keypurr
Well-known member
Amen
"Son of Man"
- Thread starter Bradley D
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
So does this mean that you now understand that Jesus is God? Because that is exactly what that scripture says.
keypurr
Well-known member
Col 1:15 tells you that he is a creature.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
God is not a creature, God is a spirit, so his express image is also a spirit. This spirit was given the fullness of the Father and was sent to dwell in Jesus who is the body prepared for it. That is what I see and share. This spirit is God's first creation. However he/it is a form of God.
God united his Spirit son with his flesh son when Jesus was anointed. That is what I see RD. I have been where you are and I can never go back.
Right Divider
Body part
- He is God made flesh (John 1)
- In scripture, the term "firstborn" often does NOT refer to anything "born" at all. It refers to preeminence. Christ has preeminence over all creation because He is the CREATOR of ALL THINGS.
Jesus is and was always God. So your bogus heretical theory is just that.
All nonsense garbage. The BIBLE says that the Word WAS GOD and that the Word was MADE FLESH.
Pure baloney. The BIBLE says that the Word WAS GOD and that the Word was MADE FLESH.
You do not see. You are blind.
That's too bad. The lake of first awaits your arrival.
Last edited:
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Often, when someone says "X should have said Y", it's a sign they are trying to shape the text after their own ideas - not what was actually meant. It's very easy to do - and only in cases where you are forced (without remedy) into an irresolvable inconsistency by doing so can you then start down that path of what someone should have said. The scriptures as a whole make it clear that Jesus was not just a man. His utterance of "Before Abraham was 'I AM'" can't be just cast away as some philosophical statement about existence - not if one wants to reckon honestly with what He said. Paul is having to hold to the humanity AND the Deity of Jesus Christ without denying either - for Christ's humanity is fundamental to His ministry. But He is not JUST a man. Redress further down...
Psalm 139:7-12?
Jeremiah 23:24?
The absurdity of saying something like "Is God in the vacuum?" is to force a different idea on omnipresence (if I understand what you mean by the Platonic sense). But that's largely a language issue. When we assert or ask such a thing, we are attempting to force God to a locality. The whole idea of omnipresence is undergirded by recognizing that God is larger than locality (period). He is not a man. But this may be a rabbit trail.
First of all, form and likeness are not the same thing here. He ACTUALLY became a servant. So when He took on the "form" of a servant, it wasn't like a mask or like putting on a suit of armor (in which someone could then say they took on the likeness of a knight). He actually entered into the identification. His prayer in John 17 makes it abundantly clear that He pre-existed WITH THE FATHER and had glory with Him. This is not a man who was given all of the Spirit of God - this was that which came FROM God and existed with Him in the beginning.
But your hand isn't you - it is a part of what makes you you. Christ is a part of the Godhead. "I and my Father are one" is not a biological connection - it is a mystical connection. Christ is in the Father AND the Father is in Him. Separate your hand from you and you are still identifiable (handless, maybe, but still you). Separate the Father and the Son and you don't have the same God. They are inextricable - and yet one can speak to the other as a different person....
In context (i.e. considering other passages such as John 5:18 etc...), this passage clearly shows His immediate identification with the God of Moses.
Of course not - talk about taking away the key of knowledge (making language into a virtually contextless thing with no depth to its meaning), that's what your patently absurd assertion does. Even the grammar is different : "Before Abraham was, I AM" is clearly not the same construction as "I am he".
No...this is John explaining why the Jews did that. He nowhere indicates that this is their error.
Unless you don't believe that the appellation "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" applies to Christ, then that passage requires Him to be the One "who only hath immortality".
These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Revelation 17:14
The Bible tells us that those who are born of woman are born of the seed passed down from their fathers (as in Hebrews 7:9-10.) But Jesus was not born of the seed of man. He was born of the seed of the woman, a virgin, something not possible in humans. (Genesis 3:15.) I believe Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man to illustrate the fact that He was the fulfillment of all OT prophesies predicting the Messiah would be born a Jew.
I find that hard to believe.
Say what? The Son of man was in Jesus who was in God who was in Jesus who is in every born again believer today? Is the son of man our Savior or is Jesus our Savior? How does the Bible explain the differences between these two supposed different beings who live in the same house?
Appeal to incredulity is a logical fallacy.
OZOS
Well-known member
Do you believe that the following gospel is the one by which men are saved today? Yes or no?
"Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"
Of course I believe the Gospel. I cannot fathom why you have said I don't.
OZOS
Well-known member
Then tell us which gospel was being preached here...
"And as they were leaving, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere." Luke 9:6
They were preaching the gospel the Lord told them to go into the world and preach to every creature.
OZOS
Well-known member
Okay, but it was not the same gospel preached by which we are saved in 1 Cor 15.
OZOS
Well-known member
Are you going to punt on this one?
The Gospel is the Gospel. God's Gospel is also called Christ's Gospel, the Gospel of peace, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and so forth. The only other kind of gospel mentioned is in Galatians 1 where Paul mentions "another gospel" which is a false gospel.
OZOS
Well-known member
You have already admitted that the gospel by which men are saved is from 1 Cor 15:1-4
"Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"
And you said that it is the same gospel that was preached in Luke 9:6
"And as they were leaving, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere." Luke 9:6
Yet in Luke 18:31-34 (a great deal of time later), Jesus says this...
Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.” But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken."
Perhaps you should spend a bit more time listening and less time speaking.
I hear you. The Gospel the disciples were sent into all the world to preach unto every creature is not the same as some other Gospel you are trying to tell me about.
OZOS
Well-known member
According to God's word (which you apparently reject) the gospel that was preached in Luke 9:6 cannot possibly be the same gospel preached by the apostle Paul, for the disciples knew nothing about Jesus dying for our sins, being buried and rising on the third day. Your mocking of Paul's gospel says a great deal about your phony beliefs.
The gospel the disciples were sent into the world to preach was unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, for they knew nothing of going unto Gentiles until God sent Peter in Acts 10. God was going to raise up the apostle Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter was sent to one Gentile as a precursor to validate Paul's ministry, as being sent by God. The good news to the Jew concerning the coming of their Messiah, was rejected, and God raised up the apostle Paul to take his gospel to the Gentiles, a mystery, which was unknown.
"Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith" Rom 16:25-26
But you're not listening. What OZOS just said is like a clanging cymbal to your ears.
Listen to what he said, because he just pointed out a MAJOR difference between the gospel Paul referred to, and the gospel that the twelve were taught to preach.
Yes, that's the point. The gospel that the disciples were given was DIFFERENT than the one Paul was given.
Things that are different are not the same.