Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Satan hated the thought of a MAN ruling over him, so he tempted Adam and his wife and they fell to his rule.
Christ's favourite title was "SON OF MAN". 85 verses use that title, as opposed to 46 verses using "Son of God".
The devils would never use it. Devils always said "Son of God", but NEVER "Son of man". Devils would even say "Jesus" ( some think the devil cannot say thne name of "Jesus" - wrong: Mark 5:7; Acts 19:15), but never "son of man".
And the antichrist spirit will not confess Christ is come in the flesh. To think a MAN would rule over them is their biggest threat. But Chirst is both man and God and PRESENTLY rules over all at the right hand throne of power.
Jesus put it in the devil's face time and again. He said "MAN shall not live by bread alone," when the devil tempted Him to turn stone to bread. |
Bro. Blume, I agree with the words of your post, however, when I think of the term or phrase, Son of man, I am reminded of the writings found in Hebrews chapter 2, versus 14 through 18.
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (referring to the eternal invisible spiritual entity we call God) also himself likewise took part of the same:...... for verily he took not on himself the nature of Angels: but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren...."
It is my belief, however, that when we become absorbed into discussions of this issue we often times lose sight of the greater question, which is to say, what was that aspect of the judgment of death which was so eternally devastating and utterly insurmountable, that it required God's manifestation in human flesh in order to cause his plan of redemption for mankind to become effective. In other words, why was it necessary for God to inhabit a human body, and undergo the experience of its death, for his plan of reconciliation to be effectuated?
Threaded Mode
