forum.christogenea.org

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this verse.

Anyone got any thoughts on this, how there's two Persons the Son of Man and Ancient of Days?

Rogue wrote:Anyone got any thoughts on this, how there's two Persons the Son of Man and Ancient of Days?

I don't think it's a literal two persons as the language of Daniel is prophetic and figures of speech. It must be alluding to the Father and the Son, which is not validating a trinitarian godhead, but rather the thrones from which God sits and dispenses justice. Just as He is our Lawgiver, Judge and King, which does not imply three deities, but rather the governmental offices of which His Sovereignty reigns. It is Kingdom language denoting aspects of the divine powers.

Mark

The confusion lies in the translation of the words "son of man". In the original texts, there is NO eth, and there is NO definite article, either in the Masoretic Hebrew or in the Septuagint Greek.

For more information on the grammatical construction I am referencing, see this paper from Clifton:
http://emahiser.christogenea.org/Other%20PDFs/ContextOnTheTermADMAtGen1v26.pdf
Although the paper is written for a different reason, the grammatical concepts do not change.

If the phrase "son of man" were prefixed with the "eth" and the definite article, then it would be referring to a specific individual. THE CERTAIN SON OF MAN

Without the "eth" and the article, it refers to any individual which fits the type. A SON OF MAN.

The phrase "son of man" is often used in Ezekiel. The word of God uses the phrase throughout the prophecy of Ezekiel, to refer to Ezekiel himself!

Therefore the phrase should be "a son of man" and NOT "THE son of man". The translators read what they thought into the passage, and not what it says.

One like A son of enash (mortal man) came to the Ancient of Days.

Kentucky wrote:

Rogue wrote:Anyone got any thoughts on this, how there's two Persons the Son of Man and Ancient of Days?

I don't think it's a literal two persons as the language of Daniel is prophetic and figures of speech. It must be alluding to the Father and the Son, which is not validating a trinitarian godhead, but rather the thrones from which God sits and dispenses justice. Just as He is our Lawgiver, Judge and King, which does not imply three deities, but rather the governmental offices of which His Sovereignty reigns. It is Kingdom language denoting aspects of the divine powers.

Mark

Assuming these were two literal persons, that of "The Father" and whether that of "The Son" or "a Son of Man" (Jesus, I'd presume in both cases) - and depending on how you might define the word 'person', should there necessarily arise any conflict? What about when Christ establishes His Kingdom upon this earth, who will we see at that time? Father or Son? Yahweh or Yahshua?

Cannot Yahweh God be in two places and/or show Himself in two ways at one time? Yahshua Christ was Yahweh in the flesh as a man for over 33 years. How could our God be subjugated to merely being encapsulated/trapped within the physical form of Christ's body and mind? Also, Scripture says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. This does not imply that the Holy Spirit was diminished completely transforming into Jesus. And later, the Spirit is witnessed appearing in the form of a dove descending upon Jesus during His water baptism.

I guess what I'm trying to demonstrate is that Yahweh, Who is Spirit, is not constrained by any particular form that He should not be able to appear however He wishes in whatever form He desires. Even if He decides to manifest within two or more places at the same time, He'd only appear as though He were two distinct beings or entities.

I hope this makes sense. If my train of thought is illogical or unbiblical, let me know.

Hunter wrote:I hope this makes sense. If my train of thought is illogical or unbiblical, let me know.

I think we're on the same page; the Trinity doctrine is man-made. "With God nothing is impossible." Jesus did say, "I and My Father are one."

Mark

Kentucky wrote:

Hunter wrote:I hope this makes sense. If my train of thought is illogical or unbiblical, let me know.

I think we're on the same page; the Trinity doctrine is man-made. "With God nothing is impossible." Jesus did say, "I and My Father are one."

Mark

I grew up with the Trinity Doctrine engrained deep into my mind. Thanks to certain CI brethren here, it no longer remains a huge stumbling block for me.

I forget the word for it, but its when a person tries to hold two or more opposing ideas in their mind at the same time. Trying to rationalize the Trinity Doctrine is another needless, mind-exhausting, torturous affair without end.

I pray others can break free of this particular stinking thinking.

Hunter wrote:I forget the word for it, but its when a person tries to hold two or more opposing ideas in their mind at the same time.

Cognitive dissonance.

Mark

Hunter said

How could our God be subjugated to merely being encapsulated/trapped within the physical form of Christ's body and mind?

Some trooth pastors use an argument similar to this to deny the divinity of Christ, where he says that God could not be encapsulated in the body of Christ, that Christ was 'some of God, but not all of God'. Not that you are saying that at all.

I like how Bill says that Christ is how God represented Himself to men.

Are the clouds of heaven the saints?

Joe wrote:Hunter said

How could our God be subjugated to merely being encapsulated/trapped within the physical form of Christ's body and mind?

Some trooth pastors use an argument similar to this to deny the divinity of Christ, where he says that God could not be encapsulated in the body of Christ, that Christ was 'some of God, but not all of God'. Not that you are saying that at all.

I like how Bill says that Christ is how God represented Himself to men.

Are the clouds of heaven the saints?

Just so its perfectly clear, I do NOT deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Please, ponder these verses below. Note the words I've underlined and emboldened.

Mat 8:23 And when he [Jesus] was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
Mat 8:24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
Mat 8:25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.

Scripture says that Yahshua was awakened from sleep. Wouldn't He be unconscious while He slept? Did He sleep like you and me, as mortal men normally sleep? Yet, was Yahweh, who is Spirit, asleep at the same time? That'd be a ridiculous assertion. Does it say anywhere in scripture that Yahweh (apart from Christ) has ever slept, sleeps or requires it? No! Should this cause us any dilemma? No!

How about when Christ was in Mary's womb, was God trapped in there, unable to see or hear, with no ability to oversee the universe? Again, should this cause any dilemma? No!

Now, do you get what I meant when I said, "How could our God be subjugated to merely being encapsulated/trapped within the physical form of Christ's body and mind?"?