Peterlag
Active Member
Son of man means human. Why would not a human be called a son of man?
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
Son of Man has a connection to the encounter in the clouds in Dan 7:13-14. In that it is revealed that he is like a Son of Man. The broad picture then implies his divine nature but has become like a Son of Man. As such, Son of Man goes beyond images of just being human, i.e. of being mere man. That concept however goes beyond the ability of the unitarian to recognize Christ Jesus.
Yes, Jesus was called the "Son of man" because His mother is human, Mary. That is the honest and logical answer I ever had with you for now.
And why this honest and logical answer cannot be applied to Jesus as the "Son of God" where His Father is God?
That question centered to Jesus not to "sons of God" that refers to the believers.
Runningman
Active Member
"Son of man" when used for other people throughout the Bible refers to them being human. However, there is a definitive and unique Son of Man who existed in prophecy, but never anyone called the Son of God in prophecy. Jesus was just pointing out that he is that particular Son of Man in the prophecies so that people would know exactly who he was claiming to be, which was the promised human messiah.
Yes, Jesus was prophesied to be born by a human woman and that's why He was called as the "Son of man".
And why this honesty cannot be applied to Jesus as the "Son of God" where His Father is God?( Psa 45:6-7, Heb 1:8-9)
Runningman
Active Member
So you agree there are many sons of men and many sons of God? So Jesus is really the firstborn among many brothers after all? Not human brothers, no, but spiritual brothers with the same Father.
Romans 8
28And we know that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. 29For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.
You just didn't answer the question. My question centered to Jesus, not to those who loved God, conformed to the image of Christ, I colored red above where Bible lexicon defined "brethren" in Greek "ἀδελφός adelphos" as member of the Christian community.
Now, why the honest and logical answer to Jesus as the "Son of man" cannot be applied to Jesus as the "Son of God" where His Father is God? (Psa 45:6, Heb 1:8)
(NAS95+)Rom 8:29 For thoseG3739 whomG3739 He R1foreknewG4267, He alsoG2532 R2predestinedG4309 to become R3conformedG4832b to the imageG1504 of His SonG5207, soG1519 that He would be the R4firstbornG4416a amongG1722 manyG4183 brethrenG80;
G80 Mounce
ἀδελφός adelphos
343x: a brother, near kinsman or relative; one of the same nation or nature; one of equal rank and dignity; an associate, a member of the Christian community.
Runningman
Active Member
All of the Christian sons of God are also sons of men. Same with Jesus. The human Jesus and son of God Jesus are the same exact person and always have been, yet Jesus isn't a human that descended from the sky.
John 5
25Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. 27And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
Peterlag
Active Member
Daniel 7:13-14 is referring to Christ after his second coming. Not that he came down from heaven to begin with. You got nothing.
what do you mean? He does not stop being the Son of Man and Son of God just because of his incarnation, and resurrection. So I have everything in Jesus.
Yes, Jesus dual nature being human and being divine, where the Father said to the Son, " Your throne, O God, is forever and ever".
Jesus being God, His throne is forever and ever.(Heb 1:8). Where classical Jews interpret Psa 45:6 to refer to their coming Jewish Messiah but did not accept Jesus as the Christ.
Now, can you name a Christian in the Bible that has a forever and ever throne?
dwight92070
Active Member
You're more of an anti-Christ.
Peterlag
Active Member
If the spirit is telling you that Jesus is God. That spirit is not from God. The spirit from God will say that Jesus came in the flesh. The false spirit will say God came in the flesh. There's your test of the spirit.
Odd how Peterlag's statement seems opposite to 1 John 2:22 with 2 Joh 7
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.
2 John 7 (YLT)
7 Because many leading astray did enter into the world, who are not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh; this one is he who is leading astray, and the antichrist.
It seems the general finding related to 2 John 7 is that many people thought it impossible for God to incarnate since, in their view, this was going from a perfect form to an imperfect representation of that "true" form. This would be under Platonism that such incarnation would seem implausible. Maybe there are other cultural beliefs beyond that one that made people deny Jesus coming in the flesh.
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.
2 John 7 (YLT)
7 Because many leading astray did enter into the world, who are not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh; this one is he who is leading astray, and the antichrist.
It seems the general finding related to 2 John 7 is that many people thought it impossible for God to incarnate since, in their view, this was going from a perfect form to an imperfect representation of that "true" form. This would be under Platonism that such incarnation would seem implausible. Maybe there are other cultural beliefs beyond that one that made people deny Jesus coming in the flesh.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
Melchizedek is a pretty good runner up for that. Scripture states Melchizedek is a priest forever, but Melchizedek isn't God is he? So why is Jesus God just because he has something for all time, too?
Hebrews 7
3Without father or mother or genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time.
We see that Melchizedek may be Christ but otherwise is reflected as a type of Christ having no beginning or end noted of Melchizedek. This certainly reflects a pre-existent Christ as the divine Son of God who indeed does continue forever. It is great to share that passage that enhances the recognition of Christ's divinity. I appreciate the Triune details you share on various posts.
DavidTree
Active Member
Jesus is Elohim
His FATHER is God
The Word is Elohim
The Word became flesh = Jesus
Genesis chapters 1 thru 3
John chapter 1 thru 3
Revelation
Runningman
Active Member
Can't apply a different standard to Jesus without applying it to Melchizedek. Jesus and Mel are both human priests forever. If Melchizedek isn't eternal then neither is Jesus. It's Scripture.
Runningman
Active Member
Looks like the only one you called God is the Father in your reply. So you, too, know that the Father is God Almighty and there are no others?
you do not pay sufficient attention. Melchizedek basically remains undefined, unexplained and without apparent beginning or end. I can see how that idea does not register in a unitarian's mind, but for other people this is suggestive of a divine existence or of a type of Christ who has divine existence before creation and forever more.
