John 20:28 and the Trinity

[glorydaz]

Do you not accept Jesus as the ultimate author of the scriptures?

Except I am not especially Trinitarian. I am "Jesus is our LORD and God" without all of the Trinity baggage and "persons" and "this is not that" and the "the Father does not feel passion" etc. I still don't know what Apple is trying to prove and if you like we could pull in a self-alleged Trinitarian to give a third opinion.

I don't think that Apple7 believes that Jesus wrote the scripture. Which is strange enough, but the truly ironic part is that you (as a Unitarian) are claiming that Jesus wrote that scripture. But in this case I agree with you.

Here we have an example of the blind leading the blind.

Non-trinitarians who have no concept of the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, therefore they cannot even figure out who wrote Scripture. Nary a verse...just a presumption.

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, I do not endorse your assessment of prophecy. Could you explain your thoughts on Psalm 22. Firstly how would you explain the following:
Psalm 22:1 (KJV) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
Matthew 27:46 (KJV): And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
I will give my view and you may give a different perspective. This is a prophecy not only of the actual words of Jesus on the cross, but his thoughts of utter despair when facing his circumstances. God knew in advance, and I do not believe that Jesus is quoting, but the outpouring of his feelings at the time. I also suggest that Psalm 22 depicts a process of despair, then reassurance, and then rejoicing as is the pattern in many Psalms. I also suggest that this process precludes your suggestion that Jesus is the author of Psalm 22.

It would be a prophecy pointing to that future event, and Jesus quotes the passage for our benefit, not his. The reason why the prophecy is accurate beyond the quotation of the words themselves is because the writer of the prophecy knew exactly how he would feel in that situation... because he who wrote that prophecy is the same as he who would be experiencing those events.

God’s foreknowledge does not in any way influence the decisions of the individual. Jesus knew that Peter would deny him thrice, before the rooster crowed. Peter reacted according to his feelings and the circumstances at that time even though Jesus had warned him. Nevertheless Jesus knew that this would happen even down to the finest detail.

In the case of Peter once that prophecy was made it was beyond his escaping... unless you want to assume that God makes prophecies that he is unable to fulfill. Yet we humans are stubborn creatures, and we often will do the opposite of what we are told just to be stubborn. So follow this for a moment,

First, is it reasonable to assume that God and Jesus were able to read Peter's heart at that moment, to know how he would react if tested those three times before the morning, and to know what his response would be? (I would be surprised at a "no" answer, but I ask anyway.)

Second, if Peter's heart was such that it would deny thrice before the rooster crowed twice, would it be unreasonable for God to seal his will so that he would act the same even though he had been told what would happen? Or to otherwise influence him in such a way as to keep the prophecy "fair" such as making him forget the prophecy for the time being? God hardened Pharaoh's heart before for a purpose, would it not be fitting to lock Peter's heart for the short time also for a purpose?

How is this different from God knowing the words of Jesus in Psalm 22:1?

Kind regards
Trevor

Psalm 22:1 isn't even in the same comparison, because Jesus was a willing actor in that scene, whereas Peter was less than willing. Regardless of an open or closed view of time and reality, Jesus would have known the relevance of the scripture ahead of time and known the words that he had already selected to say. There are multiple plausible explanations for Psalm 22;1 and as such it doesn't help as much as a test case.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

In the case of Peter once that prophecy was made it was beyond his escaping... unless you want to assume that God makes prophecies that he is unable to fulfill. Yet we humans are stubborn creatures, and we often will do the opposite of what we are told just to be stubborn.

I appreciate your perspective, but I would like to leave this subject by stating that I believe that God has foreknowledge, but this does not compel the person to act. Peter had freewill. So Jesus knew that Peter would gain an entrance into the Judgement Hall and that he would be asked about his association with Jesus three times.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[john w]

Greetings again john w, The Passover Lamb was the required animal to be slain, eaten and the blood on the lintels so that the firstborn in each house would not be slain, but the Angel of death would pass over that particular house. Real events, real teaching pointing forward to the sacrifice of Christ.
It is good that you share this, indicating that it was not just Calvary, but I suggest that all of these sacrifices pointed forward to Jesus’ whole life, suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection.

=misdirection, changing your argument, moving the goal posts.


Slower:The passover lamb did not represent "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin offering victim. The commemorative sacrifice of Passover lambs in the temple each year was not considered as an atonement for sin.

I suggest that you have not explained the following:
Isaiah 53:10 (KJV): Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

The following is some indication of the meaning of the burnt offering:
Mark 12:28–33 (KJV): 28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Kind regards
Trevor

Yes, I did. You just missed it, due to 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV, 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV. That is the lot of a bible corrector/mystic/agnostic, and Christ rejector, such as yourself.

And stuff your insincere "greetings" spam-I do not "greet" wolves. I hunt them down.

 

[john w]

.

Quit spamming me messages, you obsessed troll.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again john w,

=misdirection, changing your argument, moving the goal posts.
Slower:The passover lamb did not represent "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin offering victim. The commemorative sacrifice of Passover lambs in the temple each year was not considered as an atonement for sin.

There is more to the teaching of the Passover than just the annual commemoration. The slaying of the Passover lamb was part of the birth of the nation.
Revelation 13:8 (KJV): And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
This could be understood in three ways, as the lamb slain to provide the skins to cover Adam and Eve after they had sinned, or the Passoveer lamb slain at the foundation of the nation of Israel, or that the death and resurrection of the Lamb for the salvation of fallen man was anticipated before the creation.

Yes, I did. You just missed it, due to 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV, 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV. That is the lot of a bible corrector/mystic/agnostic, and Christ rejector, such as yourself.
And stuff your insincere "greetings" spam-I do not "greet" wolves. I hunt them down.

I imagine that you must have been the school bully and possibly your avatar confirms this except you have cut off your clenched fist. Now that you have left school you are most probably the street or district bully, and the church bully, and now you are acting like the forum bully. Nevertheless you have potential, but it is running in the wrong direction at the moment. Remember Paul at the stoning of Stephen.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[oatmeal]

I'm stopping you there because your logical is immediately in error. "Son of God" is obviously a title with meaning and this is beyond dispute. This does not mean that everything written in the bible is a metaphor and means the opposite of what it says.

"My Lord and my God" is not spoken in the context of a metaphor, and no indication is given that it should be understood that Thomas meant anything other than exactly what that sounds like. That's hardly blurred at all, you would be hard pressed to find a more direct statement.

Actually, since John 20:31 makes perfectly clear what the intent of recording John 20:28 is all about.

We can logically conclude that "my lord and my god" is not literal, it is in fact not a metaphor but the figure of speech hediadys, two nouns used but one is used to augment the other. In other words, Thomas' words would be intended to mean "my godly lord" which indeed is what he is.


It is a sad statement that many people use the word "metaphor" as referring to figures of speech in general, when literally a metaphor is only one of over two hundred different figures of speech.

Interesting though, there is one figure of speech where a part of something is used to refer the whole thing, so from a figurative point of view, the word "metaphor" could be a figurative reference to all figures of speech.

Since, trinitarians refer to Jesus as "God the Son" but that phrase is never used in scripture, but rather Jesus is referred to about or over times as the son of God, I will believe that Jesus is not "God the Son" but rather the son of God

The I don't have to make up fantasies to explain scripture

 

[john w]

Greetings again john w,There is more to the teaching of the Passover than just the annual commemoration. The slaying of the Passover lamb was part of the birth of the nation.
Revelation 13:8 (KJV): And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
This could be understood in three ways, as the lamb slain to provide the skins to cover Adam and Eve after they had sinned, or the Passoveer lamb slain at the foundation of the nation of Israel, or that the death and resurrection of the Lamb for the salvation of fallen man was anticipated before the creation.
I imagine that you must have been the school bully and possibly your avatar confirms this except you have cut off your clenched fist. Now that you have left school you are most probably the street or district bully, and the church bully, and now you are acting like the forum bully. Nevertheless you have potential, but it is running in the wrong direction at the moment. Remember Paul at the stoning of Stephen.

Kind regards
Trevor

=misdirection, changing your argument, moving the goal posts.
Slower:The passover lamb did not represent "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin offering victim. The commemorative sacrifice of Passover lambs in the temple each year was not considered as an atonement for sin.


You're a habitual liar. What is your motivation for lying?

 

[Rosenritter]

Actually, since John 20:31 makes perfectly clear what the intent of recording John 20:28 is all about.

We can logically conclude that "my lord and my god" is not literal, it is in fact not a metaphor but the figure of speech hediadys, two nouns used but one is used to augment the other. In other words, Thomas' words would be intended to mean "my godly lord" which indeed is what he is.

Your logic is in error. "My Lord and my God" is still completely understandable. Your mistake is in the exercise of circular logic. You have a (false) definition of "Son of God" and you're imposing your definition. The "Son of God" means "my Lord and my God" just as John introduced the gospel, "In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God."

It is a sad statement that many people use the word "metaphor" as referring to figures of speech in general, when literally a metaphor is only one of over two hundred different figures of speech.

Then consider the literal word "metaphor" to be a synedoche that refers to the overarching group of hundreds of figures of speech. It's easier to say one word "metaphor" than "a figure of speech" and who has time to memorize 200 different terms?

Interesting though, there is one figure of speech where a part of something is used to refer the whole thing, so from a figurative point of view, the word "metaphor" could be a figurative reference to all figures of speech.

Somehow I didn't see that before I wrote the comment. So I left it there for your amusement. It is interesting that we both responded to your statement in the same way.

Since, trinitarians refer to Jesus as "God the Son" but that phrase is never used in scripture, but rather Jesus is referred to about or over times as the son of God, I will believe that Jesus is not "God the Son" but rather the son of God

The I don't have to make up fantasies to explain scripture

What does that straw man argument above have to do with anything?

 

[oatmeal]

Your logic is in error. "My Lord and my God" is still completely understandable. Your mistake is in the exercise of circular logic. You have a (false) definition of "Son of God" and you're imposing your definition. The "Son of God" means "my Lord and my God" just as John introduced the gospel, "In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God."



Then consider the literal word "metaphor" to be a synedoche that refers to the overarching group of hundreds of figures of speech. It's easier to say one word "metaphor" than "a figure of speech" and who has time to memorize 200 different terms?



Somehow I didn't see that before I wrote the comment. So I left it there for your amusement. It is interesting that we both responded to your statement in the same way.



What does that straw man argument above have to do with anything?

Son of God literally means, "son of God"

It does not mean "the son is God" nor "God the Son"

It means that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

You are the son of your father, you are not your father, You are derived from him and your mother.

You have similarities, but you are not your father,

You are "son of father" which is far different in meaning from "father the son"

When you decide that language is designed to communicate thoughts and concepts and things with some degree of accuracy then it will become clearer to you.

 

[john w]

Son of God literally means, "son of God"

It does not mean "the son is God" nor "God the Son"

It means that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

What a mess.

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?



Your argument:Son of man literally means, "son of man."It does not mean "the son is a man," nor "Man the Son."It means that Jesus Christ is the son of man, but not a man.
____________

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You: Well, uh, urr..


You are clueless as to the various biblical meanings of "son," "father"-the context tells us its implications.


You would "argue": "Well, if we have 'God the Father,' then we must have 'God the Mother,' as he must have a wife, you see, well, uh, urr....."


=grade school "logic."

 

[NWL]

I'll do it the easy way and post scholarly translations of the verse in question that shows them understanding "diabolos" to be referring to "the Devil" and not a devil. I'll leave it up to you to show me scholarly work where their exegesis shows that "the(singular) devil" relates to demons here in the verse. Good luck.

New International Version
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

Chucky did not teach you very well.

Slavishly hiding behind someone else's rendering, of which you have no way to defend, only makes witnesses look silly...

A cheap way to say that you can't or won't make a reply.

 

[NWL]

Show us scriptural evidence that suggest only Jesus "as God" could pay the ransom?

Jesus’ blood ransomed ‘elytrōthēte’ (completed action) us from godless behavior passed down by our forefathers. 1 Peter 1.18

Jesus gave ‘edōken’ (completed action) Himself and ransomed ‘lytrōsētai’ (completed action) us from Lawlessness. Titus 2.14

Now what, chap...?

Now what??? What excatly did you show or prove? I asked to verses that support you idea that Jesus needed to be "God" for his ransom to be acceptable, all you've done is show to verses about Jesus setting us free from sin? How does this prove Jesus needed to be God.

(1 Peter 1:18) "..For you know that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were set free from your futile way of life handed down to you by your forefathers.."

(Titus 2:14) "..[Jesus] who gave himself for us to set us free from every sort of lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people who are his own special possession, zealous for fine works.."

Where in the above does it express the idea that only Jesus "as God" could be a ransom for mankind?

A poor attempt of an answer.

I've already answered your question, the ransom is paid to God.

Not found in scripture.

God does not pay a ransom to God.

God does not pay a ransom to God according to your understanding, Jesus does pay a ransom to God according to scripture.

Who were sin offerings offered to under the law in the OT?

Who was the passover lamb sacrficed to under the law in the OT?

Was Jesus the passover lamb accoridng to scripture? (1 Cor 5:7)

(1 Corinthians 5:7) "..Clear away the old leaven so that you may be a new batch, inasmuch as you are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed.."

How was the law a "shadow of the things to come" when speaking about animal saccrfices as detailed in Hebrews 10:1-5?

(Hebrews 10:1-5) "..For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service once cleansed would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3 On the contrary, these sacrifices are a reminder of sins year after year, 4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away. 5 So when he comes into the world, he says: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me...By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time."

 

[NWL]

A review…

Heb 2.14 - 15

Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might render entirely idle (katargēsē) the one having the power of death, that is, the devil; and might set these free (apallaxē), as many as by fear of death were subject to slavery through all the lifetime to live.

The reader is informed that at Jesus’ death:

• The Devil is rendered entirely idle (katargēsē)
• Because The Devil has been rendered impotent, this then sets people free (apallaxē)
• No mention that The Devil has been defeated, only bound


Compare to where the exact term ‘katargēsē’ is used in 1 Cor…

1 Cor 15.20 - 26

But now Christ has been raised from the dead; He became the firstfruit of those having fallen asleep. For since death is through man, also through a Man is a resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruit; afterward those of Christ at His coming. Then the end, after He delivers the kingdom to The God and Father, after He might render entirely idle (katargēsē) all rule and all authority and power. For it is right for Him to reign until He puts all the hostile ones under His feet; the last hostile thing made to cease is death.


The reader is informed of an ordered sequence of events:

• The First Resurrection: Christ first, then The Righteous at His return (i.e. at the end of His reign)
• Binding of Satan: The Devil (singular) is rendered entirely idle and occurs BEFORE the reign of Christ (i.e. at Jesus’ death upon the Cross)
• Reigning Period: There is a period of Christ reigning (i.e. 1,000 years, etc) until all the enemies (plural, demons) are conquered
• The Second Resurrection: (Second Death – when Satan & death are defeated). This is the end of time – which occurs AFTER Jesus has delivered up the kingdom and AFTER Jesus had first bound Satan.

Again, we can see agreement in other scripture that Satan is first bound at the Cross – which is followed by the ‘1000 year’ reign of Christ, in which The Righteous are allowed to come to Christ without the direct blockage of Satan.

You're using Heb 2:14-15 as proof of your idea here when that is one of the original scripture in question that you have yet to prove fits your interpretation. Once again, nothing in the verse suggest Jesus has brought Satan to nothing in the verse, there is no reason why it cannot be a future event. Moreover, as we are currently discussing, scripture makes clear references to Satan still having power now, you've yet to show a shred of convincing evidence that clearly shows Satan as currently bound or that Satans Demons are the one being spoken of when Satan is mentioned as active post-cross.

I agree with your sequence of events that you mentioned, I deny that we have entered into the period where Satan has been bound.

Once again you've ignored my question again:

"Also you ignored my question in my last post to you that would have answered your confusion if you simply answered the question, If the conquering is regarding the conquering of Satan himself, then why does Jesus say that others will conquer just as he conquered if the conquering(Satan) has already been done?"

 

[NWL]

Once again your clutching at straws and are using your own understanding in translations scripture and ingoring all others scholars understanding of the original languages. Enlighten the people here on TOL of the translation you have used above RBOWMAN, what scholar agrees with the above translations? I've yet to see a single translation that does as you favor the defintions of words to fit your false assertions.

For the purpose of others on this thread this is how most if not all scholars roughly translate Col 2:13-15:

(Colossians 2:13-15) "..Furthermore, though you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of your flesh, God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. 15 He has stripped the governments and the authorities bare and has publicly exhibited them as conquered, leading them in a triumphal procession by means of it.."

Compare the above with Bowmans/apple7 quoted verse in orange and other translations as through the link https://biblehub.com/colossians/2-14.htm Apple7 twists the language to suit his own twisted understanding.

In lieu of repeatedly expressing your disbelief, how about putting your rage-induced reply energy into actually rebutting the point bullets that I already provided for Col 2?

Make Chucky proud.....for once...

Another cheap way to ignore everything I said and reasoned. I was not expressing my disbelief, we both already know this. To recap for others I was expressing that you translated the verse yourself, and did so to deceitfully (compared to all other scholarly work) make it seem like the reference of the "law" in Colossians 2:14 was about Satan himself, changing the "it" in reference to the law being nailed to the cross to "him"(the adversary) being nailed to the cross in an attempt to make it seem like Satan was bound. If I'm wrong then provide us with the translation you used.

It would be foolish of me to try and refute something that has a false premise. Show me a single scholar that agrees that the thing being referenced Colossians 2 is regarding Satan and "him" being nailed to the cross and I'll give an answer. Good luck.

 

[NWL]

Don't run.

Here is a list of points/question you conveniently ignored in your responses to me (and I'm the one who needs to put effort in my replies right? Lol)

1. When is says that Jesus apēlthen/went away does it simply mean that he left the location he was in? Does it have anymore meaning? Answer please.

Matthew 16:4 - "Jesus then left them and apēlthen/went away"

2. Since the Angel apēlthen/went away, does that mean he was bound as you believe Satan was or does it simply mean he left the location, which one is it?

Luke 1:38 - An Angel apēlthen/went away from speaking with Mary

3. Since this apparently proves your point, namely, that when "Satan apēlthen/went away" according to Matthew 13:25 that what it really means is that 'Satan was bound', are you saying that Joseph was bound the same way Satan was bound?

4. Who is the identity of the king of the locusts as mentioned in Rev 9:11, the one named Abandon?

5. Angelic beings and even Jesus himself are compared to as Lions, if you don't believe referring to them as having attributes of Lions infers they are Satan or Demons, based on the argument of consistency how does your argument about the beast in Revelation being demons stand?

6. Once again, did Demons occupy flesh by means of possession or did they occupy flesh the same way Jesus "became flesh" (John 1:14)? Answer please.

7. How does Rev 20 show ONLY God has the power to bind Satan. Once again instead of giving a informed response you post a chapter, how does that answer my question? I might as well answer Genesis Chapter 1 - Revelation 22 in every instance a defense is called upon me, how foolish. show us where the bibles the teaches that only God has the power to bind Satan? And don't forget to show me the post number where you've "apparently" answered this

8. Where did the magic pratciing priest get their power from to turn staffs into snakes, water into blood and call frogs from the wilderness (Exo 7:8-11, 7:20-22, 8:5-7)

 

[Apple7]

Now what??? What excatly did you show or prove? I asked to verses that support you idea that Jesus needed to be "God" for his ransom to be acceptable, all you've done is show to verses about Jesus setting us free from sin? How does this prove Jesus needed to be God.


(Titus 2:14) "..[Jesus] who gave himself for us to set us free from every sort of lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people who are his own special possession, zealous for fine works.."

Where in the above does it express the idea that only Jesus "as God" could be a ransom for mankind?

Chucky never used this thing called CONTEXT....and, neither do you.

Observe what you and Chucky missed...


Looking for the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself on our behalf, "that He might ransom us from all lawlessness and purify a special people for Himself," zealous of good works. Titus 2.13 - 14


Now...

That wasn't so hard, was it ol' chap...?

 

[Apple7]

 

[oatmeal]

What a mess.

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You:"Son of man literally means, "son of man."It does not mean "the son is a man," nor "Man the Son."It means that Jesus Christ is the son of man, but not a man.
____________

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You: Well, uh, urr..


You are clueless as to the various biblical meanings of "son," "father"-the context tells us its implications.


You would "argue": "Well, if we have 'God the Father,' then we must have 'God the Mother,' as he must have a wife, you see, well, uh, urr....."


=grade school "logic."

That is right,

Jesus is the son of man and he is a man.

He is not "man the son" He is human.

However, since spirit cannot cohabit with humans, since God is spirit, not human, if he were to have a son, it would have to be spirit, not human.

Humans have human children, Animals have animal offspring, plants produce plants, everything after its kind.

God is spirit, therefore Jesus should have been spirit, but God was not selfish, He had a human son that could qualify as man's redeemer, as the passover lamb for all of mankind

The passover lamb is chosen out of the flock and has to be without spot or blemish.

Only a perfect human being without sin nature could qualify as part of the flock.

He is entirely human.

As for your point, have you not read where Jesus states that God is able of stones to make children of Abraham?

Since God can make children of Abraham out of stones, are they stones or are they children of Abraham?

The are children of Abraham even though they were made out of stones.

God can do that.

Quit limiting God and start believing the word.

You will get out of you mess, so that you can see the truth.

To the impure nothing is pure, but to the pure all things are pure.

The trinity is not found in scripture it is a poison that has corrupted Christianity for centuries.

It is you, John W., that is in the mess.

 

[john w]

That is right,

Jesus is the son of man and he is a man.

He is not "man the son" He is human......

He is a man, moron. He is God.

By your "argument," he is not a man. You "argued:"

Son of God literally means, "son of God"

It does not mean "the son is God" nor "God the Son"

It means that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Slower:

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You:"Son of man literally means, "son of man."It does not mean "the son is a man," nor "Man the Son."It means that Jesus Christ is the son of man, but not a man.
____________

Does "Son of man" mean that Jesus is not a man?

You: Well, uh, urr..


You are clueless as to the various biblical meanings of "son," "father"-the context tells us its implications.


You would "argue": "Well, if we have 'God the Father,' then we must have 'God the Mother,' as he must have a wife, you see, well, uh, urr....."


=grade school "logic."