Jesus the Man Before John !

[RandyK]

if you believed Moses and Paul you would know that man was formed from the ground and is called man before he became a living man.

And that matters why? God certainly anticipated what He was going to create before He created him!

 

[LeviR]

And that matters why? God certainly anticipated what He was going to create before He created him!

If God has an image of an elephant, he would form an elephant. It would be an elephant. If God decides to breathe the breath of life into the elephant, the elephant would become a living soul according to scripture.

 

[RandyK]

If God has an image of an elephant, he would form an elephant. It would be an elephant. If God decides to breathe the breath of life into the elephant, the elephant would become a living soul according to scripture.

You did to take a course in logic. That is non sequitur. An elephant does not become a "living soul" just because God decides to breathe life into the elephant! What does that even mean? You use unrealistic examples to prove what, that God can make an elephant into a human soul?

 

[LeviR]

You did to take a course in logic. That is non sequitur. An elephant does not become a "living soul" just because God decides to breathe life into the elephant! What does that even mean? You use unrealistic examples to prove what, that God can make an elephant into a human soul?

You need to look at the scripture and see what and who is called a living soul. Check the Greek because translators change words.
Just to give a quick example. Where it’s said “dead body” it means “dead soul”. But more specifically check out what is said of animals. It’s all true.

 

[RandyK]

You need to look at the scripture and see what and who is called a living soul. Check the Greek because translators change words.
Just to give a quick example. Where it’s said “dead body” it means “dead soul”. But more specifically check out what is said of animals. It’s all true.

I don't have a problem using the word "soul." What I am concerned about is the context in which a word is being used. When we conflate a "living soul" with a "human soul" by comparing elephants to humans, the meaning of the word is being confused.

As you know, words have more than one meaning. Context is king. Let's use the word's meaning as it is being used, rather than create an entire doctrine out of a single application of a word?

 

[LeviR]

I don't have a problem using the word "soul." What I am concerned about is the context in which a word is being used. When we conflate a "living soul" with a "human soul" by comparing elephants to humans, the meaning of the word is being confused.

As you know, words have more than one meaning. Context is king. Let's use the word's meaning as it is being used, rather than create an entire doctrine out of a single application of a word?

Ecc 3:17 - I said in my heart,

“God shall judge the righteous and the wicked,
For a time there for every purpose and for every work.”

Ecc 3:18 - I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are animals.”

Ecc 3:19 - For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all vanity.

Ecc 3:20 - All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust.

Ecc 3:21 - Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?

Ecc 3:22 - So I perceived that nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for that his heritage. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?


When it’s said “the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward” the word translated as spirit is the same word that was just translated as “breath”. “They all have one breath”.

The reason the breath of man goes upward is because it was said “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked”.
The animals are not judged.
After God restores the breath to man, he is judged.

 

[Free]

It would be very easy to say God has no body like man. But nowhere in Scripture does anyone say anything like that.
In fact, what is said in Ex 33 is that no man can see God and live.
That would not be said unless God did have a body, and to see Him (His face) would cause instant death.

No. That's reading too much into things. God is spirit. That's all the Bible says and we shouldn't be making up anything beyond that.

People bring their own philosophy into the Scripture. Things they learned from other philosophers. They find a few text and use them as “proof” to teach what they think.
There is no text that says God does not have a body. But many that do.
The philosophers bring their philosophy with them and say “Spirt” as it refers to God’s nature and that of angels means “immaterial”.
Spirit, when it refers to God’s nature, the nature of Jesus, and the nature of those raised when he returns is Spirit body.
A spiritual body is a body that never dies. It is a body like God and Jesus and the angels who all never die.

And . . . there you go bringing your own philosophy into the Scriptures.

RandyK

A main reason people reject what the Bible says about God and angels having a body is because they believe demons are angels.
There is no text that says demons are angels. And neither is there any text that says Satan is an angel.
It’s all made up bs.

No, it's because the Bible doesn't say that they have bodies. We shouldn't go beyond Scripture and bring our own philosophy into it.

See what happens when you're off on something as central as the deity of Christ? It tends to lead to all kinds of other errors regarding God.

 

[Free]

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for that, but I don't agree with it because it isn't solid enough. I don't believe Jesus literally pre-existed and he's a glorified man foreordained and predestined in God's foreknowledge.

Jesus the man did not preexist, but the Son of God did, being true deity and one with the Father. There is substantial evidence for that.

 

[LeviR]

Jesus the man did not preexist, but the Son of God did, being true deity and one with the Father. There is substantial evidence for that.

Jesus is not ashamed to call all God’s children brethren because he is one of them. Is he your brother?

 

[RandyK]

If God has an image of an elephant, he would form an elephant. It would be an elephant. If God decides to breathe the breath of life into the elephant, the elephant would become a living soul according to scripture.

I agree that an elephant has a life force within it, giving it a "personality," if you will? But I do not agree that an elephant has a life force with it, giving it a *human soul.* An elephant "soul" and a human "soul" are quite different, one being made in the Image of God, and one not.

So what are you even trying to argue here? You're trying to prove that an elephant and a human have a life force within them? Of course they do! We all know that!

 

[LeviR]

I agree that an elephant has a life force within it, giving it a "personality," if you will? But I do not agree that an elephant has a life force with it, giving it a *human soul.* An elephant "soul" and a human "soul" are quite different, one being made in the Image of God, and one not.

So what are you even trying to argue here? You're trying to prove that an elephant and a human have a life force within them? Of course they do! We all know that!

The life force given to the man of dust made in God’s image is the breath of life. It is the breath of life that animates him. The man is not given a soul, he becomes a soul. A living soul. Just like the other animals are living souls.

 

[RandyK]

When it’s said “the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward” the word translated as spirit is the same word that was just translated as “breath”. “They all have one breath”.

The reason the breath of man goes upward is because it was said “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked”.
The animals are not judged.
After God restores the breath to man, he is judged.

I have not a clue what you're trying to prove? We all know that there are things in common between people and beasts. We all know animals, both men and beasts, have a life force within them, animating their bodies. Do we really need to prove this?

We also know that Man, contrary to the beasts, was created in the Image of God, and therefore is responsible to act like God morally. We are obligated to both obey God's word and behave as He would have us to behave. We all know that.

So people are judged, and animals simply die. We all know that. The argument over what a "soul" is seems irrelevant. If you want to call the "life force" that animates a particular created being, man or animal, a "soul," then we've defined the word as such. Where is the problem?

The distinction, then, between a human "soul" and an animal "soul" is moot, since there is no biblical judgment upon animals since they are not made in the image of God. What is your concern?

 

[LeviR]

I have not a clue what you're trying to prove? We all know that there are things in common between people and beasts. We all know animals, both men and beasts, have a life force within them, animating their bodies. Do we really need to prove this?

We also know that Man, contrary to the beasts, was created in the Image of God, and therefore is responsible to act like God morally. We are obligated to both obey God's word and behave as He would have us to behave. We all know that.

So people are judged, and animals simply die. We all know that. The argument over what a "soul" is seems irrelevant. If you want to call the "life force" that animates a particular created being, man or animal, a "soul," then we've defined the word as such. Where is the problem?

The distinction, then, between a human "soul" and an animal "soul" is moot, since there is no biblical judgment upon animals since they are not made in the image of God. What is your concern?

Dude, the soul is not the life force that animates the man. The breath of life does that. The man with the breath of life is a soul. A living soul.
The text can not be more clear.

Gen 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[RandyK]

The life force given to the man of dust made in God’s image is the breath of life. It is the breath of life that animates him. The man is not given a soul, he becomes a soul. A living soul. Just like the other animals are living souls.

What is the difference between being "given a soul" and "becoming a soul," as you see it? How is this relevant? To me, it appears to be what they call, "a distinction without a difference."

 

[RandyK]

Dude, the soul is not the life force that animates the man. The breath of life does that. The man with the breath of life is a soul. A living soul.
The text can not be more clear.

So calling me a "dude" gives your argument greater weight? What is all of your explanations of the terminology about? Everybody knows that to live someone needs to breathe! So what if the "breath of life does that?"

How can you say that "the soul is not the life force that animates the man?" The soul *is* the man that gives the body a life force! It is the "breath of God" combined with the fact God is creating this particular "life force" to be a human soul.

You seem to be wanting to distinguish between "breath" and "soul?" But God used "breath" to create the "soul!" Again, this is a distinction without a difference!

Gen 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[LeviR]

So calling me a "dude" gives your argument greater weight? What is all of your explanations of the terminology about? Everybody knows that to live someone needs to breathe! So what if the "breath of life does that?"

How can you say that "the soul is not the life force that animates the man?" The soul *is* the man that gives the body a life force! It is the "breath of God" combined with the fact God is creating this particular "life force" to be a human soul.

You seem to be wanting to distinguish between "breath" and "soul?" But God used "breath" to create the "soul!" Again, this is a distinction without a difference!

I had a discussion with a Catholic scholar who knew the doctrines of their church like the back of his hand.
I asked him this question: “When was man given an immortal soul?”
He told me man is given an immortal soul at his creation.
As if what is breathed into the man is an immortal soul.
I explained, as I have to you, how the text of both Moses and Paul says that man became a living soul when he was given the breath of life. The man was not given a living soul but became a living soul.
That is what the scripture teaches throughout. From Moses to Paul to Jesus.
However, most of Christianity believes what the RCC says.

 

[RandyK]

I had a discussion with a Catholic scholar who knew the doctrines of their church like the back of his hand.
I asked him this question: “When was man given an immortal soul?”
He told me man is given an immortal soul at his creation.
As if what is breathed into the man is an immortal soul.
I explained, as I have to you, how the text of both Moses and Paul says that man became a living soul when he was given the breath of life. The man was not given a living soul but became a living soul.
That is what the scripture teaches throughout. From Moses to Paul to Jesus.
However, most of Christianity believes what the RCC says.

Again, you seem to be arguing a "distinction without a difference." Who cares if you call it, "given a living soul" or "became a living soul??"

To me it is all the same thing. You refuse to answer the question, so I'm done. Either that, or answer the specific question: what significance does it make in my life whether a Catholic calls it "giving a soul" or you call it "becoming a soul?" It is all the same thing to me, and makes no difference in my life whatsoever!

 

[Runningman]

Jesus the man did not preexist, but the Son of God did, being true deity and one with the Father. There is substantial evidence for that.

Jesus is repeatedly said to be a man from heaven, a man who descended from the sky, a man sent by God, etc. Yes, we can say he's the definitive Son of God, but that really wasn't his exclusive point. One of his points is that you can be the Son of God, too, which is why he proved that saying such is neither blasphemy nor a claim to being God Himself. (See John 10:34-36)

So we can all be elohim:

Psalm 82​

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.​

Also, let's be clear which sense of the word god we are talking about because that word is a lot more nuanced in Hebrew and Greek than it is in English.

 

[Runningman]

It would be very easy to say God has no body like man. But nowhere in Scripture does anyone say anything like that.
In fact, what is said in Ex 33 is that no man can see God and live.
That would not be said unless God did have a body, and to see Him (His face) would cause instant death.

God did say He isn't a man though didn't He? Think Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19. Seems there is a road block to the many became a living soul idea. By soul, do you mean in the sense that man became a living being?

 

[Runningman]

i didn’t say Jesus preexisted. He did not. The angel Michael existed before Jesus. I believe Michael was the angel of God’s presence.
Jesus has been given authority over all of God’s angels, even Michael. Jesus is now the Messenger or Man of God’s presence.
Where it was the angel who had carried the name of the LORD, it is now Jesus.

It's plausible, but they were precisely non-specific about this in Scripture. It may not have been the point they were intending to make upon writing.