vooks:

In Daniel, Jesus had not yet come. Looking like son of man simply means looking like a man. Angels also looked like men in OT so much that Sodom wanted to rape them


Don't confuse the description in Revelation because there we have FURTHER proof that the one who looks like son of man is Jesus while in Daniel we don't

Haha why are you people twisting the Bible to please yourselves? Who has always been called son of man in the Bible? Now because it doesn't favour you now you say the son of man was angel! When you know that John 1:1said it all. Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever. Prophet talked about the future of Christ and you say this? Plz understand the Bible before you say these. God bless you

Empredboy:
Haha why are you people twisting the Bible to please yourselves? Who has always been called son of man in the Bible? Now because it doesn't favour you now you say the son of man was angel! When you know that John 1:1said it all. Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever. Prophet talked about the future of Christ and you say this? Plz understand the Bible before you say these. God bless you

Don't be casual with scriptures. Jesus applied Son of Man to himself. Before he did, no such reference can be inferred to apply to him.
See what son of man means in Old Testament

Numbers 23:19 (KJV)
God is not a man, that he should lie;
neither the son of man, that he should repent:
hath he said, and shall he not do it?
or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Job 25:6 (KJV)
How much less man, that is a worm?
and the son of man, which is a worm?
Psalms 146:3 (KJV)
Put not your trust in princes,
nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Isaiah 56:2 (KJV)
Blessed is the man that doeth this,
and the son of man that layeth hold on it;
that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it,
and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.


Son of man in Old Testament means MAN not Jesus.

Daniel is actually called son of man!
Daniel 8:17 (KJV)
So he came near where I stood: and when he came,
I was afraid, and fell upon my face:
but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man:
for at the time of the end shall be the vision

Do you think Daniel is Jesus?

vooks:

Don't be casual with scriptures. Jesus applied Son of Man to himself. Before he did, no such reference can be inferred to apply to him.
See what son of man means in Old Testament

Numbers 23:19 (KJV)
God is not a man, that he should lie;
neither the son of man, that he should repent:
hath he said, and shall he not do it?
or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Job 25:6 (KJV)
How much less man, that is a worm?
and the son of man, which is a worm?
Psalms 146:3 (KJV)
Put not your trust in princes,
nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Isaiah 56:2 (KJV)
Blessed is the man that doeth this,
and the son of man that layeth hold on it;
that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it,
and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.


Son of man in Old Testament means MAN not Jesus.

Daniel is actually called son of man!
Daniel 8:17 (KJV)
So he came near where I stood: and when he came,
I was afraid, and fell upon my face:
but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man:
for at the time of the end shall be the vision

Do you think Daniel is Jesus?

wo I have hear you. So that's what the Bible means abi? No whahala

Empredboy:
wo I have hear you. So that's what the Bible means abi? No whahala

It is well my brother.
My reading is that there are some references of 'son of man' in Daniel to Jesus Christ but not ALL of them. The particular incidence where Shedrack,Mishek and Abedneggo were cast into the furnace, there is nothing there suggesting Jesus. Am not saying it was not Jesus but there is nothing to lead me to this conclusion. I think an angel came to save them just as an angel freed peter from prison. But the angel was in the form of a man and those outside the furnace saw 4 guys whereas they cast in 3 into the fire.

Example of 'son of man' in Daniel where Jesus is necessarily implied.
Daniel 7:13-14 (KJV)
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. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed

Here, the description of the 'one like the son of man' of receiving dominion, kingdom etc means the person is Jesus Christ. In fact I strongly feel when Jesus called himself Son of Man, He was hinting at being the person identified on this verse. My opinion.

Daniel 3:25 (KJV)
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Nebuchadnezzar says the fourth man was like the son of God. We know Jesus is THE SON OF GOD, but this King was a pagan and we know angels are severally called sons of God in the Old Testament. So it is quite likely he was talking about the fourth man in the furnace being an angel and not Jesus

vooks:

In Daniel, Jesus had not yet come. Looking like son of man simply means looking like a man. Angels also looked like men in OT so much that Sodom wanted to rape them


Don't confuse the description in Revelation because there we have FURTHER proof that the one who looks like son of man is Jesus while in Daniel we don't

why are u contradicting yourself? You said in Daniel Jesus had not come so Daniel didn't know him (that's d meaning) now in that same Daniel u mentioned Jesus as son of man. Is that not double standard. See don't confuse yourself, just read simple good news Bible to understand the word of God written in simple English then you will see what they meant by son of man in the books of the prophet.

vooks:

It is well my brother.
My reading is that there are some references of 'son of man' in Daniel to Jesus Christ but not ALL of them. The particular incidence where Shedrack,Mishek and Abedneggo were cast into the furnace, there is nothing there suggesting Jesus. Am not saying it was not Jesus but there is nothing to lead me to this conclusion. I think an angel came to save them just as an angel freed peter from prison. But the angel was in the form of a man and those outside the furnace saw 4 guys whereas they cast in 3 into the fire.

Example of 'son of man' in Daniel where Jesus is necessarily implied.
Daniel 7:13-14 (KJV)
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. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed

Here, the description of the 'one like the son of man' of receiving dominion, kingdom etc means the person is Jesus Christ. In fact I strongly feel when Jesus called himself Son of Man, He was hinting at being the person identified on this verse. My opinion.

Daniel 3:25 (KJV)
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Nebuchadnezzar says the fourth man was like the son of God. We know Jesus is THE SON OF GOD, but this King was a pagan and we know angels are severally called sons of God in the Old Testament. So it is quite likely he was talking about the fourth man in the furnace being an angel and not Jesus

what does this bible passage means? In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God. John 1:1.

Empredboy:
why are u contradicting yourself? You said in Daniel Jesus had not come so Daniel didn't know him (that's d meaning) now in that same Daniel u mentioned Jesus as son of man. Is that not double standard. See don't confuse yourself, just read simple good news Bible to understand the word of God written in simple English then you will see what they meant by son of man in the books of the prophet.

In Daniel we don't have THE son of man but one who is LIKE the son of man, and as I have shown, son of man in Daniel and all of Old Testament is a reference to human beings, Homo sapiens, men if you wish. Where is the contradiction?

Daniel is also called son of man by an angel. Does that make him Jesus?
Take some comprehension classes Abeg

Empredboy:
what does this bible passage means? In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God. John 1:1.

It means Jesus is God

vooks:

It is well my brother.
My reading is that there are some references of 'son of man' in Daniel to Jesus Christ but not ALL of them. The particular incidence where Shedrack,Mishek and Abedneggo were cast into the furnace, there is nothing there suggesting Jesus. Am not saying it was not Jesus but there is nothing to lead me to this conclusion. I think an angel came to save them just as an angel freed peter from prison. But the angel was in the form of a man and those outside the furnace saw 4 guys whereas they cast in 3 into the fire.

Example of 'son of man' in Daniel where Jesus is necessarily implied.
Daniel 7:13-14 (KJV)
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. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed

Here, the description of the 'one like the son of man' of receiving dominion, kingdom etc means the person is Jesus Christ. In fact I strongly feel when Jesus called himself Son of Man, He was hinting at being the person identified on this verse. My opinion.

Daniel 3:25 (KJV)
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Nebuchadnezzar says the fourth man was like the son of God. We know Jesus is THE SON OF GOD, but this King was a pagan and we know angels are severally called sons of God in the Old Testament. So it is quite likely he was talking about the fourth man in the furnace being an angel and not Jesus

Just read Matthew 15:8. And see where u belong.

Empredboy:
Just read Matthew 15:8. And see where u belong.

Son of man in the Old Testament means MAN. What part of this is too lofty for your cranial contents?

vooks:

It means Jesus is God

No to under 'son of man ' phrase it means Christ has been in existed before the creation of the world and Daniel and other prophets knew him but they do not know his name that was why his names were many. He is called Emmanuel, Prince of peace, and so on. Plz read good news Bible to understand the son of man very well.

Empredboy:
No to under 'son of man ' phrase it means Christ has been in existed before the creation of the world and Daniel and other prophets knew him but they do not know his name that was why his names were many. He is called Emmanuel, Prince of peace, and so on. Plz read good news Bible to understand the son of man very well.

Don't just jump into a thread without understanding what it is all about.

Jesus is ETERNAL, he has existed from eternity. What happened in Nazareth was INCARNATION or the word became flesh. This is not in contention at all.

Fact remains, son of man means man in the Old Testament. Comprende?

simi4me:


Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

This verse was talking about Israel and not marry.

Joseph had a dream which shows the sun, the moon and eleven stars bowing to him, the sun was his father Jacob, the moon his mother and the eleven stars his brothers.

That chapter was talking about a son that will come from Israel; Jesus in this case and how the devil will try to destroy him, and when he did not succeed will then attack the mother in this case Isreal. We are seeing how many nations are trying to destroy Isreal. But God will protect Isreal which makes the devil angry and will attack Christians all over the world. It is happening already.
There are many places in the Bible where the word 'woman' is use to describe Israel. Moreover if it was marry, John would have called her by her name because he already knew her here on earth.

Hosea 4:6 for my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge

John 8:32 and yea shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

I agree with your post except the bold. The same logic you applied to disqualify Mary as the correct interpretation of "the woman" could also be used to disqualify Israel since John also knew Israel by name. "The woman" in the passage could very well mean Israel (but most appropriately the church) and could also mean Mary. Nothing suggests that a passage could not have two very correct meanings or interpretations.

Ichiato:
I agree with your post except the bold. The same logic you applied to disqualify Mary as the correct interpretation of "the woman" could also be used to disqualify Israel since John also knew Israel by name. "The woman" in the passage could very well mean Israel (but most appropriately the church) and could also mean Mary. Nothing suggests that a passage could not have two very correct meanings or interpretations.

Behold a wise Negro!
Thank you for tearing through half logics of Catholicism

vooks:

Behold a wise Negro!
Thank you for tearing through half logics of Catholicism

bro how has my post turn through half the logic of Catholicism

Ichiato:
bro how has my post turn through half the logic of Catholicism

Never mind

Ichiato:
I agree with your post except the bold. The same logic you applied to disqualify Mary as the correct interpretation of "the woman" could also be used to disqualify Israel since John also knew Israel by name. "The woman" in the passage could very well mean Israel (but most appropriately the church) and could also mean Mary. Nothing suggests that a passage could not have two very correct meanings or interpretations.

I think the church is referred to as the bride not woman.

The woman was a riddle, one which i don't think John understood. My thought though.

Empredboy:
since you said that John did not meet Jacob, so I can as well say Paul didn't didn't know Jesus yet we preached Jesus more than the other apostles. Better still read what you said about woman and the 12 Stars.

John lived with Jesus as a disciple and must have spend time with Mary, so it would have been easy for him to see Mary and identify her as Mary instead of saying a woman.

simi4me:


I think the church is referred to as the bride not woman.

The woman was a riddle, one which i don't think John understood. My thought though.

Did the passage we are trying to decipher mention bride? If the the church was referred to as bride in other passages does that mean it has to always be referred to as such? What makes you feel John doesn't understand the meaning?
Apocalyptic writings or visions are meant to have hidden meanings, meanings which are meant to be uncovered. Google the meaning of apocalypse and see. So even if John saw Mary or Israel or whoever, whatever he saw should have a hidden meanings to be uncovered. You can't expect an apocalyptic writing to contain litral meanings. Like if John meant Mary then he could have mentioned Mary directly. If this was so then the book wouldn't be called apocalypse to start with.

Once an argument resorts to slander and unreasonable comments about the Apostles that followed Jesus directly, the argument doesn't make any more sense.

How can you say John didn't understand what he was seeing? John the Beloved? That's an insult. Is this not one of the same apostles Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to directly and you're saying he didn't understand?


Fear GOD o.

Jolliano:
Once an argument resorts to slander and unreasonable comments about the Apostles that followed Jesus directly, the argument doesn't make any more sense.

How can you say John didn't understand what he was seeing? John the Beloved? That's an insult. Is this not one of the same apostles Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to directly and you're saying he didn't understand?


Fear GOD o.

Agreed

vooks:


Saul was condemned for contacting a dead Samuel. Why would a Catholic contact a dead Paul and pretend it is different?

1 Chronicles 10:13 English Standard Version (ESV)

13 So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance.

because catholics do not consult mediums seeking guidiance. We do not practice necromancy (divining using d dead), instead we pray in d body of Christ. It is funny d new generation church who have little knowledge of what d early church practice will go about confusing themselves. Do urself a favour and read up on d early xtians.

plappville:


The bible didnt teach that the dead can pray. Pray for urself.

so u mean those who are in heaven can't talk to God?

plappville:


@Op, this doctrine of worshipping or honouring the dead is pure paganism. The scripture warns:


Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book

it seems u are quoting d bible for fancy, that passage doesnt concern dis discussion at all. It refers exclusivelx to d thing written in d book of revelation.

Ubenedictus:
because catholics do not consult mediums seeking guidiance. We do not practice necromancy (divining using d dead), instead we pray in d body of Christ. It is funny d new generation church who have little knowledge of what d early church practice will go about confusing themselves. Do urself a favour and read up on d early xtians.

Why was Saul condemned? Going to the witch or attempting to contact Samuel?

Saul erred in attempting to contact a dead Samuel. While alive, he freely engaged him but once dead, it was sin to contact him

Catholicism is recycling long debunked heresy of contacting the dead by pretending that it is fellowship of the body of Christ. Hell is beckoning

Am sure Satan is thoroughly amused at your gullibility.


Now, what is the difference between a Catholic chatting with a dead Paul and a primitive Igbo appeasing his dead grandfather at a shrine?

vooks:


Why was Saul condemned? Going to the witch or attempting to contact Samuel?

Saul erred in attempting to contact a dead Samuel. While alive, he freely engaged him but once dead, it was sin to contact him

Catholicism is recycling long debunked heresy of contacting the dead by pretending that it is fellowship of the body of Christ. Hell is beckoning

Am sure Satan is thoroughly amused at your gullibility.


Now, what is the difference between a Catholic chatting with a dead Paul and a primitive Igbo appeasing his dead grandfather at a shrine?

the bible tell us why it says he broke faith with God by disobeying a command and consulting a medium in search of guidiance, is dat not clear enough? Why are u trying to make d bible say what it doesnt say?

D difference btw d catholic and d other guy is dat one is praying to God in d communion of saints while d other is appeasing a dead man as though d dead is god.

Ubenedictus:
the bible tell us why it says he broke faith with God by disobeying a command and consulting a medium in search of guidiance, is dat not clear enough? Why are u trying to make d bible say what it doesnt say?

D difference btw d catholic and d other guy is dat one is praying to God in d communion of saints while d other is appeasing a dead man as though d dead is god.

Saul sought the services of a dead man just like Catholics do

vooks:

Saul sought the services of a dead man just like Catholics do

lol the bible actually gives d reason. Don't lie on d bible, it say he broke faith wit God by disobeying his command and consulting a medium of guidiance. The bible doesnt say he was condemn for asking angels and saints for prayers or praying in d body of Christ.
Dont insult scriptures.

Ubenedictus:
lol the bible actually gives d reason. Don't lie on d bible, it say he broke faith wit God by disobeying his command and consulting a medium of guidiance. The bible doesnt say he was condemn for asking angels and saints for prayers or praying in d body of Christ.
Dont insult scriptures.

What do you think, had Saul prayed to Samuel, he'd have been cool?

vooks:

Saul sought the services of a dead man just like Catholics do

catholics make discussion with alive men like Jesus did.

MT 17:1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the
light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
MT 17:4 Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters--one for you, one
for Moses and one for Elijah."
MT 17:5 While he was still
speaking, a bright cloud
enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am
well pleased. Listen to him!"

we are simply following Jesus

vooks:


Why was Saul condemned? Going to the witch or attempting to contact Samuel?

Saul erred in attempting to contact a dead Samuel. While alive, he freely engaged him but once dead, it was sin to contact him

Catholicism is recycling long debunked heresy of contacting the dead by pretending that it is fellowship of the body of Christ. Hell is beckoning

Am sure Satan is thoroughly amused at your gullibility.


Now, what is the difference between a Catholic chatting with a dead Paul and a primitive Igbo appeasing his dead grandfather at a shrine?

what is the difference between a catholic chatting with Paul and Jesus chatting with elijah?

Ubenedictus:


what is the difference between a catholic chatting with Paul and Jesus chatting with elijah?

Jesus is God and no Catholic is God. Jesus too received worship yet you can't and not even angels can. In Revelation we have souls of the dead communing with God.

What's your point?