A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[Goat]

Of course, you forgot that you just might be worshipping a false god. After all, it was written that 'God is not a man, that he should lie, and god is not the son of man, that he shoudl repent'. According to some, that means that the son of man is not god. Worshipping a false god is idoltry.

First of all, it would be correct to say that Jesus is deity incarnated in a human body. He is not "man" in the complete species sense of the intended meaning of that scripture.

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.” Also, Rashi understood Daniel 7:13-14 to be Messianic, so the "son of man" must be one amazing individual in his thinking.

In addition, at the time Numbers 23:19 was written, God had not yet become man (Christ), so the statement certainly does not preclude a future incarnation.

Well, it is true then, and it is true for all time. God is not a man, and God is not the son of man. That is my belief. That is what the Tanakh says. and 7:13-14 says 'Like" the son of man. SO, when has Jesus been refered to as 'Like the son of man'???

See what I wrote above.

Yes, and what you wrote has no sense to it. It answers nothing. It claims nothing. In some places, you claim that "Christ laid the foundation of the world", and therefore what is written before doesn't change. IN this one, you claim 'Christ wasn't born yet'. You change your tune, depending on what dance you want to dance.

Double standard.. so what you write is meaningless.

[Easyrider]

Yes, and what you wrote has no sense to it. It answers nothing. It claims nothing.

Hogwash. It busts your argument wide open.

In some places, you claim that "Christ laid the foundation of the world", and therefore what is written before doesn't change. IN this one, you claim 'Christ wasn't born yet'. You change your tune, depending on what dance you want to dance.

That's your twisted spin. I've always claimed that Christ is the eternal God, and that eventually in time he incarnated. Let that sink in for awhile so you don't make the same mistakes again in trying to represent my views.

so what you write is meaningless.

I think one day you'll find to your chagrin that you should have been listening, rather than denying.

[Goat]

Yes, and what you wrote has no sense to it. It answers nothing. It claims nothing.

Hogwash. It busts your argument wide open.

That is your claim. However, it is certainly not convincing to me. It makes no sense what so ever. Somehow, I don't think you think things through.

In some places, you claim that "Christ laid the foundation of the world", and therefore what is written before doesn't change. IN this one, you claim 'Christ wasn't born yet'. You change your tune, depending on what dance you want to dance.

That's your twisted spin. I've always claimed that Christ is the eternal God, and that eventually in time he incarnated. Let that sink in for awhile so you don't make the same mistakes again in trying to represent my views.

But, you see, if 'Christ is the eternal god', he wouldn't have made that mistake and caused that line to be written, according to a lot of your theology. This particular point you wish to avoid, so you make the opposite claim. That is a big double standard. It is taking the opposite line of argument , because to accept your usual line of argument would mean your beliefs are wrong. This is just the plain old 'doublethink' of Orwell's 1984 book.

so what you write is meaningless.

I think one day you'll find to your chagrin that you should have been listening, rather than denying.

Ah. You run out of things to counter what I say, so you go to the 'just wait till your father gets home' threat. It does not concern me at all. Retreating to threats does show the weakness of your position though. This is particularly true when you can't back up the reality behind the threats. I have my faith in God. It just accepts the reality the Jesus , or 'Christ' in your terminology is not god.

[Easyrider]

But, you see, if 'Christ is the eternal god', he wouldn't have made that mistake and caused that line to be written, according to a lot of your theology. This particular point you wish to avoid, so you make the opposite claim. That is a big double standard. It is taking the opposite line of argument , because to accept your usual line of argument would mean your beliefs are wrong. This is just the plain old 'doublethink' of Orwell's 1984 book.

No, the scripture isn't a mistake, your interpretation of it is. Which is further compounded by your mistake about Jesus not being divine. For more on why you're mistaken read the following:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... ot_man.htm

[Goat]

But, you see, if 'Christ is the eternal god', he wouldn't have made that mistake and caused that line to be written, according to a lot of your theology. This particular point you wish to avoid, so you make the opposite claim. That is a big double standard. It is taking the opposite line of argument , because to accept your usual line of argument would mean your beliefs are wrong. This is just the plain old 'doublethink' of Orwell's 1984 book.

No, the scripture isn't a mistake, your interpretation of it is. Which is further compounded by your mistake about Jesus not being divine. For more on why you're mistaken read the following:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... ot_man.htm

do you ever use your own words?? Do you actually READ what you claim. The apologetic nature of 'answering islam' is
makes it's explanation irrelevant. Besides, it is totally ignoring Mal 3:6, which says
or I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

This means that God does not change. God is not a man, nor will he change into being a man.

Hosea 11.9 repeats the same truth.
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

And also Ezekiel 28:2 indeed repeats that God is not a man.

Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Eternal God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:


It is a repetitive warning, not to worship a man who claims to be a god. The nature of God is unchanging. Therefore, to the Jewish eyes, claiming Jesus is God is against the Tankah.

[Easyrider]

But, you see, if 'Christ is the eternal god', he wouldn't have made that mistake and caused that line to be written, according to a lot of your theology. This particular point you wish to avoid, so you make the opposite claim. That is a big double standard. It is taking the opposite line of argument , because to accept your usual line of argument would mean your beliefs are wrong. This is just the plain old 'doublethink' of Orwell's 1984 book.

No, the scripture isn't a mistake, your interpretation of it is. Which is further compounded by your mistake about Jesus not being divine. For more on why you're mistaken read the following:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... ot_man.htm

do you ever use your own words?? Do you actually READ what you claim. The apologetic nature of 'answering islam' is
makes it's explanation irrelevant. Besides, it is totally ignoring Mal 3:6, which says
or I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

This means that God does not change. God is not a man, nor will he change into being a man.

Hosea 11.9 repeats the same truth.
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

And also Ezekiel 28:2 indeed repeats that God is not a man.

Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Eternal God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:


It is a repetitive warning, not to worship a man who claims to be a god. The nature of God is unchanging. Therefore, to the Jewish eyes, claiming Jesus is God is against the Tankah.

I don't give any credence to your interpretations. They've already been busted.

Had you paid attention to the evidence presented you would have seen that there already were theophanies of God as man in the Old Testament, including this one:

Other references to God manifesting in human form include:

"So Jacob was left alone, and A MAN wrestled with him till daybreak. When THE MAN saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with THE MAN. Then THE MAN said, ‘Let me go, for it is daybreak.’ But Jacob replied, ‘I will not let you go unless you bless me.’ THE MAN asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Jacob,’ he answered. Then THE MAN said, ‘Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.’ Jacob said, ‘Please tell me your name.’ But he replied, ‘Why do you ask my name?’ Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, ‘It is because I SAW GOD FACE TO FACE, and yet my life was spared.’" Genesis 32:24-30

You also might want to study on the other such occurrences. God did not change. He often appeared as man in the OT.

Got anything better?

[Cathar1950]

Hogwash. It busts your argument wide open.

Could you explain to me what argument you busted wide open and how?
You seem to say that often and I have yet to see your victory.

That's your twisted spin. I've always claimed that Christ is the eternal God, and that eventually in time he incarnated. Let that sink in for awhile so you don't make the same mistakes again in trying to represent my views.

I don’t think we have a hard time understanding you. I see claiming Jesus the man as eternal God and preexisting as almost idolatry. You don’t even have a good grasp of the trinity as a historical understanding of Jesus as the son.

I think one day you'll find to your chagrin that you should have been listening, rather than denying.

I guess you can always dream.

I don't give any credence to your interpretations. They've already been busted.

Again you brag with out cause. It seems we have an inconsistant bible record. No one has seen God and you claim he is a man. He is called a man of war and said not to be like man. Maybe you have a poor interpretaion?

[Easyrider]

Hogwash. It busts your argument wide open.

Could you explain to me what argument you busted wide open and how?
You seem to say that often and I have yet to see your victory.

That's your twisted spin. I've always claimed that Christ is the eternal God, and that eventually in time he incarnated. Let that sink in for awhile so you don't make the same mistakes again in trying to represent my views.

I don’t think we have a hard time understanding you. I see claiming Jesus the man as eternal God and preexisting as almost idolatry. You don’t even have a good grasp of the trinity as a historical understanding of Jesus as the son.

I think one day you'll find to your chagrin that you should have been listening, rather than denying.

I guess you can always dream.

I don't give any credence to your interpretations. They've already been busted.

Again you brag with out cause. It seems we have an inconsistant bible record. No one has seen God and you claim he is a man. He is called a man of war and said not to be like man. Maybe you have a poor interpretaion?

Looks like you also need to study up more on the deity of Christ in both the Old and New Testaments.

And here's some more for you:

The Angel of the Lord

Jesus is the same God who gave the Ten Commandments to Moses. In the Burning Bush episode it was "THE Angel of the Lord" who spoke with Moses. "Angel" in that passage can certainly mean messenger (as opposed to a strict angel) since the exact same Hebrew word is used as messenger in Malachi 3:1 ("Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty."

Here, the messenger is the Lord they are seeking who will come to the temple, which is also a Messianic passage.

"The testimony of the early Fathers on the theophanies of Christ in the Old Testament is full and conclusive.

Justin Martyr declared: “Our Christ conversed with Moses out of the bush, in the appearance of fire. And Moses received great strength from Christ, who spake to him in the appearance of fire.”

Irenaeus wrote: “The Scripture is full of the Son of God’s appearing: sometimes to talk and eat with Abraham, at other times to instruct Noah about the measures of the ark; at another time to seek Adam; at another time to bring down judgment upon Sodom; then again, to direct Jacob in the way; and again, to converse with Moses out of the bush.”

Tertullian stated, “It was the Son who judged men from the beginning, destroying that lofty tower, and confounding their languages, punishing the whole world with a flood of waters, and raining fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord pouring it down from the Lord: for he always descended to hold converse with men, from Adam even to the patriarchs and prophets, in visions, in dreams, in mirrors, in dark sentences, always preparing his way from the beginning: neither was it possible, that God who conversed with men upon earth, could be any other than that Word which was to be made flesh.”

Quotations from Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, I, 501,502. Watson also cites Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, the synod of Antioch, Cyprian, Hilary, St. Basil, and others as holding the same viewpoint of theophanies of Christ in the Old Testament.

Judges 13:20-22
20 For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the ANGEL of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground.
21 Now the ANGEL of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the ANGEL of the LORD.
22 So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God."

Zechariah 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before THE angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"
3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 THE Angel (of the Lord) said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes."
Then he (The Angel of the Lord) said to Joshua, "See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you."

Since only the Lord God can take away sin, the example is clear.

http://preceptaustin.org/angel_of_the_lord.htm

Jesus is God!

[Goat]

But, you see, if 'Christ is the eternal god', he wouldn't have made that mistake and caused that line to be written, according to a lot of your theology. This particular point you wish to avoid, so you make the opposite claim. That is a big double standard. It is taking the opposite line of argument , because to accept your usual line of argument would mean your beliefs are wrong. This is just the plain old 'doublethink' of Orwell's 1984 book.

No, the scripture isn't a mistake, your interpretation of it is. Which is further compounded by your mistake about Jesus not being divine. For more on why you're mistaken read the following:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... ot_man.htm

do you ever use your own words?? Do you actually READ what you claim. The apologetic nature of 'answering islam' is
makes it's explanation irrelevant. Besides, it is totally ignoring Mal 3:6, which says
or I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

This means that God does not change. God is not a man, nor will he change into being a man.

Hosea 11.9 repeats the same truth.
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

And also Ezekiel 28:2 indeed repeats that God is not a man.

Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Eternal God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:


It is a repetitive warning, not to worship a man who claims to be a god. The nature of God is unchanging. Therefore, to the Jewish eyes, claiming Jesus is God is against the Tankah.

I don't give any credence to your interpretations. They've already been busted.

Had you paid attention to the evidence presented you would have seen that there already were theophanies of God as man in the Old Testament, including this one:

Other references to God manifesting in human form include:

"So Jacob was left alone, and A MAN wrestled with him till daybreak. When THE MAN saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with THE MAN. Then THE MAN said, ‘Let me go, for it is daybreak.’ But Jacob replied, ‘I will not let you go unless you bless me.’ THE MAN asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Jacob,’ he answered. Then THE MAN said, ‘Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.’ Jacob said, ‘Please tell me your name.’ But he replied, ‘Why do you ask my name?’ Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, ‘It is because I SAW GOD FACE TO FACE, and yet my life was spared.’" Genesis 32:24-30

You also might want to study on the other such occurrences. God did not change. He often appeared as man in the OT.

Got anything better?

I don't need to. Your claims of 'Already busted' are just that. .. claims without merit. Do you have something better
to 'bust' my cliams? None of your "busting" addressed my points.

Do you actually read the web pages your reference? If you did, you would realise that your web pages do not address my points.

[FiredUp4jesus]

But, you see, if 'Christ is the eternal god', he wouldn't have made that mistake and caused that line to be written, according to a lot of your theology. This particular point you wish to avoid, so you make the opposite claim. That is a big double standard. It is taking the opposite line of argument , because to accept your usual line of argument would mean your beliefs are wrong. This is just the plain old 'doublethink' of Orwell's 1984 book.

No, the scripture isn't a mistake, your interpretation of it is. Which is further compounded by your mistake about Jesus not being divine. For more on why you're mistaken read the following:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... ot_man.htm

do you ever use your own words?? Do you actually READ what you claim. The apologetic nature of 'answering islam' is
makes it's explanation irrelevant. Besides, it is totally ignoring Mal 3:6, which says
or I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

This means that God does not change. God is not a man, nor will he change into being a man.

Hosea 11.9 repeats the same truth.
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

And also Ezekiel 28:2 indeed repeats that God is not a man.

Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Eternal God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:


It is a repetitive warning, not to worship a man who claims to be a god. The nature of God is unchanging. Therefore, to the Jewish eyes, claiming Jesus is God is against the Tankah.

I don't give any credence to your interpretations. They've already been busted.

Had you paid attention to the evidence presented you would have seen that there already were theophanies of God as man in the Old Testament, including this one:

Other references to God manifesting in human form include:

"So Jacob was left alone, and A MAN wrestled with him till daybreak. When THE MAN saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with THE MAN. Then THE MAN said, ‘Let me go, for it is daybreak.’ But Jacob replied, ‘I will not let you go unless you bless me.’ THE MAN asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Jacob,’ he answered. Then THE MAN said, ‘Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.’ Jacob said, ‘Please tell me your name.’ But he replied, ‘Why do you ask my name?’ Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, ‘It is because I SAW GOD FACE TO FACE, and yet my life was spared.’" Genesis 32:24-30

You also might want to study on the other such occurrences. God did not change. He often appeared as man in the OT.

Got anything better?

I don't need to. Your claims of 'Already busted' are just that. .. claims without merit. Do you have something better
to 'bust' my cliams? None of your "busting" addressed my points.

Do you actually read the web pages your reference? If you did, you would realise that your web pages do not address my points.

Actually, he just backed up his assertions with scripture refferences from the old testament. The case of Jacob is a pretty clear indication of the preincarnate Christ.

You also assert that Jews would not worship Christ as God. Have you forgotten that ALL of the original believers were Jewish?