Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gospel’s "Son of Man" Fulfillment

Gospel’s "Son of Man" Fulfillment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 23|Likes:
Published by Afromations

Son of man means a product of a man. See more below.
What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? (Psalms 8:4).
"God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).
"Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this" (Isaiah 56:2).
I've been thinking about Steven’s trial. Steven never mentions Jesus’ resurrection or any mention of a missing body. They (Romans and Sanhedrin) never accuse him or any one of the missing body, nor was there any search for this doubtful resurrection. This would have been a major issue and evidence of a resurrecting Jesus. The absence of this concern sheds light that Paul was discussing something else other than a historical figure—given the fact that he supposedly meet with the disciples of Jesus. According to Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, his experience was one of enlightenment of mankind and resembles works of prior authors: the books of Philo of Alexandria (enlightenment of man by combining Greek and Jewish philosophy 20 BCE), Polonius of Tyana (3 BCE), and The Assentation of Isaiah of the 1st century—celestial being/star sacrificed by Satan before descending to earth. Given the fact that Jesus said he will return on the clouds and everyone will see him is a clear indication that he is in heaven (according to Mathew 24; Acts 1:11; the book of Revelations). Thus, Paul’s experience could not have been with Jesus, but resembles the experience of Constantine and Mohammad—it enlightenment, or a celestial being that Paul is referring to, or a celestial being as enlightenment.

But more concerning is the Acts’ narrative elements of omnipresence as it was written much later. Especially, as Paul was there and he condemns Steven to death and holds the cloaks of the stoners, but later the book of Acts by Luke/Paul describes his vision and experience in great detail of his vision. This is clearly a fictional elaboration. This juxtaposition is not rational in the least bit.

A greater concern is the concept of "son of man", refers to humanity (traditionally known to all Jews according to the TNK; cf. below explanation). As Steven gives his testimony, the audience was listening and not reacting—even to his accusations of being sinners, which was the cause of their teeth on edge. The catalyst was his reference to the son of man sitting at the right hand of G-d. This phrase reflects the idea that it was man kind or his intellect/enlightenment that is at G-d's right hand; that of which he was stoned for. He never references a missing body and the texts never reflect that the “Jewish leaders” knew of a missing body. This brings a great concern to the “New Testament” theology, even more so its logic.
Penultimately, the contradictory teachings of the Gospels and of Paul leads to the understanding that there were two different ideologies here—one was historical and one was not. Here is examples of different teachings between Jesus and Paul: Luke 21:8 vs. Romans 13:12 ; 1 Cor 2:13, Gal 1:12 vs. John 17:14,17; Rom 14:9 vs. Luke 20:38; Rom 13:9 vs. Matt 22:37-40; 1 Cor. 4:15 and Philm 1:10 Paul tells him that he is their father while Jesus says in Matt. 23:9 to call no man your father on earth… Again, Pual’s writings were that of previous philosophy combined by Philo. It is even speculated that Apollonius is Paul.

I speculate that it is enlightenment of man that was being taught/conveyed as Stevens message, which Paul later preached–the combination of Greek and Jewish philosophy as mentioned. What was Steven killed for? Not teaching the death and resurrection of Jesus, but Steven was immediately drug out after stating that humanity (man’s intellect/enlightenment—philosophy taught by Philo) that is at the right hand of G-d in conjunction with the concept that man is created in His image! His statement was that the sinfulness of the priesthood was the death of Jesus a

Son of man means a product of a man. See more below.
What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? (Psalms 8:4).
"God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).
"Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this" (Isaiah 56:2).
I've been thinking about Steven’s trial. Steven never mentions Jesus’ resurrection or any mention of a missing body. They (Romans and Sanhedrin) never accuse him or any one of the missing body, nor was there any search for this doubtful resurrection. This would have been a major issue and evidence of a resurrecting Jesus. The absence of this concern sheds light that Paul was discussing something else other than a historical figure—given the fact that he supposedly meet with the disciples of Jesus. According to Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, his experience was one of enlightenment of mankind and resembles works of prior authors: the books of Philo of Alexandria (enlightenment of man by combining Greek and Jewish philosophy 20 BCE), Polonius of Tyana (3 BCE), and The Assentation of Isaiah of the 1st century—celestial being/star sacrificed by Satan before descending to earth. Given the fact that Jesus said he will return on the clouds and everyone will see him is a clear indication that he is in heaven (according to Mathew 24; Acts 1:11; the book of Revelations). Thus, Paul’s experience could not have been with Jesus, but resembles the experience of Constantine and Mohammad—it enlightenment, or a celestial being that Paul is referring to, or a celestial being as enlightenment.

But more concerning is the Acts’ narrative elements of omnipresence as it was written much later. Especially, as Paul was there and he condemns Steven to death and holds the cloaks of the stoners, but later the book of Acts by Luke/Paul describes his vision and experience in great detail of his vision. This is clearly a fictional elaboration. This juxtaposition is not rational in the least bit.

A greater concern is the concept of "son of man", refers to humanity (traditionally known to all Jews according to the TNK; cf. below explanation). As Steven gives his testimony, the audience was listening and not reacting—even to his accusations of being sinners, which was the cause of their teeth on edge. The catalyst was his reference to the son of man sitting at the right hand of G-d. This phrase reflects the idea that it was man kind or his intellect/enlightenment that is at G-d's right hand; that of which he was stoned for. He never references a missing body and the texts never reflect that the “Jewish leaders” knew of a missing body. This brings a great concern to the “New Testament” theology, even more so its logic.
Penultimately, the contradictory teachings of the Gospels and of Paul leads to the understanding that there were two different ideologies here—one was historical and one was not. Here is examples of different teachings between Jesus and Paul: Luke 21:8 vs. Romans 13:12 ; 1 Cor 2:13, Gal 1:12 vs. John 17:14,17; Rom 14:9 vs. Luke 20:38; Rom 13:9 vs. Matt 22:37-40; 1 Cor. 4:15 and Philm 1:10 Paul tells him that he is their father while Jesus says in Matt. 23:9 to call no man your father on earth… Again, Pual’s writings were that of previous philosophy combined by Philo. It is even speculated that Apollonius is Paul.

I speculate that it is enlightenment of man that was being taught/conveyed as Stevens message, which Paul later preached–the combination of Greek and Jewish philosophy as mentioned. What was Steven killed for? Not teaching the death and resurrection of Jesus, but Steven was immediately drug out after stating that humanity (man’s intellect/enlightenment—philosophy taught by Philo) that is at the right hand of G-d in conjunction with the concept that man is created in His image! His statement was that the sinfulness of the priesthood was the death of Jesus a

More info:

Categories:Types, Presentations
Published by: Afromations on Aug 03, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/03/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Gospel’s “son of man” Fulfillment By: D. Hunter Son of man means a product of a man. See more below.
 
What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? (Psalms 8:4).
 
"God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).
 
"Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this" (Isaiah 56:2).
 
I've been thinking about Steven’s trial. Steven never mentions Jesus’ resurrection or any mention of a missing body. They (Romans and Sanhedrin) never accuse him or any one of the missing body, nor was there any search for this doubtful resurrection. This would have been a
major
issue and
evidence
of a resurrecting Jesus. The absence of this concern sheds light that Paul was discussing something else other than a historical figure—given the fact that he supposedly meet with the disciples of Jesus. According to Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, his experience was one of enlightenment of mankind and resembles works of prior authors: the books of Philo of Alexandria (enlightenment of man by combining Greek and Jewish philosophy 20 BCE), Polonius of Tyana (3 BCE),
 
and
The Assentation of Isaia
h of the 1
st
 century—celestial being/star sacrificed by Satan before descending to earth
.
Given the fact that Jesus said he will return on the clouds and everyone will see him is a clear indication that he is in heaven (according to Mathew 24; Acts 1:11; the book of Revelations). Thus, Paul’s experience could not have been with Jesus, but resembles the experience of Constantine and Mohammad—it enlightenment, or a celestial being that Paul is referring to, or a celestial being as enlightenment.
 
 
 But more concerning is the Acts’ narrative elements of omnipresence as it was written much later. Especially, as Paul was there and he condemns Steven to death and holds the cloaks of the stoners, but later the book of Acts by Luke/Paul describes his vision and experience in great
detail 
 of his vision
.
 
This is clearly a fictional elaboration.
 This  juxtaposition is not rational in the least bit.
 
A greater concern is the concept of "son of man", refers to humanity (traditionally known to all Jews according to the TNK; cf. below explanation). As Steven gives his testimony, the audience was listening and not reacting—even to his accusations of being sinners, which was the cause of their teeth on edge. The catalyst was his reference to the son of man sitting at the right hand of G-d. This phrase reflects the idea that it was man kind or his intellect/enlightenment that is at G-d's right hand; that of which he was stoned for. He never references a missing body and the texts never reflect that the “Jewish leaders” knew of a missing body. This brings a great concern to the “New Testament” theology, even more so its logic.
 
Penultimately, the contradictory teachings of the Gospels and of Paul leads to the understanding that there were two different ideologies here—one was historical and one was not
 .
Here is examples of different teachings between Jesus and Paul
: Luke 21:8 vs. Romans 13:12 ; 1 Cor 2:13, Gal 1:12 vs. John 17:14,17; Rom 14:9 vs. Luke 20:38; Rom 13:9 vs. Matt 22:37-40;
1 Cor. 4:15 and Philm 1:10 Paul tells him that he is their father while Jesus says in Matt. 23:9 to call no man your father on earth…
 Again, Pual’s writings were that of  previous philosophy combined by Philo. It is even speculated that Apollonius is Paul.
 
I speculate that it is enlightenment of man that was being taught/conveyed as Stevens message, which Paul later preached–the
 
combination of Greek and Jewish philosophy as mentioned. What was Steven killed for? Not teaching the death and resurrection of Jesus, but Steven was immediately drug out after stating that humanity (man’s intellect/enlightenment—philosophy taught by Philo) that is at the right hand of G-d in conjunction with the concept that man is created in His image! His statement was that the sinfulness of the priesthood was the death of Jesus as Josephus points out (see below). Not once was the argument taught that Jesus died and resurrected and his missing body was evidence. He was accused of preaching against the Law. This was initiated by his healings.
 
Essentially, Christians and Messianic are worshiping the Flavians as messiah of the Jewish people! See below of evidence of claims and definition of “son of man”!
 
Further research of the “son of man” (DEFINITION IN EVIDENCE OF CLAIM)
 
Interestingly, Christians have pointed out imaginative symbolism of how Joana resembles Jesus: berried for three days with wreath around his head like a crown thons; however, they will exclude explicit texts that conflict with their desire of belief. They pick and choose which out Josephus’ work to validate a historical Jesus, but exclude others that show the multiple Jesus existed. This is not academic and bares no intellectual integrity. In textual comparison of genres in literature, it is clear that the Gospels were allegories of significant events and of a  person(s) that were punished and combined into a fictitious character. These allegories were used many Jesus’ characteristics that was detailed in Josephus’ writings. Jesus did exist, many of them did, but not the Jesus of the Gospels (see below for evidence). Many people have come to the understanding that the Synoptic Gospels were written about Titus (born 30 AD) riding on clouds and destroying the temple (evidence see below). Comparing these text alongside the history of Josephus shows the exact sequence of Titus’ military campaign in sequential order. These Gospels were to change the “Messianic Age” doctrine of the first century to a more submissive one vs. the warrior

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->