Page 1 of 1

Son of Man

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:57 pm
by 21centpilgrim
The Son of Man is the title that Jesus uses the describe himself the most throughout the gospels. This, most scholars agree, is in reference back to Daniel 7. Here is vs 13,14--- I continued watching in the night visions,

and suddenly one like a son of man
was coming with the clouds of heaven.
He approached the Ancient of Days
and was escorted before him.
14
He was given dominion,
and glory, and a kingdom;
so that those of every people,
nation, and language
should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and his kingdom is one
that will not be destroyed.

Is it not clear that the Son of Man is not the Ancient of Days and that Jesus is so exalted not because he is Yahweh but because the Father, the One true God, has given dominion, glory, a kingdom and purposed Christ-the Son of Man- to be worshipped and served?

Re: Son of Man

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:35 am
by darinhouston
It is “not clear”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Son of Man

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:46 pm
by 21centpilgrim
I am sorry Darren. I didn't mean to confuse with leading the sentence that way. Perhaps this will clarify.

We see that the Son of Man was given, did not previously have, certain things by the Ancient of Days for a certain purpose.

We see in the NT a direct parallel in that Jesus was given, did not previously have
-authority over everyone John 17:2, all authority Matt 28:18, authority to judge John 5:27
-a name John 17:11, Phil 2:9, Heb1:4
- appointed the heir of all things Heb. 1:2,

This challenges the common Trinitarian belief that Jesus is 'God from God' and has the same essential essence or 'Godness', because it shows that one person in the Trinity had to give to another person in the trinity certain things that indicate them not being the same in the first place.
It seems much clearer than just one verse where Jesus says that he doesn't know the day or hour.

Son of Man

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:54 pm
by darinhouston
It certainly is consistent with subordinationism and adoptionism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk