The Son of Man

Originally posted by Seekerof
Just for clarification Colonel....lawyer=legalities......this subject of Christ and the color he is...is nothing more than legalities...the point I was making 3-4 posts prior to this when I asked, "if Jesus was here today, would "it" be an issue to him?" and you answered yes......legalities buddy.....

regards
seekerof

Legalities? Before when the pic was of Cesare Borgia, the criminal, it was ok. We didn't have to worry. Now, when the TRUTH is coming to light, it has become legalities? (i.e. continue worshipping how you worshipped in the past; worship the criminal).

And I still contend that it wouold be an issue to him by commonsense and Bible verse and you have yet to refute them.



[Edited on 9-10-2003 by Colonel]

[Edited on 9-10-2003 by Colonel]

Here's Cesare Borgias if you don't beleive me. Look familiar?

www.crimelibrary.com...

Now, no one wants too see the pic.
You should. It might just save your soul.

Not in the sense of what color Jesus was Colonel

1) So its ok to worship a fraud, build statues and paint idols to him to the point where you say Jesus and the pic of the fraud and criminal come mind?

2) Its ok to worship a fraud when the Bible specifically says don't worship idols.

This is ok?

When you say Moses came from Egypt you have to remember that Egypt was split into two back then. You had upper and lower Egypt. Joseph and his decsendants came from Lower Egypt which had been slowly unfiltrated by Proto-Hebrews who were probably descendants of the Sumerians. The Bible states that Abraham came from the Sumerian city of Ur.
Sumeria was in Iraq.

Their descendants probably came from the East.

So it is more than likely that Jesus was of Arabic origin rather than being African. All eveidence points to his ancestors coming from the East or possibly the West and not South.

Originally posted by Colonel
It matters because it came from the Catholic Church and if they lied about the painting, what else did they lie about? What else are they hiding?

That's just on one level.

On another level, it matters because the Bible said (which no one has so far refuted):


21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

[Edited on 9-10-2003 by Colonel]

I'm sorry I have read and reread these verses and the only thing they say to me is that foolish men forsake the worship of God in exchange for worshipping false gods represented by statues of earthy men and creatures. If one worships a picture painted by some Catholic, centuries after Jesus was even around, I think that they probably have more issues of faith to deal with than what race God was. I may believe Jesus was purple, but if I believe that he was God's Son, His ethnicity is irrelevant. An artist's depiction of Jesus is just his/her personal impression. It should never be viewed as a factual representation since the artist never met Christ, personally. I have seen some beautiful pictures of a Black Jesus, White Jesus, and Middle Eastern Jesus. This doesn't mean I think any of them are what Jesus actually looked like.

Jesus was a human body inhabited or filled by the Spirit of God, He never said that if you didn't believe in how he looks you wouldn't get into Heaven. It is a very mortal idea that God is any specific race, He is all that was, is and will be. How could we confine or limit him by human traits?

Does your color represent your spirit? I know my spirit doesn't claim any race. It is above petty prejudices, as I imagine, God, in all his forms, is.

Originally posted by jezebel


I'm sorry I have read and reread these verses and the only thing they say to me is that foolish men forsake the worship of God in exchange for worshipping false gods represented by statues of earthy men and creatures. If one worships a picture painted by some Catholic, centuries after Jesus was even around, I think that they probably have more issues of faith to deal with than what race God was. I may believe Jesus was purple, but if I believe that he was God's Son, His ethnicity is irrelevant. An artist's depiction of Jesus is just his/her personal impression. It should never be viewed as a factual representation since the artist never met Christ, personally. I have seen some beautiful pictures of a Black Jesus, White Jesus, and Middle Eastern Jesus. This doesn't mean I think any of them are what Jesus actually looked like.

Jesus was a human body inhabited or filled by the Spirit of God, He never said that if you didn't believe in how he looks you wouldn't get into Heaven. It is a very mortal idea that God is any specific race, He is all that was, is and will be. How could we confine or limit him by human traits?

Does your color represent your spirit? I know my spirit doesn't claim any race. It is above petty prejudices, as I imagine, God, in all his forms, is.

That may be you but, we all know that's not the case worldwide.

1) So its ok to worship a fraud, build statues and paint idols to him to the point where you say Jesus and the pic of the fraud and criminal come mind?

2) Its ok to worship a fraud when the Bible specifically says don't worship idols.

This is ok? This is the issue.

1) So its ok to worship a fraud, build statues and paint idols to him to the point where you say Jesus and the pic of the fraud and criminal come mind?

Or in other words...
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man

Man, religion can be confusing sometimes...

So, to recap, Jesus said that he is Son of Man, and that we should not worship anything or anyone else except ONE GOD, The Creator.
Yet then, a man said that Jesus is Son of God, and that we should worship Jesus as an incarnation of God... or as someone equal to God... which was then accepted by Church as the right way to worship God.

Am I wrong here?

Originally posted by Colonel
1) So its ok to worship a fraud, build statues and paint idols to him to the point where you say Jesus and the pic of the fraud and criminal come mind?

Or in other words...
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man

It's not ok to build statues, idols or pictures to worship of Jesus, Baal, or PeeWee Herman! The point is that the physical body of Jesus was not revealed so we could worship His human form. He became human, so that we could physically interact with Him and so that He could teach us God's message and fulfill His purpose:

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


Incidentally, there is an indication of Jesus' ethnicity in John 4
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

quote]Originally posted by paperclip
So, to recap, Jesus said that he is Son of Man, and that we should not worship anything or anyone else except ONE GOD, The Creator.
Yet then, a man said that Jesus is Son of God, and that we should worship Jesus as an incarnation of God... or as someone equal to God... which was then accepted by Church as the right way to worship God.

Am I wrong here?


Not entirely. Jesus referred to Himself as both the Son of God and Man because he was a human man possessed, in essence, by God the Spirit.

In reference to his physical crucifixion,
John 8
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

In reference to the spiritual presence and power of God as manifest in Jesus,
John 10
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not

For once and for all...it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he is green. It doesn't matter. But it seems to matter alot to you! I'm not sure why...but you're sure start to drag me down with this incessant harping...particularly since there have now been several posters on this thread say: "IT DOESN'T MATTER!" It REALLY doesn't matter.

**TOLTEC** Who's freaking out!?!

Originally posted by jezebel
quote]Originally posted by paperclip
So, to recap, Jesus said that he is Son of Man, and that we should not worship anything or anyone else except ONE GOD, The Creator.
Yet then, a man said that Jesus is Son of God, and that we should worship Jesus as an incarnation of God... or as someone equal to God... which was then accepted by Church as the right way to worship God.

Am I wrong here?

Not entirely. Jesus referred to Himself as both the Son of God and Man because he was a human man possessed, in essence, by God the Spirit.

In reference to his physical crucifixion,
John 8
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

In reference to the spiritual presence and power of God as manifest in Jesus,
John 10
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not




Sorry, I'm having to edit to get this straight!!!

Paperclip, I do not see where you are wrong. I'm not sure that the decision to confuse the issue came from ONE man, but I do not see anything wrong with MOST your statements. The only thing I take issue with is your statement tying that Jesus is the Son of God with he is God...that tends to confuse the issue as much as anything. Those are two separate issues...and as a matter of fact, the "melding" of those two issues is what has led to the confusion we are discussing.

[Edited on 9-10-2003 by Valhall]

Some good points jezebel, with respect to chapter 10 this is when Jesus was stoned for claiming in verse 30 "I and my Father are one." His response in regards to this issue is with regards to the miracles he has preformed thus far, but this is prior to the raising of Lazarus.


With respect to verse 34 as well as several of other references one can get the impression that the terms Son of Man and Son of God are titles. Afforded in those days to persons, in that culture which had certain abilities and or wisdom. Jesus seems to be making clear
that he feels he is deserving of the title to those who do not agree.

Any thoughts?

I and my Father are one should not be taken as Jesus stating that he=God.

Let's reduce this to elementary level:

Toltec stumbles on the 55 gallon drum of "THE Holy Water"....there is no other "THE Holy Water" in the Universe. From this water springs all goodness, all love, all light, all knowledge...For every sip taken by the mortals, another sip appears in the drum...it never decreases and all who sip from it are blessed beyond words.

There sits the 55 gallon drum of THE Holy Water. Since THE Holy Water is so omniscient, it realizes that sitting in a 55 gallon drum is not the most logistical scenario to giving every mortal the chance (their choice) to take a sip. So one morning the resident keeper of THE Holy Water arises to find that THE Holy Water has caused a breech in a seam of the drum...and is filling a jug. Since the drum always replenishes, the jug fills and the drum doesn't empty. The keeper takes a jug full of THE Holy Water and rides to the nearest village and proclaims "Here is the Holy Water!"

He has not lied...it is the Holy Water...it is one with THE Holy Water. There is no way to speak of it, without speaking of THE Holy Water. It is 100% THE Holy Water, but it is NOT 100% of THE Holy Water. It is one with THE Holy Water, but it is not THE Holy Water.

For those far away from THE Holy Water, there is only one way to the benefits of THE Holy Water, to sip of the the Holy Water. From it, they gain all the goodness, all love, all light, all knowledge. the Holy Water never decreases, with each sip it replenishes itself.

The Spirit of Christ is one with God. It is 100% the Spirit of God, but it is not 100% OF the Spirit of God. There is no way to speak of Christ without speaking of God. But all Christ's authority, in his own words, comes from the Father.



[Edited on 9-10-2003 by Valhall]

Vahall one can read with respect to the beliefs of several cultures the thoughts of their prophets and gain the same understanding as one can learn from the Holy Bible.

The term Buddha means Hand of God which in respect to the faith is taken in a literally are you suggesting that they are Ignore-ance (edited)

To be honest have recently posted several parallels, which offer the same conclusion. The truth is the similarities are astounding and with respect to how the membership of each claims that they are different plainly hypocritical.

Each culture presents titles in regards to their prophet and the terms "Son of Man and Son of God' are used in the OT (sons of Gods were the one Enoch was concerned about and why the Flood was alleged to have been caused).

While it�s clear you are convinced and are prepared to support what you believe, despite evidence supportive of an alternative interpretation (which does make sense). My impression is, that given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary justifies reasonable doubt.

Any thoughts?

Yes, my thoughts are that there is just as much evidence to lend "reasonable doubt" toward your position...But you don't seem to see the glass the same way as I. Does that mean you are wrong? or I am right?

Thoughts?

Matthew 9
1. Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town.
2. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
3. 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 so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."
7. And the man got up and went home.
8. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The term "Your sins are forgiven" does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament. This term only appears as statements made by Jesus. Very few people today would realize the purport but in the First Century Jewish culture it meant that Jesus claimed authority equal to God and was claiming to be the Messiah.

For the record am laughing with you not at you. I do not know Vahall but it is an interesting subject to discuss.

For the record you can see an example of the Parallel I presented in my last response in my Blog.

It certainly raises a question with regards to the motivations of our ancestors and does question the efficacy with respect to why things are the way they are.

But in realty the situation does not deny the validity of the faiths from the context of what is fundamental to each.

Please understand, my intent is not to offend but rather to discuss and someone who disagrees with me does not offend me.

Jagd my interpretation of the term Buddha was related to me while in College, it is a title whose translation has several meanings and amongst them is Hand of God. I also had that verified by a Scholar in regards to the Buddhist faith.

Valhall I do not think that the Holy Bible is a "Bad" book to be honest I do recommend everyone read it at least once. But by the same token I also recommend all the books with respect to religion be read. A reason for making such a recommendation is that I have done this myself.

When it comes the issue of the Son of God or Son of Man I do understand how personal it is to you, but I also see how it could be defined as a title.

Any thoughts?