The Divinity of the title Son of Man.
- Thread starter synergy
- Start date
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Thank you, Synergy, for this good video. I am reviewing it and will provide my comments.
On 12:13, Nabeel Qureshi makes an unsupported statement: that "the Bible says repeatedly that only one comes in the clouds of heaven, and that is Yahweh". I have looked for that in the Old Testament, and found not a single instance of such statement.
On 12:43, Qureshi is reading from Daniel that the Son of Man receives authority, glory and sovereign power when presented before the Ancient of Days. Qureshi does not pause to ask himself or the audience: If the Son of Man is God, why would he need to be given such authority, glory and sovereign power? If God by definition is All Glorious, All Powerful, why would He need to receive those attributes, and Who would bestow them to God?
On 13:45, Quresih tries to persuade us that the fact that all nations "serve/worship" the Son of Man is indicative of its deity. He calls our attention to the word "Pelach" which can mean not only "worship" but "serve" and "pay reverence". He admits that Daniel is the only Book of the OT that has portions written in Aramaic, but then... what happens? he piggybacks on the Greek word latreuo (based on the Septuagint) to state that it is used 130 times across the Bible and that it is used exclusively in reference to service to God.
Well, if translators of the Septuagint chose "latreuo" over other possible terms like proskuneo, that was their choice and problem. Querish piggybacking is, therefore, in conflict with his own assessment of the uniqueness of the use of Aramaic in the OT, and the other meanings of "pelach".
I will continue my analysis on next post.
On 12:13, Nabeel Qureshi makes an unsupported statement: that "the Bible says repeatedly that only one comes in the clouds of heaven, and that is Yahweh". I have looked for that in the Old Testament, and found not a single instance of such statement.
On 12:43, Qureshi is reading from Daniel that the Son of Man receives authority, glory and sovereign power when presented before the Ancient of Days. Qureshi does not pause to ask himself or the audience: If the Son of Man is God, why would he need to be given such authority, glory and sovereign power? If God by definition is All Glorious, All Powerful, why would He need to receive those attributes, and Who would bestow them to God?
On 13:45, Quresih tries to persuade us that the fact that all nations "serve/worship" the Son of Man is indicative of its deity. He calls our attention to the word "Pelach" which can mean not only "worship" but "serve" and "pay reverence". He admits that Daniel is the only Book of the OT that has portions written in Aramaic, but then... what happens? he piggybacks on the Greek word latreuo (based on the Septuagint) to state that it is used 130 times across the Bible and that it is used exclusively in reference to service to God.
Well, if translators of the Septuagint chose "latreuo" over other possible terms like proskuneo, that was their choice and problem. Querish piggybacking is, therefore, in conflict with his own assessment of the uniqueness of the use of Aramaic in the OT, and the other meanings of "pelach".
I will continue my analysis on next post.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Qureshi is also missing the fact on how kings honored somebody (please remember how the king honors Mardocei in the Book of Esther). He is missing the fact that emperors were assigned a political form of "divinity" based on the fact that they could rule over multiple nations, languages and religions (remember Alexander the Great and the Persian emperors).
Have you wondered why emperors were often considered gods? Were their subjects so silly to think that a god would need to sleep and defecate? Were they so silly to think that a god could get sick, need doctors and die as any mortal?
Of course not. What they believed is that the only explanation of the incredible power of these emperors, which extended beyond the borders of each national god, is that the gods had shared with this emperor their divinity. They thought they should be sort of demi-gods.
On 14:45, Qureshi explains that while many people think that "Son of God" is the title assigned to the divine part of Jesus while "Son of Man" is the title given to the human part, from the Jewish perspective is backwards. He says "Son of God" is a title given to prominent humans, such as Solomon. Quershi is right on that. What he is not right about is to think that then "Son of Man" is a title for God. Never ever Jewish rabbis or scholars thought that the "Son of Man" of Daniel 7:14 was God. The Messiah has never been expected to be God.
Have you wondered why emperors were often considered gods? Were their subjects so silly to think that a god would need to sleep and defecate? Were they so silly to think that a god could get sick, need doctors and die as any mortal?
Of course not. What they believed is that the only explanation of the incredible power of these emperors, which extended beyond the borders of each national god, is that the gods had shared with this emperor their divinity. They thought they should be sort of demi-gods.
On 14:45, Qureshi explains that while many people think that "Son of God" is the title assigned to the divine part of Jesus while "Son of Man" is the title given to the human part, from the Jewish perspective is backwards. He says "Son of God" is a title given to prominent humans, such as Solomon. Quershi is right on that. What he is not right about is to think that then "Son of Man" is a title for God. Never ever Jewish rabbis or scholars thought that the "Son of Man" of Daniel 7:14 was God. The Messiah has never been expected to be God.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
In 15:50, Qureshi resorts to Psalm 110:1 to say that, in the Semitic context, sitting at the right of God means that God is telling Jesus "Rule the universe with me".
However, that's absolutely not the context of Psalm 110:1, nor the Semitic context whatsoever. God is promising David that God will crush David's enemies. God will be the protector of David, the source of David's power. So, the Messiah, as seed of David, would also receive from God such power and protection. No hint that David was going to become God, and no hint that his seed would become God.
In fact, Qureshi says that God is trying to say in Psalm 110:1 "You'll be my heir". How is that Qureshi misses the fact that God does not need to inherit anything, because He already possesses everything? If Jesus is a heir of God, by definition He is not the original owner, the source of wealth. He is not God.
In the end of the video, Qureshi draws our attention to Philippians 2:5-11.
Again, I don't understand why he misses altogether that Paul is clearly distinguishing between God and Jesus. God is one thing, Jesus is another thing.
However, that's absolutely not the context of Psalm 110:1, nor the Semitic context whatsoever. God is promising David that God will crush David's enemies. God will be the protector of David, the source of David's power. So, the Messiah, as seed of David, would also receive from God such power and protection. No hint that David was going to become God, and no hint that his seed would become God.
In fact, Qureshi says that God is trying to say in Psalm 110:1 "You'll be my heir". How is that Qureshi misses the fact that God does not need to inherit anything, because He already possesses everything? If Jesus is a heir of God, by definition He is not the original owner, the source of wealth. He is not God.
In the end of the video, Qureshi draws our attention to Philippians 2:5-11.
Again, I don't understand why he misses altogether that Paul is clearly distinguishing between God and Jesus. God is one thing, Jesus is another thing.
- Verse 6. Christ Jesus is said being "in the form of God". In other letter it is said to be "the visible image of the invisible God". All these are ways to say that Jesus is a Manifestation of God, not God. Why doesn't Paul say without hesitation that Christ Jesus is God? Well, because Paul treats God as a different being. Let's see:
- Verse 9. God exalted Jesus. Who exalted Jesus? God. Who is God, then?
- Verse 10 and 11. Every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is... is... what? God? No. Lord. Lord? Why not God? Well, because God is another being, identified in unequivocal terms at the end of the verse: "God the Father".
- Verse 11, further reflection. What for should everyone bow to Jesus? The answer at the end of the verse is: "To the Glory of God the Father". If Jesus were God, the purpose of worshiping him would not be to please or give glory to another Person. Worshiping God is a purpose in itself. That's why it is the First Commandment.
Last edited:
Thank you for your analysis of Nabeel's presentation. Nabeel was previously a Muslim before converting to Christianity. He earned a Doctorate in Medicine before the Lord took him to Heaven in his mid 30's. He was a brilliant person indeed. I'll respond to your points first chance I get.
dwight92070
Well-known member
I have not had time to watch the video yet, but Jesus said that He was given all authority in heaven and on earth in Matthew 28:18. The reason Jesus was given that is because, while on earth, He laid aside many of His privileges, which must have included some of His authority, that He previously had as the Word and as God, before He became a human. The man Jesus did not exist before He was conceived in Mary's womb - however His spirit, which I believe is not the Holy Spirit, had been eternally in existence. Philippians 2:7
This may be what the video refers to, I don't know, since I have not seen it.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I would like to end my analysis of the video kindly provided by @synergy with a reflection of how the video starts.
The author honestly recognizes in 0:10 that: "The Trinity is unarguably one of the most difficult concepts to understand, let alone explain". Certainly it is. Fortunately, Jesus does not require from anyone to be able to understand or explain it in order to consider that person his follower.
BEING VS PERSON
Recognizing that the Trinity is one of the most difficult concepts to explain does not stop our brother Qureshi from giving it a try, though.
He says in 5:00 that "God is One in Being, but Three in Person". What is the difference between "being" and "person"? Well, he proceeds to explain it: "Being" refers to what somebody is, and "person" to who somebody is. So, what am I? A human being. Who am I? Pancho Frijoles, a 57 year-old male, Mexican, married, etc. So, being refers to the "essence" while person to the specific atributes of a particular mind and life.
Is Qureshi telling us that "God" is a category in which three persons (three minds, three lives, three wills) can fit ? A category defined by a divine essence?
If billions of human beings all share the same human essence, does this make us all one being? Well, that is true metaphorically (and very Baha'i, for that matter).... but literally, we know we are a family, a group, a species, who encompasses billions of different minds, wills, lives, choices.
If God for Trinitarians a family, class, species or institution of three persons? In that case, God would not be very different to the Greek Pantheon. Greeks could also have explained that all their numerous gods shared the same essence (all were divine), so all of them were one Being, God.
ROLE VS ESSENCE
Then Qureshi try to explain us that, when Jesus says "The Father is Greater than me", the difference between Jesus and the Father is a difference of roles. Jesus had a role, that implied to live as a human, while the Father had a role, that implied to live as... well... God ! (not too hard to guess).
He goes on giving an example to illustrate his point: Obama and him. Obama is greater than him as President, but not greater than him as human being. It is a difference in role, but not in nature. By the same token, the Father is greater than Jesus in role, but not in essence.
What Qureshi is missing, is that the role of Obama did not come from his essence as human being. Presidential powers were not inherent in Obama's genes or mind. Since those powers were not inherent, Obama had to play a role, assigned by the Constitution and voters. Before Obama was president, he had no rule over Qureshi... and once Obama has come out of office, he cannot rule any more over Qureshi.
In contrast, The Father does not play a role of God. He is God. Nobody assigned him that role, nor gave him his powers. They are inherent to his condition as God. That's why, although Jesus has finished his mission and has been exalted, he still refers to his Father in the Book of Revelation as "my God". Jesus never claimed to have inherent powers.
The author honestly recognizes in 0:10 that: "The Trinity is unarguably one of the most difficult concepts to understand, let alone explain". Certainly it is. Fortunately, Jesus does not require from anyone to be able to understand or explain it in order to consider that person his follower.
BEING VS PERSON
Recognizing that the Trinity is one of the most difficult concepts to explain does not stop our brother Qureshi from giving it a try, though.
He says in 5:00 that "God is One in Being, but Three in Person". What is the difference between "being" and "person"? Well, he proceeds to explain it: "Being" refers to what somebody is, and "person" to who somebody is. So, what am I? A human being. Who am I? Pancho Frijoles, a 57 year-old male, Mexican, married, etc. So, being refers to the "essence" while person to the specific atributes of a particular mind and life.
Is Qureshi telling us that "God" is a category in which three persons (three minds, three lives, three wills) can fit ? A category defined by a divine essence?
If billions of human beings all share the same human essence, does this make us all one being? Well, that is true metaphorically (and very Baha'i, for that matter).... but literally, we know we are a family, a group, a species, who encompasses billions of different minds, wills, lives, choices.
If God for Trinitarians a family, class, species or institution of three persons? In that case, God would not be very different to the Greek Pantheon. Greeks could also have explained that all their numerous gods shared the same essence (all were divine), so all of them were one Being, God.
ROLE VS ESSENCE
Then Qureshi try to explain us that, when Jesus says "The Father is Greater than me", the difference between Jesus and the Father is a difference of roles. Jesus had a role, that implied to live as a human, while the Father had a role, that implied to live as... well... God ! (not too hard to guess).
He goes on giving an example to illustrate his point: Obama and him. Obama is greater than him as President, but not greater than him as human being. It is a difference in role, but not in nature. By the same token, the Father is greater than Jesus in role, but not in essence.
What Qureshi is missing, is that the role of Obama did not come from his essence as human being. Presidential powers were not inherent in Obama's genes or mind. Since those powers were not inherent, Obama had to play a role, assigned by the Constitution and voters. Before Obama was president, he had no rule over Qureshi... and once Obama has come out of office, he cannot rule any more over Qureshi.
In contrast, The Father does not play a role of God. He is God. Nobody assigned him that role, nor gave him his powers. They are inherent to his condition as God. That's why, although Jesus has finished his mission and has been exalted, he still refers to his Father in the Book of Revelation as "my God". Jesus never claimed to have inherent powers.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Do you plan to watch it? I encourage you to do it.
It is introduced by the video editors/producers as a "clear-cut explanation of the Trinity".
Has He already recovered those privileges?
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Do you mean in the Book of Esther?
Correct.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
The Book of Esther was written in Hebrew, not in Aramaic.
So, we cannot argue that an Aramaic-speaker author decided not to use the Aramaic "pelach" in the Book of Esther.
Yet, as I have pointed out, the imagery of the honor of Mardocei is eloquent enough:
The man the king wanted to honor should use publicly the robes, horse and royal insignia of the king himself.
Agree, so you shouldn't have originally referred to it when discussing "pelach."
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
That's why I made the comment in a separate post.
Irrelevant.
You made quite a few comments in several posts.
Obviously, they are all from you.
Stephen referred to the Lord Jesus as "the Son of Man" (Acts 7:56) and then later prayed to Him (Acts 7:59-60).
Since prayer is due unto God alone proves the Lord Jesus is God.
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-trinity-made-easy.87/page-4#post-3446
...which is also used in reference to Jesus in Revelation 1:13.
It's usage corresponds to Daniel 7 in that less than 10 verses earlier it is used in reference to Him coming in the clouds (Revelation 1:7).
This too also deals with the worship of Jesus in in that He is the recipient of a doxology in Revelation 1:6.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Dear Fred, @synergy and @civic:
Revelation 1:6, which precedes Revelation 1:7 and 1:13, shows in unequivocal terms that that the exalted Jesus has a God, his God, so can't be God.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
There is no single instance in the whole Bible in which the Father is declared to have a God, or to have Jesus as his God.
In contrast, there are 10 instances in which Christ is said to have a God, and in 8 of them such God is called explicitly by one name: The Father.
The evidence is overwhelming. What is the Bible teaching us?
Christ worships Our Father, while Our Father worships no one.
Please reflect on this.
I'm not making a call to any of you to reject any of the beliefs you hold. Just to open your heart to your brothers who think differently. They are not fools. They are not deliberately blind. They are not perverse. They are interested in loving Jesus and following Him just as you.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Regarding the expressions "to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." please notice that the context is the Kingdom of God.
Since Daniel 2, we learn that in Biblical eschatology, all human kingdoms, built on arrogance, lotting, violence, are temporary. They do not last.
The Kingdom of God, however, lasts forever.
This Kingdom is brought by Christ. Specifically, by the Message of Christ ("My words will not pass")
Therefore, Christ is properly praised as everlasting King, because He brings the everlasting Kingdom of God (His Father) to men.
Remember: The Jews NEVER EVER expected the Messiah to be God. They expected it to be a king.
According to Jews, his kingdom would be material. According to Jesus Himself, spiritual. Messiah = Annointed by God, not God.
Material kingdoms typically end. An spiritual kingdom is forever.
Across history, human kings were always saluted with hopes that their kingdoms, and their glory, could last as much as possible.
We still have a relic of that time in the UK National Anthem:
One of the ways to preserve the kingdom was to have a heir. Through a heir, the king could last. The heir would normally be his First Son, but also a Conqueror who had proved to be a loyal servant and had killed the king's enemies.
That is why Christ is also presented in the Bible as a heir, and as a Prince or a Conqueror. Remember that Paul says that Christ brings captives along, and delivers the Kingdom to God, so that God can be everything to everyone.
Since Daniel 2, we learn that in Biblical eschatology, all human kingdoms, built on arrogance, lotting, violence, are temporary. They do not last.
The Kingdom of God, however, lasts forever.
This Kingdom is brought by Christ. Specifically, by the Message of Christ ("My words will not pass")
Therefore, Christ is properly praised as everlasting King, because He brings the everlasting Kingdom of God (His Father) to men.
Remember: The Jews NEVER EVER expected the Messiah to be God. They expected it to be a king.
According to Jews, his kingdom would be material. According to Jesus Himself, spiritual. Messiah = Annointed by God, not God.
Material kingdoms typically end. An spiritual kingdom is forever.
Across history, human kings were always saluted with hopes that their kingdoms, and their glory, could last as much as possible.
We still have a relic of that time in the UK National Anthem:
God save our gracious King,
Long live our noble King,
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King!
The main concern of kings was how to preserve their dynasty and dominion, as this was very frequently challenged and ended.One of the ways to preserve the kingdom was to have a heir. Through a heir, the king could last. The heir would normally be his First Son, but also a Conqueror who had proved to be a loyal servant and had killed the king's enemies.
That is why Christ is also presented in the Bible as a heir, and as a Prince or a Conqueror. Remember that Paul says that Christ brings captives along, and delivers the Kingdom to God, so that God can be everything to everyone.
Last edited:
..the Lord Jesus is a proper recipient of a doxology which proves He is God.
