What did Jesus mean when he said this as a man currently on the earth and not in heaven yet.

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Frank Conger, May 30, 2016.

  1. 0
    0
    0
    Frank Conger

    Frank Conger Guest

    In answer Nic·o·deʹmus said to him: “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus replied: “Are you a teacher of Israel and yet do not know these things? 11 Most truly I say to you, what we know we speak, and what we have seen we bear witness to, but you do not receive the witness we give. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you still do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven+ but the one who descended from heaven,+ the Son of man. John 3: 9-13

    What did Jesus mean by this? Remember, he is telling Nicodemus "heavenly things" here. Also remember, Jesus is still on earth and has not been resurrected to heaven yet. With that in mind what did he mean by verse 13? Please put some effort into this, this is heavenly info from the Son of God.

    Frank
     
  2. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Because he had been there previously...
     
  3. 0
    0
    0
    Frank Conger

    Frank Conger Guest

    What is the reasoning that you use to come to that conclusion, Josh? Do you actually beleive that Jesus/Michael had been here before as a man?
     
  4. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    He had been here many times, including in human form, such as while conversing with Daniel. He would have been on earth many times...
     
  5. 0
    0
    0
    Frank Conger

    Frank Conger Guest

    That's very good Josh, but there is more there if you look closely. Again, if you use an interlinier you will see he uses the phrase "Son of the man". In this regard he is not calling himself the son of the man, but someone else. This son of the man "is in heaven" while Jesus is on earth saying these things.

    Frank
     
  6. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    So whom do you surmise Jesus is talking about?
     
  7. 0
    0
    0
    Frank Conger

    Frank Conger Guest

    I think he is talking about at least one other person/being who can be justly termed "the son of the man". But what does that mean if you were a son of the man? Do you agree that this is what Jesus is saying here or are you just playing with me?

    Earlier in the conversation with Nicodemus Jesus says this..."YLT Jn 3:11 'Verily, verily, I say to thee--What we have known we speak, and what we have seen we testify, and our testimony ye do not receive;"

    So, it is clear to me at least that there are more than one "son of the man" and that that term can be used to designate more than just Jesus. So what does it mean if you are said to be "the son of the man"? Is there any significance at all or did Jehovah just get mixed up again with his language like he did in Genesis 1:26-28.

    No one else is interested in this?

    Frank
     
  8. 2,178
    553
    113
    SingleCell

    SingleCell Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    553
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Sciences
    Location:
    Lala Land, Israel
    Interesting point Frank.

    "ascended" is in past-tense, the implication being someone else descended and ascended.

    Enoch maybe? The pre-flood son of man?

    Or maybe Jesus is referencing the Holy Spirit as the "we", and Jesus ascended in a spiritual sense when he was baptized.

    Or perhaps we're just missing some aspect of Jesus' word choice in John 3, a colloquialism, etc.
     
  9. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    To me it's no conspiracy, just as son of The God defines Christ's heavenly origin, so does son of the man. His original origin defined descending from heaven while his being son of Adam makes him the son of man, or son of the man, no difference.

    Jesus was speaking of himself, along with the 80 other times in the Greek scriptures this phrase was used.
     
  10. 0
    0
    0
    Frank Conger

    Frank Conger Guest

    You are almost there Joshua. I did not say there was any conspiracy. The Bible at Genesis 1:26-28 describes the human beings that were created on this earth in two ways, as "man" and as "the man". Just as it is hard for people to see that Jesus was saying (in a cryptic way) that he has been here on earth on at least more than one time, they have a very hard time purging their minds of the things that prejudice them against seeing that the creation of "man" is very different than "the man".

    Maybe this will help. The Bible also calls Jesus the "last Adam". Why the last Adam? Why not the second Adam? Because there have been more than one "Adam" or perfect men who have been here to the earth to help in the accomplishment of Jehovah's will. If Jesus were the only other "Adam" then no matter how many times you refer to an X Adam you would be talking about Jesus. So then, you would only have to call him the second Adam.

    The creation in Genesis 1:26 was a lesson in creation for the angels of God's Holy Spirit. They were set aside by Jehovah from amongst the other angels for a specific purpose (that is the actual definition of Holy) and they are Spirits. By themselves they are holy spirits, but as a group they are the "Holy Spirit". Like the Nation of Israel is simply called Israel. They are a collective of people and the name that God gave them as a collection of his people is "Israel".

    Just as Jehovah teaches us through his word, he was teaching the angels (especially the ones separated into this Holy Spirit) how to create things. They worked along side Jesus and Jehovah in creating everything that Jehovah permitted them to. You don't need a "Master Worker" unless you have other workers under him. It would be silly to call your worker your "foreman" unless he was the foreman of others. So, Genesis 1:26 is Jehovah's account of him teaching his Holy Spirit angels to create.

    "Man", is pre-historic man or pre-Adamic man. They were the children of the angels. Unlike a Master Worker, or Jehovah himself, the angels weren't very good at "creation" in the beginning of "their" creation. Just like you don't put the first model of the car you are making on the market for sale (you have to get the bugs out), the angels made design errors. We can see the different attempts at creation from the fossil and bone record. These were the different design itterations, which accounts for the gaps in the record. They made man and then let him go for a while. They figured out some needed changes and they made them in their next model. They did this all the way up to homo sapien. Man!

    At this point in history, the lesson on creation was over. Jehovah had seen that the angels were quite capable of making "man" and they also showed their ability to improve on their creation through time.

    But it was now time, as reflected in verses 27,28 of Genesis 1 for Jehovah God to take over, to show them "his creation". So that is how the verses describe this creation. This creation is not describes as being created by "us", no, it is said to have been created by Jehovah himself with no one's help.

    "And God went on to create the man in his image,(not in the image of "us") in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.+(not said of the creation in vs. 26) 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth+(no blessing or admonition like this given to the creation of "us") and subdue it,+ and have in subjection+ the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” (Including "man" which you have made).

    In reply Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God;+ 30 for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are as angels in heaven. Matthew 22:29,30

    So, it makes sense that the creation in vs 26 of Genesis is not blessed and told to be fruitful and multiply because they did not reproduce like "the man" would, by sexual intercourse because they were made in the image of the angels and angels don't reproduce that way. And even though there were women and men in this creation they were not technically "male and female" because they either did not have the reproductive gene, or it was shut off.

    But, "the man" was made with the ability to reproduce on their own without help from the angesl like "man" must have had. Therefore, Jehovah could rightly call them "male and female", something he did not do with the creation of "us".

    So, when Jesus or any other perfect human is called "the son of the man" it is referring to the "man" that Jehovah God made by himself in Genesis 1:27,28. But Jesus is not the only "Adam" after adam sinned and died. Jesus though and any other "the man" that would follow him would not be the offspring of post sin Adam, no but they would be Sons of "the man", pre-sin Adam.

    It's interesting that Jesus is symbolically portrayed as the "cover" of the Arc of the Covenant. There are also two other angels that are watching over that Arc. Could they also be "Sons of the man"? Remember, Jesus was the last Adam which could mean that there were others between pre-sin Adam and him.

    Frank
     
    SingleCell likes this.
  11. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Scripture in my opinion isn't a practice in evolutionary explanations. Scripture tends to refer to itself in order to define it's meaning, not a text book of bones in the ground.

    With that said, just because Jesus didn't say something the way we would expect him too, does not mean he meant some hidden Easter egg for us to find. #1, it would be irrelevant to mention another Adam when there would be no further information and there would be no purpose scripturally. Jehovah is not an irrational God, he did not insert frivolous information into scripture.

    Any other forms of life that resembled humans are irrelevant to the theme of the Bible, and as well there is no evidence any other man described as the son of the God existed on earth other then Adam and Jesus. Again, just because something isn't said does not make our beliefs true.

    This is another classic example of over stepping scripture, right along with your belief that each story of the Passover with his disciples discussed a different loaf. Each book discuses the same loaf he broke.

    With all do respect, I'm not along for the ride...
     
  12. 0
    0
    0
    Frank Conger

    Frank Conger Guest

    Nobody said anything about evolution, I was talking about iterative creation and you should be smart enough to understand the difference. As far as Jehovah hiding things in scripture, I beg to differ and so does Proverbs 2. If you can't see the difference in these Passover accounts, you are not even trying. Jehovah is the master of language and he can say five different things with one expression and say them with all the detail that is necessary.


    When evening came,+(start of celebration) he was reclining at the table with the 12 disciples.+ 21 While they were eating, (in process of eating the Passover meal) he said: “Truly I say to you, one of you will betray me.”+ 22 Being very much grieved at this, each and every one began to say to him: “Lord, it is not I, is it?” 23 In reply he said: “The one who dips his hand with me into the bowl is the one who will betray me. Matt. 26

    As they continued eating, ( the Passover meal in process) Jesus took a loaf, and after saying a blessing, he broke it,+ and giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body.”+ 27 And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you,+ 28 for this means my ‘blood+ of the covenant,’+ which is to be poured out in behalf of many+ for forgiveness of sins. Matt. 26 This is the covenant for the faithful, "the many".

    So, this loaf and cup were clearly eaten “during the meal” and this one was for the “many”.


    Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant+ by virtue of my blood,+ which is to be poured out in your behalf.+ Luke 22


    The second mention is after the meal and is “in your behalf”, referring to the members of his bride, NOT for the many. Also, the scripture in Matthew emphasizes that the blood means his blood, here he clearly says that this cup, the wine “represents” his blood. If you knew anything about covenants you would know what the difference is. If Jehovah meant means or represents for both cups, he would have had it written that way. He said it the way he meant it. It is up to you and I and everyone else to figure out why he wrote it that way. But you don’t like mining for silver and gold. It’s hard back breaking work.

    If you keep seeking for it as for silver,+And you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures;+ 5 Then you will understand the fear of Jehovah,+And you will find the knowledge of God. One day, you and I can sit together and reminisce about these times and what we knew, what we didn't and what we thought we knew.

    If your happy, I'm happy! "Don't worry, be happy"

    Frank
     
  13. 2,501
    821
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,501
    Likes Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Having nearly, and possibly still, losing my wife, many other things in this life seem mundane and not worth much. Sort of insignificant. You may not think so, but we are ALL along for the ride.

    Dream Theater - Along For The Ride

     

Share This Page