₦airaland Forum

DaddyCoool:
OK, you two, how many times in the Bible was God called "a MAN of war"?

And can you two interprete this passage below.
Son of man and Ancient of days

.

Daniel 7:13-14 shows a prophetic vision of the Messiah, as the "Son of Man" approaching God, the Father (the Ancient of Days) to receive eternal authority, glory, and a kingdom. His reign is universal, inclusive of all nations and languages, and everlasting.
.
We know Daniel 7:13-14 refers to a messianic figure, not just a human being, for several reasons:

1. The "Son of Man" is given everlasting dominion, glory, and a universal kingdom—attributes that go beyond any human ruler and are reserved for a divine figure (see Psalm 145:13).



2. In Jewish thought, coming "with the clouds of heaven" symbolizes divine presence and authority (Exodus 19:9; Psalm 104:3). This imagery aligns the "Son of Man" with God’s heavenly power.



3. Jesus explicitly identified Himself as the "Son of Man" (e.g., Matthew 24:30, Mark 14:62), claiming this passage as a prophecy about His divine mission and kingdom. His audience recognized this as a messianic claim. The Pharisees and Jewish leaders literally wanted to kill him for claiming to be the Son of man, accusing him of blasphemy.

gohf:
intelligent one

Num.23.19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,...

Hosea 11:9 I am God not a man

But your god is a man or he became a man?

Meanwhile
Please where was Son of Man spoken about repeatedly in the old testament

I know Ezekiel being referred to as son of man repeatedly though

Let me address your Objection:

In Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9, the Bible says that God is not a man, emphasizing that God's nature is distinct from humanity. These verses stress God's transcendence and immensity, but they don’t contradict the idea that God can manifest Himself in a human form.


Take your time, research for yourself. It doesn't contradict it.

gohf:
intelligent one

Num.23.19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,...

Hosea 11:9 I am God not a man

But your god is a man or he became a man?

Meanwhile
Please where was Son of Man spoken about repeatedly in the old testament

I know Ezekiel being referred to as son of man repeatedly though

I'm referring to Daniel 7:13-14: The "Son of Man" title takes on a messianic and divine connotation in Daniel 7:

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven... And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him."
In this passage, "Son of Man" is associated with a figure who is given eternal dominion and worshiped by all people. This is the messianic title that Jesus often uses for Himself in the Gospels, aligning Himself with the divine figure in Daniel 7.


The Son of man coming on the clouds is similar to the coming on the clouds in Revelation 1:4-8



In fact here's the whole thing, see if it's not similar with Daniel 7:13-14

Revelation 1:4-8 (NIV)

> 4 John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father— to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all peoples on earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Nachmonides:
God can have an essence because He is a person, or rather, God's essence is what defines Him as a person.


So some his attributes include being eternal, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful; all these define what it means to be God.


A person refers to an individual being that possesses certain attributes typically associated with humanity or a [b]higher level [/b]of self-awareness, rationality, and personal identity.

It cannot be lower, insects are lower, insects are not considered persons because they do not have the qualities or attributes typically associated with personhood (self-awareness, rationality, moral agency, etc.).


So, personhood is understood from the framework mankind has set for himself.
Mankind's Framework: The framework for defining personhood is often anthropocentric—meaning it is based on what humans know, experience, and value. Since insects or other animals don't meet the specific criteria that humans use (such as rationality, self-reflection, moral judgment), they are not seen as persons in this framework.

God can simply not make sense to mankind unless he comes to mankind through mankind's framework.


One man's language framework is Hebrew, another is Greek. For the Hebrew to understand the Greek, the Greek will have to be filtered through to the Hebrew language for understanding.

In the process, certain things will miss; tone, passion... Anyways that's for another day.


Basically, mankind formed what a person should be, not God.

So we are using this framework to understand the writings of John.

If you say we are not using God's word.
God's word was written in a language framework as well. Languages formed by men. Why? — God cannot make sense to us unless we understand him, a lower being cannot understand a higher being unless the higher being descends, or the higher being elevates the lower being through a framework.

Nachmonides:
Basically the above is what it means to be God


The essence of God defines these amongst many others:

His uniqueness: God is unlike any other being.

His perfection: God lacks nothing and is complete in Himself.

His worthiness: God alone deserves worship because of His divine essence.


Essence is seen when God acts, as we God do, we begin to see his essence, so in that he comes in the person of Jesus, as flesh, we see the essence of;

His humility in choosing such a humble beginning

His sovereignty in orchestrating the salvation of the world

His transcendence and mystery in doing something beyond human understanding

His faithfulness to His promises and His grace in bringing salvation

His compassion and identification with humanity’s weakness and suffering

God can have an essence because He is a person, or rather, God's essence is what defines Him as a person.


So some his attributes include being eternal, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful; all these define what it means to be God.


A person refers to an individual being that possesses certain attributes typically associated with humanity or a higher level of self-awareness, rationality, and personal identity.

It cannot be lower, insects are lower, insects are not considered persons because they do not have the qualities or attributes typically associated with personhood (self-awareness, rationality, moral agency, etc.).


So, personhood is understood from the framework mankind has set for himself.
Mankind's Framework: The framework for defining personhood is often anthropocentric—meaning it is based on what humans know, experience, and value. Since insects or other animals don't meet the specific criteria that humans use (such as rationality, self-reflection, moral judgment), they are not seen as persons in this framework.

Nachmonides:
Yes, one has seen God (the Son, or the word), and yes his Identity (or his person, the Son), but one hasn't seen the person, the Father.

If one has seen God, one has seen his person or identity, but not his essence; his nature.



Let me relate it to humans.
The essence of humans refers to the fundamental nature or defining attributes of what it means to be human. In philosophical, theological, and biological contexts.

So these attributes are like, Rationality, Freewill, Moral Capacity, Consciousness, Creativity, Adaptability, e.t c

These attributes are what it means to be human. That is our essence.

It is more abstract that we can only know exist when man acts.

So the essence of God refers to His fundamental nature or "what God is"—the qualities and attributes that define Him as God, some are:

One: God is indivisible and singular in essence, meaning there is only one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4, "The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Infinite: God’s nature is limitless, not constrained by space, time, or any boundaries.

Eternal: God’s essence exists outside of time—He has no beginning or end. (Psalm 90:2, "From everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Immutable: God’s essence does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change."

Basically the above is what it means to be God


The essence of God defines these amongst many others:

His uniqueness: God is unlike any other being.

His perfection: God lacks nothing and is complete in Himself.

His worthiness: God alone deserves worship because of His divine essence.


Essence is seen when God acts, as we God do, we begin to see his essence, so in that he comes in the person of Jesus, as flesh, we see the essence of;

His humility in choosing such a humble beginning

His sovereignty in orchestrating the salvation of the world

His transcendence and mystery in doing something beyond human understanding

His faithfulness to His promises and His grace in bringing salvation

His compassion and identification with humanity’s weakness and suffering

Truthseeker10:
You said two persons have one identity Which is God.
So if one of the person has been seen, does that not mean that one has seen the identity which is God? So how can John 1:18 be correct?

Yes, one has seen God (the Son, or the word), and yes his Identity (or his person, the Son), but one hasn't seen the person, the Father.

If one has seen God, one has seen his person or identity, but not his essence; his nature.



Let me relate it to humans.
The essence of humans refers to the fundamental nature or defining attributes of what it means to be human. In philosophical, theological, and biological contexts.

So these attributes are like, Rationality, Freewill, Moral Capacity, Consciousness, Creativity, Adaptability, e.t c

These attributes are what it means to be human. That is our essence.

It is more abstract that we can only know exist when man acts.

So the essence of God refers to His fundamental nature or "what God is"—the qualities and attributes that define Him as God, some are:

One: God is indivisible and singular in essence, meaning there is only one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4, "The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Infinite: God’s nature is limitless, not constrained by space, time, or any boundaries.

Eternal: God’s essence exists outside of time—He has no beginning or end. (Psalm 90:2, "From everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Immutable: God’s essence does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change."

Truthseeker10:
You are a funny man...did you not just say that the father and son have the same identity which is God?

Have people seen God according to John 1:18? Yes or no? Please don't add father to that verse.

No one has seen God at any time according to John 1:18, we are to ask, which person?, since he linked 2 persons to the God identity.

gohf:
I can see that you copied from the truth I taught you yesterday but for false reasons. I guess that's why demons want to hear God's word so as to know what to corrupt.

So your god changed and became flesh so that he can die, then he changed again and became god, thought you were trying to associate him with the true Jesus who is the same son of man, yesterday, today, and forever the Messiah the anointed king whose reign as no end.

Don't be a fool.

The son of man is a term used frequently in the old testament that's why he picked that narrative for himself to say he is that son of man that was spoken of. He is God, he is the son of man.


And no, God did not change to not being God, he was 100% God and 100% man in Jesus.

Truthseeker10:
Na wa for you oo....John 1:1 says the father is God and the Son is God.

If both is linked to the same identity, we could right say that John 1:18 is wrong since Jesus and the Father has the same identity which is God. So people have actually seen God.

Yes, haha. That's exactly it.

People have seen God, but not God the father.
That's the Submission of John, God became flesh and died for man.

Truthseeker10:
So how come Jesus as a God is equal to God the Father that he was with? Why is one called God the Father?

Exactly, why the need to identify God as God, the father?

Is there some God, the son?

That's exactly what John is saying, yes there is.

gohf:
did Nachmonides just ask you
"Yes or No", why are you boxing up God to your ideas.

That guy parrots his own imagination as God's word without remorse yet he questions another. Yet again trying to remove a speck while he has a log in his eye

I have no problem with a yes or no question.

It's what was attached to the yes or no that seemed unintelligent.

Truthseeker10:
So how many God is John 1:1 talking about?

One God, he literally uses the same word for God and links 2 persons to the identity.

2 distinct persons.

gohf:
Before you talk about what others read, you really need to read properly or at least remember what you read

This is what he wrote
"When Thomas one of his faithful friends insisted on seeing him in the former body the angel (resurrection Jesus) materialized into what Thomas need to see of course he couldn't have been going everywhere with holes in his hands."

So what are you agreeing you here and writing
"Alright, I agree that his friends couldn't recognize him upon his resurrection, and that he was not with his former body anymore, because that's what the scriptures teach.

Instead of you to admit your mistake, and make correction, you are here putting someone else down to justify yourself. Honestly you don't have to be pathetic and proud, still trying to be hypocritical to remove speck when there is a log in your eye.

I said I had stated the things I agreed with him.

I didn't say I agreed with him on Thomas, or some angel theory.

Truthseeker10:
You yourself have said that Jesus was not the God that he was with. So how many God is John 1:1 talking about?

I said he was not the Father.

Truthseeker10:
So the word and the father are not the same right, They are two Gods? Yes or no?

"Yes or No", why are you boxing up God to your ideas.

Nachmonides:
John says that Jesus was God. Not another God.

Why? — because God the father says in scriptures that there is none beside him, no one like him, and his people even say that he is one, singular.

Truthseeker10:
So what John 1:1 is saying is that Jesus was not the God that he was with, meaning that Jesus was another God? Yes or no?

John says that Jesus was God. Not another God.

Nachmonides:
Jesus cannot be the same God, the father because John clearly tells us Jesus was with God.

John says Jesus is God, God, the father is as well.

And yet he says God (Jesus, the word) was with God.

Does " with " suggest that Jesus is the Father?

Nachmonides:
Jesus cannot be the same God, the father because John clearly tells us Jesus was with God.

John says Jesus is God, God, the father is as well.

And yet he says God (Jesus, the word) was with God.

Does with suggest that Jesus is the Father?

Nachmonides:
If John says that Jesus (the word, who he calls God) was with God.


Is he not saying that there are 2 persons?

Jesus cannot be the same God, the father because John clearly tells us Jesus was with God.

Truthseeker10:
I'm not a fan of long epistles..but I appreciate your effort.
So you are saying that The God that Jesus was with in John 1:1 refers to the father and that Jesus is that same God that is the Father According to John 1:1 that no one has seen?

Which God is John saying that Jesus was in John 1:1, is it the same God that he was with or Another God?

If John says that Jesus (the word, who he calls God) was with God.


Is he not saying that there are 2 persons?

Truthseeker10:
If John 1:1 states that Jesus is the Almighty God, Who is the God that no man has seen at any time according to John 1:18?

King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him

Amazing question:


Something fishy is going on right?, either John is crazy telling us in V.1 that Jesus who we can see is God, and in V.18 he says no one has seen God at any time, or he's trying to tell us something .
Let's look at it.


To understand John 1:18 in its context, we need to consider the surrounding verses in John 1:1–18, often called the Prologue of John's Gospel. This passage introduces themes of Jesus' divinity, His role as the Word, and His mission to reveal God.

John 1:1–5: Jesus as the Word (Logos)

Verse 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This establishes Jesus (the Word) as both distinct from God the Father ("with God" and fully divine ("was God". It sets the foundation for understanding that Jesus is God made manifest.

When we see "In the beginning", John does not have the beginning of the world in mind. He is referring to the book of Genesis, Beresheet, the word itself means the beginnings.

John wasn't in the beginning for him to know in the beginning was the word. So he must have read Genesis and he is drawing his theology (his study of God) from it and attaching it to Jesus.

Verse 3: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Jesus, as the Creator, has the same divine authority and power as God the Father.

Verse 4–5: "In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
Jesus brings spiritual life and revelation, making the invisible God known. Why this conclusion about light? — V.6 tells us about the Light in clearer terms. Again, John is drawing his theology from Genesis, that's where we see the mention of light being called to shine.


John 1:6–13: The Role of John the Baptist and Rejection of the Word

Verses 6–8: John the Baptist is introduced as a witness, not the Light, but pointing to the Light (Jesus).
This underscores that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God, not a mere prophet.

Verse 10–11: The world did not recognize Jesus despite His divine nature.
This highlights humanity's spiritual blindness to God's revelation.


John 1:14–17: The Word Becomes Flesh

Verse 14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
This is pivotal: Jesus, the Word, became human, allowing people to see and interact with God’s glory in a way never before possible.

Verse 16–17: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
While the law revealed God’s will, Jesus provides the fullest revelation of God’s character—grace and truth.


John 1:18: Jesus Reveals the Father

"No man hath seen God at any time": This refers to God the Father, who is invisible and transcendent (Exodus 33:20, 1 Timothy 6:16).

"The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him": Jesus, who is in an eternal, intimate relationship with the Father ("in the bosom of the Father" ), is uniquely qualified to make Him known. The word "declared" (Greek: exēgeomai) means to explain or reveal fully.

V.18 can only be referring to God the Father because he connects the fact that no man has seen God (the father, who is spirit) at any time to how Jesus is the one that reveals him. The revelation of Jesus is essentially the revelation of God the Father, by a logical conclusion, because without the revelation of Jesus, the Father wouldn't have been revealed.


It can mean one thing therefore, John tells us about the word who was God in V.1, became flesh in V.14 and he says that word is the only begotten of the Father; the Son. And he tells us in V.18 that God has not been seen at any time, and that the Son or the word who he has been talking about has revealed him. We see the introduction of 2 persons tagged God therefore in VV.1-18.

Contextual Flow

1. Verse 1 introduces Jesus as God and Creator.


2. Verse 14 explains that Jesus, though divine, became flesh, making God's glory visible.


3. Verse 18 concludes that no one has ever seen God the Father directly, but Jesus, the Son, reveals Him perfectly.

Come to a conclusion yourself based on what is written. What do you see?

MaxInDHouse:
The first tool Satan used against the TRUTH is DISAGREEMENT, as long as two don't agree it'll be impossible for them to work together as a team that's why Jesus said where two or three gather in his name he will come into their midst. Matthew 18:20

Most religionists claiming Christians don't know the indepth meaning of this statement if Jesus comes into a gathering what is he coming to do?

What was his mission in the first century before gathering a group of faithful people?

Well the answer is simple Jesus' presence will help his group to WORK as a team in doing God's will!

So when individuals separately thinks they are Christians yet failed to work together in doing the work Jesus assigned to his disciples surely they are deceiving themselves because Jesus can't be in a gathering that's not doing God's will.

Therefore the only weapon Satan is using to make people seek their own glory instead of working towards God's will is disagreement.

Let them keep on disagreeing among themselves yet claiming they are for Jesus who is the Prince of Peace! Isaiah 9:6 compare to Luke 10:6

Hello and thank you for your responses, I have a question or two for you:

The same I asked Gohf, which have since seen silence. I perceive you're a JW like Gohf.

1, What does your bible say about John 1:1 in comparison to the original greek, and what can you conclude from careful reading of VV.1-14

2, What do you think about the connection between verse 16 of Revelation 22 and the preceding verses?

If V.16 begins with “I, Jesus, sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches..."

Which things, the ones said before or after (5 last verses)?


If God is the one coming in V.12, and then V.13 says he is the Alpha and the Omega, as Gohf has opined that God (the Father) is the one speaking in VV.12-15.

What do you have to say about Revelation 1:4-8 where we see almost the same texts of VV.12-15.
Who is the one coming that every eye will see?—which then follows with the "I am the Alpha and the Omega" statement.

gohf:
Asking you who died on the cross was it a man or God? You can't answer directly after proclaiming a lie that suggests God is man and man is God. Instead of believing that Jesus is the son of God, the son of man and he is and was and will never be God

Gohf, I asked you 2 questions earlier which you have for some reasons known to you failed to respond to:


1, What does your bible say about John 1:1 in comparison to the original greek, and what can you conclude from careful reading of VV.1-14

2, What do you think about the connection between verse 16 of Revelation 22 and the preceding verses?

If V.16 begins with “I, Jesus, sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches..."

Which things, the ones said before or after (5 last verses)?


If God is the one coming in V.12, and then V.13 says he is the Alpha and the Omega, as you have opined that God (the Father) is the one speaking in VV.12-15.

What do you have to say about Revelation 1:4-8 where we see almost the same texts of VV.12-15.
Who is the one coming that every eye will see?—which then follows with the "I am the Alpha and the Omega" statement.

gohf:
this one you will just leave what is most important and starting arguing cross or pole, so that's what is more important? Then you went on to agree that Jesus changed his body.

Yes, Jesus' body was now a resurrected one, not the former limited body of his.
It now has no limitations like the former. Yet, he is the same Jesus.

That's your problem, you read meaning into my words instead of asking whether I agree to a changing of physical features, meaning Jesus now resembled another human being entirely. No, that's not what I meant, I mean his limited body was changed to a resurrected one, yet same Jesus. Now without limitations.

gohf:
someone told you nonsense and you are believing it, maybe it is also true his body was stolen

I have stated the things I agreed with him.

gohf:
someone told you nonsense and you are believing it, maybe it is also true his body was stolen

His body is now resurrected, not the former or non-resurrected body.

genitori:
You should always try to please only yourself; humans are not satiable.

Satiable?, if humans are not satiable, how can one truly please oneself then?— The devil is in the fine print.

MaxInDHouse:
Thanks for the response!

Jesus was impaled not on a cross but a stake and the nail wounds doesn't mean it's three because those impaled had their hands nailed on top of the other just as their feet so both hands as well as feet will have the prints.

Thank you!

The picture you posted, are you basing your argument on it? Or you're basing your argument on the word used in the Greek|Latin in the bible? — or are you using it to support the Greek|Latin word used?

If it's the picture in that piece of literature, I can bring my own as well and base my argument.

MaxInDHouse:
The eyewitness accounts states that Jesus' friends couldn't recognize him at his resurrection which means he was not with his former body anymore.

Thanks!

Alright, I agree that his friends couldn't recognize him upon his resurrection, and that he was not with his former body anymore, because that's what the scriptures teach.

MaxInDHouse:
Thanks for the response!

Jesus was impaled not on a cross but a stake and the nail wounds doesn't mean it's three because those impaled had their hands nailed on top of the other just as their feet so both hands as well as feet will have the prints.

Thank you!

It's fine, I disagree though.

The Romans themselves in their literature, have the crux commissa for criminals as the most likely model, even in the Roman Catholic Church writings, they have the T shaped cross depicted of Jesus' Crucifixion. The very Roman church that wrote, translated scriptures into the Latin Vulgate.