John 6:62

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>From: Henry L Bunch
>
>He is and was and always will be God. That is why he can ascend up to
>where He was.  He pre-existed as the Father. All things were made by Him.
>John 1...In the beginning was the word.....and the word was God.

Yes, he pre-existed as the father, in spirit.  It's the "sonship" part that I'm 
having a problem understanding in this context.

>From: K. Dimick
>So, it behooves us to examine what the term "Son of Man"
>truly means.  When we understand what exactly Jesus 
>meant by the term, we can better interpret what He meant
>by the question.

Behoove away!  :-)

I'm actually getting more and more confused by the moment.  Sonship 
happened at a moment in time.  God transcends time, and occassionally,
comes into time to deal with man.  The actual sonship of man, or of 
God, came at a particular time.  If Jesus had said "Son of God" in v. 62,
I could reasonably see that He was referring to Himself in the sense
of His spirit.

In fact, when we as oneness folk speak of the the dual nature of God,
fully man and fully God, don't we always refer to Him in His paternal lineage
as the Son of God?  Don't we always refer to Him, in His maternal lineage
as the Son of man?  When He says the "Son of man returning to where
he once was," how do we explain that that doesn't mean the pre-existing
of some second person of the trinity?  Or, would either title be just as 
confusing vis-a-vis the pre-existence of Christ?

So, it could be that whether he said son of God, or son of man, that in this 
case, it doesn't matter, and it's closer to what brother Bunch and brother Nally
are saying.  It's just referring to the fact that Jesus is God.  If that is the case,
and bearing in mind that we generally make a distinction between the two
titles, what information was Jesus trying to impart with "Son of man?"  

There's something there, there.  :-)

Bro. Steven