Son of God, son of man

[Roymond]

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

The Book of Ezekiel. His name appears twice.

Ezekiel 1:3 the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the River Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was upon him there.

Once more, mentioned in the third person.

Ezekiel 24:24 Thus Ezekiel is a sign to you; according to all that he has done

you shall do; and when this comes, you shall know that I am the Lord God.

So what is the narrative here? "So when I saw it, I fell on my face,

and I heard a voice of One speaking.

Ezekiel 2:1 And He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak to you.” 

2 Then the Spirit entered me when He spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard Him who spoke to me. 

3 And He said to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel....

From the time to Lord began to speak to Ezekiel, he was on the ground as a dead man,

until the Spirit lifted him up. From that moment on, he is only addressed by the Lord

as 'son of man'. Over 90 times. 

Ezekiel is "a" son of man, Jesus is The Son of Man.  Only Jesus gets the definite article that makes it a title and office rather than just a generic sort of label chosen to emphasize the vast difference between God and His prophet.  In Daniel, the "Son of Man" is described with specific attributes, while in Ezekiel the meaning of the term isn't commented at all except in the words themselves, בֶּן־אָדָם֙ , which actually say "son of Adam" and are a reference to the prophet's situation as being a descendant of our first parents.   There are no other attributes ascribed.  Thus "son of man" in Ezekiel has no relevance to its use as a title and office by Christ.  This is confirmed by the fact that Ezekiel is just another descendant of Adam, while Christ is the second Adam, Adam's true son.  It's further confirmed by Daniel, who says of the Son of Man:

his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

That is a description of the Messiah, a theme repeated through the prophets and declared by the Apostles.

Last, Stephen tells us that Jesus is the Son of Man:

“Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

The Son of Man is a spirit of heaven that was to serve as a mediator between God

There is nothing in Scripture indicating that the Son of Man is anything but a Man.  Arbitrarily deciding to call Him a "spirit of heaven" is a drift into paganism.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

and man before the fall, one of many roles the Son of God took upon Himself by the Incarnation.

Jesus didn't treat "Son of Man" as a role, He treated it as His identity, just as Daniel declared.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

If you go back and read the OP, you will find a carefully prepared review

of the Gospel of John showing every place where the Lord refers to Himself as the Son of God, and where the Son of Man. The purpose was not to break Messiah in pieces or divide as you suggested and declared a heresy. The point is that the titles aren't irrelevant. This is not plug and play, there are very specific reasons why the Son of God took on the role of the Son of Man in His Incarnation and refers to Himself in those narratives. To fulfill all righteousness!

The Son of God did not "take on a role o the Son of Man", he is the Son of Man.  If He was not the Son of Man, then He is not Redeemer.

The titles aren't irrelevant -- that is true; the titles show that the Savior is the Redeemer because He is close kin to God since He is Himself God, and that He is close kin to man because He is the Son of Man, both Adam's son and Mary's.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Our Father ordained that much of what Messiah would accomplish, He must do as a man, to glorify the Son of man, as stated in John 12:23 and 13:31. He is crowned with many crowns!, and wears them as both Son of God , and Son of man.

He did those things according to His human nature, but not merely "as a man"; that is not possible -- to state it that way divides  Christ in two.  He accomplished all those things as "both Son of God and Son of Man" -- the one Person of the Word made flesh.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

For example, He will sit in Judgment of mankind, not as Son of God, which He certainly could, regardless if that had occurred to you. He judges as Son of Man as ordained,

He sits in judgment as both:  Jesus never said that the Father gave Him authority to judge "as the Son of Man", He says that the Father gave Him authority, not a piece of Him.  He judges as both Son of God and Son of Man because those are both what He is.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

 

 

What has been thoroughly reviewed is not heresy, more a lack of due diligence on

 

your part. You saw the title of the thread, knew some things from school, and rushed

to share your "graduate degree knowledge", while "calling out" members as heretics.

It was the collection of quotes and the comments on them that made me warn against the ancient heresy of "Two Sons".  And I read many posts before deciding a warning was given.

So far I have seen nothing justifying withdrawing that warning.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Or do you think you can call someone's statement a heresy and not be calling them a heretic?

I gave you opportunity to dissociate yourself from the error and correct it.  But instead you double down, and invent novel teaching with no foundation in the scriptures.  You may not know it, but the idea that the Son of Man was a "spirit" is one first proposed by the Gnostics, a group of heretics that both Paul and John fought against.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

 

Thank God I missed out on the dogmatic indoctrination's of a seminary.

I had to learn things the easy, graceful way. I ask. I spend hours of devotional time without textbooks or commentaries, and certainly not internet sources.

Did you at least read the church Fathers, the ones who battled every heresy that's been devised, to learn how those teachers of the church given by the Holy Spirit fulfilled the promise of Jesus to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into all truth?  They are neglected at one's peril given that Paul instructed us that the Spirit gives teachers to the church.

Learning on your own is warned against when it says that no scripture is of private interpretation.    Primarily Peter is saying that none of the scriptures came from the men themselves, but from the Holy Spirit speaking through those men, but the principle applies to any interpretation of the scriptures.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

 

My Bible  is always the topic of conversations with the Lord, Daily. Including this morning.

I have been informed that I post too much. And yet, there are many who do so. The real insecurity, is that in my threads I teach. What I receive from the Lord,  I share with His Body faithfully. Many like to challenge me, "who is this guy who teaches like someone who has authority". When you hear His Voice you act, you speak with authority, or you disobey. This is not the Way.

You just described why the church has become so splintered:  people deciding on their own what the written words mean and assuming the role of teacher.  It's exactly why James warns against becoming a teacher.

"Teaches with authority"?  I don't see that at all!  I see teaching that is driven by currents of thought that are not biblical.

If I had not given the warning against heresy, that would have been disobedience -- which is what you think I should have done.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Read the OP first, then share what the Spirit is saying to you through the verses cited. If there is disagreement, we can discuss, ON TOPIC, which is established in post #1, not the title, or where you choose to join the conversation.

The title reads like this would be a discussion of how Jesus can be both God and Man and what that means for us -- I was disappointed to discover that instead by the third line of personal text there was a misuse of scripture, and by the eighth line there was reading into the scripture what is not there; and by the twelfth line it was plain that the idea being presented about "the son of man" was unsciptural and contrary to the Gospel -- which was confirmed by about the fifteenth line and again later.

 

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

All we do is for one purpose. to know Him, to recognize His Voice. This is the Way.

Daniel's vision of Messiah, as Son of Man enthroned is now fulfilled, undivided from the Son of God, seated at the right hand of the Father.

The Son of Man was undivided from the Son of God from the moment that Gabriel announced the Messiah's birth to the virgin.  The Son of Man came from Heaven and ascended back to Heaven.

7 hours ago, Mr. M said:

This is eternal life.

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, 

and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

And that is why I warn when error pops up.  Error does not necessarily lead away from Christ, but if it is allowed to go unchallenged then it may do so.

I recommend that you read the works of Cyril of Alexandria, especially his letters against Nestorius; or, since his style of discourse is rather hard for us today, this book:

Saint-Cyril-Alexandria-Christological-Controversy

It covers all his writings related to the whole business with "Two Sons" and why it's important.

This would also be helpful; it's a translation of Cyril's "Ότι εἷς ὁ Χριστός", "That Christ is One":

On-the-unity-of-christ-st-cyril-of-alexandria

It's one of the most important books on the topic that's ever been written.  Saint Cyril plainly loves the Lord and wants Him understood clearly against all the pagan idea that were steering people wrong.

[Mr. M]

3 minutes ago, Roymond said:

a group of heretics that both Paul and John fought against.

.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Mr. M
cancel

[Mr. M]

8 minutes ago, Roymond said:

I recommend that you read the works of Cyril of Alexandria, especially his letters against Nestorius; or, since his style of discourse is rather hard for us today, this book:

If the support for your position is the works of Cyril of Alexandria, I am going 

to have to take a hard pass. Thanks for sharing.

[Roymond]

3 hours ago, Mr. M said:

If the support for your position is the works of Cyril of Alexandria, I am going 

to have to take a hard pass. Thanks for sharing.

It's also in Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, and more.

What's your problem with Cyril?  The council of Chalcedon practically plagiarized his writings when they put together the great Definition,

[Mr. M]

2 hours ago, Roymond said:

It's also in Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, and more.

What's your problem with Cyril?  The council of Chalcedon practically plagiarized his writings when they put together the great Definition,

Why would I have a problem with this Cyril guy. I don't know him or his writings.

You are missing my point. You just wrote a lengthy rebuttal to my position, without

citing a single scripture. I can't open my Bible and see your point and say, okay, the 

Word of God does say that, I missed that, thanks for correcting. NO, I am supposed to

go read writings of early church fathers to validate your claims. Not going to happen.

In other words, I wanted to end the discussion with you, because I have a problem

with your methodology. Please allow me to ask one final question that may clear up

my understanding of your position. If I went to the Gospel of John, and everywhere

that the Lord refers to Himself as the Son of man, I change that to Son of God, and everywhere the Lord refers to Himself as Son of God, I change that to Son of man,

does that alter the narrative for you in any way? Because it sounds like in your mind

they are the same either way. Interchangeable, because they are indivisible. Isn't that

what you are saying? Or explain what I am missing about your statements.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Mr. M
spelling

[Roymond]

On 12/19/2022 at 8:50 PM, Mr. M said:

Why would I have a problem with this Cyril guy. I don't know him or his writings.

You are missing my point. You just wrote a lengthy rebuttal to my position, without

citing a single scripture. I can't open my Bible and see your point and say, okay, the 

Word of God does say that, I missed that, thanks for correcting. NO, I am supposed to

go read writings of early church fathers to validate your claims. Not going to happen.

The church Fathers were teachers the Holy Spirit gave the church.  Reading what they said cuts through a lot of meandering discussion.  Indeed ignoring them is a bit of an insult to the Holy Spirit Who went to the effort of raising them up for us.

On 12/19/2022 at 8:50 PM, Mr. M said:

In other words, I wanted to end the discussion with you, because I have a problem

with your methodology. Please allow me to ask one final question that may clear up

my understanding of your position. If I went to the Gospel of John, and everywhere

that the Lord refers to Himself as the Son of man, I change that to Son of God, and everywhere the Lord refers to Himself as Son of God, I change that to Son of man,

does that alter the narrative for you in any way? Because it sounds like in your mind

they are the same either way. Interchangeable, because they are indivisible. Isn't that

what you are saying? Or explain what I am missing about your statements.

"Interchangable", no -- that would be the error of confusing the natures.  The Council managed to cover a half dozen or more heresies in four brief words; I quote at length for context:

"... One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ...."

These four -- unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseperably -- were drawn from the scriptures painstakingly over forty years or so and serve as the Orthodox understanding of the two natures in Christ.

The natures must not be confused, as would happen if the title were interchangeable, nor can they be separated, which is what is done when you try to break actions into "just" the human or "just" the divine.  They are indivisible; Jesus is not a patch-together affair where one moment He can act as a human and the next as God -- that's where the "Two Sons" heresy comes in.  Last, each nature remains its own; they do not change each other by being united.

The reason is that if any one of these is true then biblically Jesus could not be a Redeemer:  if the two natures are confused, it's not certain He's really God or really Man; if they are at all changed, then He definitely isn't God and/or isn't truly man; if they can be divided then they could not act together on the Cross, the divine could have stepped back and avoided the suffering; and much the same for if they could be separated.  Any one of those would have left Jesus not sufficient to the task; He had to be fully, continually, wholly God and wholly man, without pause or interruption.

[Mr. M]

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

The church Fathers were teachers the Holy Spirit gave the church.  Reading what they said cuts through a lot of meandering discussion.  Indeed ignoring them is a bit of an insult to the Holy Spirit Who went to the effort of raising them up for us.

Apostolic doctrine was established in the church,

and recorded in the scriptures. All scripture is profitable, 

and more than sufficient for me.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles

and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

  They are indivisible; Jesus is not a patch-together affair where one moment He can act as a human and the next as God -- that's where the "Two Sons" heresy comes in. 

I never said that His actions alternated between human and God..

All the OP explores is why He became human. Short answer;

to fulfill all righteousness as established in God's Word.

Specifics, such as the role of High Priest of our confession, and

the lengthy discussions on this topic in Hebrews. As always, in accordance

with His Father's Will.

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

not certain He's really God or really Man

I am certain and fully confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,

who took on flesh, He was crucified, died, and was buried.

Resurrected, He remained on earth in flesh and bone, appearing to hundreds.

He ascended bodily to heaven before the witness of His apostles,

and though seated at the right hand of God, has appeared in Spirit

to many, including Saul, who He commissioned to be an apostle to the nations.

He will come again for Judgment, as God and now glorified man.

[BeyondET]

On 12/1/2022 at 3:27 PM, other one said:

what was he before he was incarnated into a human....   and while he was here, was he just a man like you and me?

That is a interesting question and might be many answers who knows. Though man was created in God’s likeness and image so in a sense that has always been, my opinion.

If God was to be a man of His likeness and image what part could He use, might be a few. But I do believe God has a messaging system possibly similar to neurotransmitters though moving faster than lightspeed and the substance or structure might not be known of God...

 

neu·ro·trans·mit·ter

/ˌno͞orōˈtranzˌmidər/

nounPHYSIOLOGY

a chemical substance that is released at the end of a nerve fiber by the arrival of a nerve impulse and, by diffusing across the synapse or junction, causes the transfer of the impulse to another nerve fiber, a muscle fiber, or some other structure.

'

I've read human transmitters travel between 150 to 275 mph, I would think if God has transmitters surely they can travel faster than that or slower.

 

Berean Literal Bible

2 Peter 3

8 But beloved, do not let this one thing be hidden from you, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

John 12

29 Therefore the crowd having stood, and having heard, was saying, "There has been thunder." Others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him."

30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come because of Me but because of you.

Edited December 31, 2022 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

On 12/19/2022 at 7:36 AM, Mr. M said:

The Book of Ezekiel. His name appears twice.

Ezekiel 1:3 the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the River Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was upon him there.

Once more, mentioned in the third person.

Ezekiel 24:24 Thus Ezekiel is a sign to you; according to all that he has done

you shall do; and when this comes, you shall know that I am the Lord God.

So what is the narrative here? "So when I saw it, I fell on my face,

and I heard a voice of One speaking.

Ezekiel 2:1 And He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak to you.” 

2 Then the Spirit entered me when He spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard Him who spoke to me. 

3 And He said to me: “Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel....

From the time to Lord began to speak to Ezekiel, he was on the ground as a dead man,

until the Spirit lifted him up. From that moment on, he is only addressed by the Lord

as 'son of man'. Over 90 times. 

The Son of Man is a spirit of heaven that was to serve as a mediator between God

and man before the fall, one of many roles the Son of God took upon Himself by the

Incarnation. If you go back and read the OP, you will find a carefully prepared review

of the Gospel of John showing every place where the Lord refers to Himself as the Son

of God, and where the Son of Man. The purpose was not to break Messiah in pieces or

divide as you suggested and declared a heresy. The point is that the titles aren't

irrelevant. This is not plug and play, there are very specific reasons why the Son of

God took on the role of the Son of Man in His Incarnation and refers to Himself in those narratives. To fulfill all righteousness!

Our Father ordained that much of what Messiah would accomplish, He must do as a

man, to glorify the Son of man, as stated in John 12:23 and 13:31. He is crowned

with many crowns!, and wears them as both Son of God , and Son of man.

For example, He will sit in Judgment of mankind, not as Son of God, which He

certainly could, regardless if that had occurred to you. He judges as Son of Man

as ordained, for He has also, until that day, taken on the role of High Priest of

our profession, who ever lives to make intercession for us. Again, we are told 

exactly why in Hebrews.

2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being [j]tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 

What has been thoroughly reviewed is not heresy, more a lack of due diligence on

your part. You saw the title of the thread, knew some things from school, and rushed

to share your "graduate degree knowledge", while "calling out" members as heretics.

Or do you think you can call someone's statement a heresy and not be calling them a

heretic? Thank God I missed out on the dogmatic indoctrination's of a seminary.

I had to learn things the easy, graceful way. I ask. I spend hours of devotional time

without textbooks or commentaries, and certainly not internet sources. My Bible 

is always the topic of conversations with the Lord, Daily. Including this morning.

I have been informed that I post too much. And yet, there are many who do so. The 

real insecurity, is that in my threads I teach. What I receive from the Lord,  I share

with His Body faithfully. Many like to challenge me, "who is this guy who teaches like

someone who has authority". When you hear His Voice you act, you speak with

authority, or you disobey. This is not the Way. Read the OP first, then share what 

the Spirit is saying to you through the verses cited. If there is disagreement, we can

discuss, ON TOPIC, which is established in post #1, not the title, or where you choose

to join the conversation.

All we do is for one purpose. to know Him, to recognize His Voice. This is the Way.

Daniel's vision of Messiah, as Son of Man enthroned is now fulfilled, undivided

from the Son of God, seated at the right hand of the Father. This is eternal life.

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, 

and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

It appears to me the narrative in Ezekiel 2, is the Spirit of God entered Ezekiel and God spoke to the Son of man simultaneously, lifting and speaking at the same time. like helping someone up off the ground.

The sign could also include the created man in the likeness and image of God telling him to stand.

Edited December 31, 2022 by BeyondET

[Jaydub]

I think Matthew does something really cool concerning this subject in Matthew chapter 8

He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.

27The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!”

The very next thing that happens in verse 29, just two verses later two demon possessed men are yelling what do you want with us Son of God

“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?

Matthew ends the calming of the sea with the apostles asking a question, what kind of man is this? then 2 verses later  the demons know who he is and give us one of his titles, son of God

Matthew then brings us to the paralyzed man, who Jesus tells him your sins are forgiven

At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?

6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”

Here we see another part of the apostles question answered, Jesus Identifies himself as the son of man

 and so that everyone knows this title belongs to him, he forgives and heals                          

psalm 103:3 who forgives all our sins and heals all your diseases 

Still in the same chapter, Jesus comes upon 2 blind men who cry out Son of David

27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!

Ironically, Matthew here is showing us that Two blind men are the first to see that Jesus is the Son of David

Back to the apostles question what kind of man is this?

The Son of God

The Son of Man

The Son of David

That's cool stuff to me