesh is a jesus...why do you separate your spirit into created concepts that came later? did you not learn your lesson from the earlier religions? there's -nothing new- under the sun ,therefore there isn't any new religions or concepts or gods or saviors..our spirit existed before them allhearts...for here, the spirit translates those above scriptures correctly without numbers and without leading away from our spirit> before the beginning was our spirit,and our spirit was before god and our spirit created god...our spirit was without god before the beginning...through our spirit,all things were made,without our spirit nothing was made that has been made...with our spirit there is life and our spirit is the light within all mankind...our spirit shines in the ark as the ark does not overcome our spirit........<there's the spirits translation following the spirit instead of a later concept of a god..
 Quoting: T Ceti H.C. Radnarg


hopeless.
nzreva

User ID: 19624091
United States
10/29/2012 09:12 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"?
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.
 Quoting: Salt

Yahoshua never said that angles can't have sex he said they don't marry.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8929058
United States
10/29/2012 09:14 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"?
To test our faith, duh.

See dinosaurs.
1908247

User ID: 12692574
Brazil
10/29/2012 09:15 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"?
I believe the answer is we are not exactly man.

Not a complete man.
- ? Nus.

-You Hold Witness I Witness

As if he could, by himself, say:
_Alive, therefore life itself.
God Loves ALL

User ID: 26279712
United States
10/29/2012 09:16 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"?
Another tidbit to add to the "son of God" vs "son of man" mix is that in that time the Roman Emperor would refer to himself as a "son of (a) god."
 Quoting: Life and Love


true.

i find it fascinating that Jesus continues to refer to His humanity over revealing who He was overtly.

i think there is some significance of his human role before His death and after.
 Quoting: Salt


He didn't die on the Cross Salt. he was only in a coma. But it was intended that ones there believe he died, so he could get the hell out of that hell hole. His apostles knew he would NOT die. He told them and he revealed himself to them a few times and ascended into a craft and went to Damascus. He met Saul there about 2 years later. He then hid and went out of there and eventually to India.
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
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25196431
United States
10/29/2012 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"?
Because he was Sol incarnate, the son of man. He was not god, but a conduit of gods lve and breath of life.
God Loves ALL

User ID: 26279712
United States
10/29/2012 09:20 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"?
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

matthew 22:30
 Quoting: Salt


Will to most marriage means sex. And actually a group of folks called the Material Sons who become the adams and eves do have sex and reproduce.

Any souls or angels can marry in heaven. My own guardian angel is married to somebody in Orvonton for a awfully long time, and I myself am married in Heaven, and my soul mate is embodied on a craft right now. We have been married for an extremely long time. Anybody can bond and they do.

In fact, Michael of Nebadon is married to Nebadonia our mother spirit, and Esu Immanuel and Nada, who played Mary M remain married. The bible is a bit simple. and it means they don't pair to raise families.

The Avonal Son from Paradise, who is here on the magisterial mission, is married to Serena, who serves here as the head of one of his teams.

We have a financial specialist embodied here from Orvonton (milky way galaxy management), who is certainly a very advanced "arch angel" type, who is married before embodying here, to his sweet heart from there, and both have embodied and have a child that is now 1 1/2 years old. There is information that reading old books of earth is not going to provide for you.

Marriage is extremely common in heaven. But reproducing bodies are not.

Groups of individuals, angels or ascending man make "family" sorts of groups too, often staying together for major projects for very long periods of time.

The Kumaras are an example of an "extended" family, of which Esu and Nada are a part. Esus mother and father (Sanat and Anna Kumara) from LONG AGO in Lyra play a heavy role here and remain married, although having semi physical etheric forms. Anna in fact incarnated to play the role of Mother Mary here. Sanat is solar logos, meaning spiritual leader of our solar system.

Last Edited by God Loves ALL on 10/29/2012 09:32 PM
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
nzreva

User ID: 19624091
United States
10/29/2012 09:36 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"?
Daniel 7:13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man (Enash) was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.

Here, man is not Adam, but enash comes from the Hebrew Enosh. All though the scripture Enosh is different that Ish Genesis 2 Adam.

Psalm 8:4 What is man (Enoch) that You take thought of him, And the son of man (Adam) that You care for him?

Not a good person here
Psalm 9:19 Arise, O YHWH, do not let man (Enoch) prevail; Let the nations be judged before You.

Psalm 10:18 To vindicate the orphan and the oppressed, So that man (Enoch) who is of the earth will no longer cause terror.


Psalm 90:3 You turn man (Enoch) back into dust And say, "Return, O children of men (Adam)."

should read
Psalm 144:3 O YHWH, what is Adam, that You take knowledge of him? Or the son of Enoch , that You think of him?


Was Yahoshua the son of Enoch or the son of Adam or both?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 21291600
United States
10/29/2012 11:18 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"?
Another tidbit to add to the "son of God" vs "son of man" mix is that in that time the Roman Emperor would refer to himself as a "son of (a) god."
 Quoting: Life and Love


true.

i find it fascinating that Jesus continues to refer to His humanity over revealing who He was overtly.

i think there is some significance of his human role before His death and after.
 Quoting: Salt


He didn't die on the Cross Salt. he was only in a coma. But it was intended that ones there believe he died, so he could get the hell out of that hell hole. His apostles knew he would NOT die. He told them and he revealed himself to them a few times and ascended into a craft and went to Damascus. He met Saul there about 2 years later. He then hid and went out of there and eventually to India.
 Quoting: God Loves ALL


the urantia book is false. period, end of sentence.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24864346
United Kingdom
10/30/2012 07:08 AM
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 lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:17
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


How can he be both the Son of God and God? It's absurd.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26544006


Exactly.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10793047


The Word Became Flesh

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

The Word = Jesus
 Quoting: Salt


"The Word became flesh" = Jesus. A big difference.

News