Responding to Aaron Welch (Christ's Preexistence Series, Part V)
Concerning “A Consideration of Passages
thought to Reveal the ‘Preexistence of Christ’: John’s Account, Part Two”
Aaron quotes John 1:15, 26-30:
John is testifying concerning Him and has cried, saying, “This was He of
Whom I said, ‘He Who is coming after me, has come to be in front of me,’ for He
was first, before me…”
John answered them, saying, “I am baptizing in water. Now in the midst of you One stood of Whom you are not aware He it is Who, coming after me, has come to be in front of me, of Whom I am not worthy that I should be loosing the thong of His sandal." These things occurred in Bethany, the other side of the Jordan river, where John was, baptizing. On the morrow he is observing Jesus coming toward him, and is saying, "Lo! the Lamb of God Which is taking away the sin of the world! This is He concerning Whom I said, 'After me is coming a Man Who has come to be in front of me,' for He was First, before me."
When John stated that Jesus “was first, before me,” he was
simply acknowledging the fact that Jesus had always been superior in rank to, and of greater importance
than, he himself.
This could be possible. Highly unlikely, considering John was just writing
of His pre-existence, and that verse 14 says, “the Word became flesh,”
but okay. I don’t at all believe this is how you should read the passage,
because John clearly knows better, but it’s possible. Aaron doesn’t seem to
explain, in here, why the word “after” is used to describe Jesus as well, and
that if we are considering a time-based use of “after” (because I’m sure John
wouldn’t say, he’s “after me in importance” in any way,) why we wouldn’t
connect “before” with a time-based use as well. Furthermore, it wouldn’t really
stand to make sense, then, why John says “he has come to be in front of me,”
because that seems to make more sense concerning Christ’s ‘rank,’ and
not “before me,” but I digress. If you really wanna read it like that, I
wouldn’t harp too badly.
By the way, he also connects John 3:30 with this passage, which I find
confusing, considering that would end up harming his argument. John 3:30
clearly uses the word “inferior,” so John either knows the difference
between “inferior” and “superior” in Greek, and can use different words
properly to distinguish between stature and time, or John doesn’t know,
and is winging it, and likes to be as confusing as humanly possible so as to
split modern readers and Israelites, and it’s all ambiguously your
interpretation.
Anyway, let’s talk about John 3:13.
And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of
heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven.
If understood literally, Jesus’ claim to have “descended out
of heaven” would mean that the Son of God descended out of heaven as a
flesh-and-blood, mortal being (John 6:51, 58).
I agree that there’s a metaphor here, but certainly not in the way Aaron
supposes. In context, Nicodemus, in this passage, has come to Jesus by night,
seeking understanding of the heavens and Scripture (even calling Him ‘Rabbi,’
the faker.) Jesus, in the previous verse, asks a poignant question: If He gives
them terrestrial revelations, and they can’t understand Him, why on
earth would He be able to impart celestial revelations? He follows with,
‘no one has ascended except He Who descends out of heaven,’ which, while read
in context, certainly displays an example of a celestial truth of Him, that
One must exist beforehand in order to, literally, descend. To
presume that ‘mortality’ must be before His descent is a logical
fallacy, considering a) John presumes that you’ve read, “word” and correlated
it with “Christ,” and b) Paul’s evangel, the evangel we stand in, points
out, almost clearer than he should have to, that Christ empties Himself in
His descent, coming to be in the likeness of man, or, mortal, or,
enslaved.
However, if there’s any consolation for Aaron, there’s indeed a metaphor
here, being “the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven.” Obviously, Jesus was
on earth, speaking to Nicodemus, so He couldn’t have been in two places at the
same time. For fun and educational purposes, I’ll quote Brother Knoch once
again, who is on point. Observe Unsearchable Riches, Vol. 40, p. 172:
“It has been suggested
that our Lord did not tell Nicodemus that the Son of Mankind “is in heaven,”
but that this was inserted later by John, when writing- his account, so that
the quotation marks are wrong in the C.V. and should be moved from the end of
verse 21 to the end of 12.
The difficulty arises
from failing to see the metaphor in the verb is. If it were literal, it
would not need verb, as in Mt 5:12, which reads ‘THE HIRE OF-YOU MUCH IN THE HEAVENS,’
without any is. Like “THIS IS THE BODY OF ME” (Mt. 26:26), it does not
affirm the literal presence of the Son of Mankind, but figurative one. The
Father is literally “FATHER OF-ME THE IN THE HEAVENS,” without the verb is
(Mt. 7:21).
In the Scriptures, heaven
is very near to the earth. The birds continually pass from earth to heaven (Mt.
6:26). A voice from heaven was heard on earth (Mt. 3:17). Christ was not only from
heaven, but He remained heavenly. All He needed, even on earth, was to lift up
His eyes and speak to His Father in heaven (Jn. 17:1). Practically, He brought
heaven down with Him, and lived heavenly life on earth. This is the force of
the metaphor. If we may now consider ourselves seated among the celestials, how
much more could He speak of Himself as in the heavens!”
It doesn’t really prove
anything, I guess, and has nothing to do with the fact that He did indeed descend,
but I don’t need some elaborate response from anyone going ‘yOu don’t eVeN
cATCh mEtAPhoRS, bRO?’
Next, Aaron quotes four
separate passages, each from John 6.
John 6:33:
My Father is giving you Bread out of heaven, the true, for the Bread of
God is He Who is descending out of heaven and giving life to the world.
John 6:38:
…for I have descended from heaven, not that I should be doing My will,
but the will of Him Who sends Me.
John 6:50-51:
This is the Bread which is descending out of heaven that anyone may be eating of it and may not be dying. I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven. If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon. Now the Bread also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world, is My flesh.
Finally, John 8:58:
This is the Bread which descends out of heaven. Not according as the
fathers ate and died; he who is masticating this Bread shall be living for the
eon.”
Let’s start at the top, with verse 33. Aaron says:
The “Bread of God” which descended out of heaven and gives
life to the world is clearly the man, Jesus Christ.
Note: Aaron uses “clearly,” here, as though it’s undoubtedly true. He’s
going to use this to make it sound as though ‘bread’ makes Christ start ‘mortal,’ and he’s
as incorrect as George Lucas was when he thought showing me the Death Star in
Episode III was enough to make me think I’d seen a good movie. I’ve picked up a
general rule of thumb with both Aaron’s logical fallacies, and logical
fallacies on Scripture in general: there’s always a previous verse.
So, let’s run it back, and briefly study John 6. The start of
this chapter concerned Jesus’ miracle of feeding 5,000 with 5 loaves of bread
and 2 fishies. Now, that’s pretty incredible on its own, but there’s a method
behind His deed. Why, for example, were the Israelites asked to “lean
back,” in verse 10? Answer: they were separated from Jesus and His
disciples in the passage to display the separation between spiritual
gift, in this case represented by the fish and bread, and the rest of mankind,
who cannot create or sustain spiritual gifts on their own.
The first 15 verses are rife with this figure. The five loaves of bread
and 2 fish are designed to be a small amount, that multiply and
overwhelmingly exceed the 5,000, that a ton of food remained (6:13.) The less
human interference, the greater His blessing is (Rom. 5:20.) Yet by
verse 15, it’s clear that Israel hadn’t understood this sign’s significance,
the way we can today, and instead seeked to proclaim Him as king, simply
because they were fed and thought that was pretty cool and powerful or
something. Thus, Jesus leaves, instead hiding Himself among the mountains. This
paints the passage, so far, in an analogous light – the physical is a figure
of the spiritual method in which God works.
The analogy doesn’t end there. In verse 16-17, the Israelites leave, the
disciples descending “into the sea” as it “became night.” The sea grew chaotic,
which is to signify that Israel will be tossed around by this current
Jurisdiction of Darkness, which is apart from the Messiah. It’s not merely a sign
of the coming kingdom, but a warning sign of the immediate
proceedings post-Jesus-ascension, starting in 70 A.D.
The disciples are terrified, but you know the story. Jesus is seen in
the midst of the water, walking around as though it’s normal to do so. He says,
“Do not fear,” which is important – His word arrives, and they find safety on
the land. This parallels Jesus’ words to the seven ecclesias in the Unveiling,
followed, of course, by the thousand-year kingdom being born.
Verse 25: then the ‘throng’ that Jesus fed from earlier in the chapter
find Him (v. 26) and are like, “Hey, where were You? We wanted to king you!”
And Jesus (v. 27) is like, “Y’all didn’t really get what My point was, there,
because my food was a spiritual,” and they (v. 28) were like, “What do
you mean? So, derr, what can we do for God?”
This is the setup. This
is the foundation for the build to verse 33. It is crucial to establish
that Jesus, in verse 27, highlights the spiritual nature of the “Bread”
being spoken of, the nature that Aaron neglects to mention, here.
In verse 29, Jesus responds to the stupid ass Israelites, saying, “This is the work of God, that you may be
believing in that One Whom He commissions.” The only ‘work’ here that the
Israelites are asked to do is believe Jesus when He speaks. Also, to be “commissioned”
for something? Interesting diction, here. You could argue that this only
pertains to the Ministry He has, I guess, but if I haven’t convinced you of
Aaron’s logical fallacy so far, I doubt I would. Yet I will ask you to,
literally, believe Jesus when He speaks.
The Jews foolishly attempt to rebuke Jesus, asking one of the
dumbest questions I’ve heard so far: “What sign, then, are you doing?” Hey, Mr.
Guy, were you not there when He produced food out of 5 loaves of bread?
Were they twiddling their thumbs? Staring at the sky, looking for the coming
Messiah? What else did they have going on? Was Cheers airing? Was
it 9 P.M./8 P.M. central?? They go on to tell Him about the literal manna
that God provided their ancestors in the wilderness (like He doesn’t know.)
Then Jesus replies, in John 6:32-33:
“Verily, verily, I am saying to you, not Moses has given you the bread
out of heaven, but My Father is giving you Bread out of heaven, the true, for
the Bread of God is He Who is descending out of heaven and giving life to the
world.”
Huh! So the Bread is out of heaven. Jesus, the living Bread,
would by definition, be out of heaven. You could argue that “giving
you Bread out of heaven” is a figure and doesn’t prove anything, but I would
follow up with, “the Bread of God (which is the designated contrast to Moses, contrast
between the law’s lack of sustaining life, with God’s ability to give it,)
is He Who is descending out of heaven, giving life to the
world.” Now, I’m no genius, but when you’re commissioned to ‘give life’ to the
world, it’s kind of difficult to do that if you do not have life
to begin with! That He descends, and is not a human man previously
nonexistent prior to His conception, is telling of the life in celestial,
apart from the law of the terrestrial.
Thus, I see no reason for concern here, and the figurative language
that is used would naturally prove His pre-existence, here, considering
the figure was presented in the previous verses and explained, here,
beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would think that denying this would be
siding with the Israelites, who were still seeking physical sustenance, no?
To once again quote Knoch, in his commentary:
“It is only as we have every heart hunger satisfied in Him that we cease
to feel the pangs of famine. It is only as we find all our spiritual
aspirations realized in God’s Son that our thirst is assuaged. How slow we are
to learn that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceeds out of God’s mouth! It is because Christ is set forth as the Word in
this evangel that so much is made of eating and drinking.”
Great thought at the end, there. I’ll put Aaron’s argument here in a
little bit, but let’s briefly study the remainder of this chapter, so that the
other three verses referenced are given their proper context.
At verse 34, the ‘throng’ begs Jesus to always be giving this spiritual
Bread, but in verse 35-37, Jesus counters that, in not believing when He
speaks, the spiritual sustenance takes no root in their hearts. He gives
one consolation, starting in v. 37:
All that which the Father is giving to Me shall be arriving to Me, and he who is coming to Me I should under no circumstances be casting out for I have descended from heaven, not that I should be doing My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me.
So, here again we have another passage that, in context, repeats
that Jesus descends from heaven, so that those that are coming to Him
will not be cast aside or discarded by the former resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3,
Unv. 20:5.) The direction of this passage has changed, as Jesus is
peeling back the layers behind the statement “Bread from heaven.” He has
descended, but it is they who are His gift, not vice
versa.
The Jews, of course, miss the beauty in this. Jesus continues with the
will of His Father, and how He plans on giving believers life eonian, but it
doesn’t matter to them. They, interestingly enough, are still concerned
with the initial statement. Observe v. 41:
The Jews, then, murmured concerning Him, that He said, “I am the Bread
which descends out of heaven.”
How ironic that it’s the Jews that take issue with this
statement! They could not apprehend that He was out of heaven, living
beforehand! How interesting that Aaron and those taking to the
“Christ didn’t pre-exist” argument are inadvertently taking the side of this
throng. They are literally agreeing with Christ’s enemies! “How
could He have existed beforehand?” Aaron keeps asking. How is this any
different from the Jews’ concern above? And in case you were confused, or
thought there’s some figurative metaphor here, the question is indeed concerning
His preexistence, per v. 42:
And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, with whose father
and mother we are acquainted? How, then, is he saying that ‘Out of heaven have
I descended’?”
“Doh, but wait! I thought He was born from Joseph and Mary and didn’t
exist before this! Now He’s out of heaven?”
Jesus, then, answered and said to them, “Do not murmur with one
another.”
Sorry, Jesus.
He reaffirms that you can’t be understanding these things if it’s
not God’s will for it to be. By now, the argument being made by Jesus should be
so clearly defined that even A.E. Knoch believes the more erroneous
claim would be ‘everlasting’ or ‘eternal’ life being read into these passages,
which, while true, leaves the minor, secondary error concerning His
preexistence, that some designated beforehand aren’t actually believing what
He’s saying when He speaks.
He breaks down the difference, then, between the literal food of Moses’
day, with the manna, revealing that this is only a type, a relative
expression of the ultimate spiritual sustenance that is in His flesh.
Manna is nice, but you still age while eating manna. The spiritual Bread,
out of heaven, reveals that, in eonian life, they will not be
dying in the coming eon. The Bread here is unmistakably connected to life,
not metaphorical nonexistence. Jesus continues the analogy:
I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven. If anyone should be
eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon. Now the Bread also, which
I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world, is My flesh.
Interesting! How to be a living Bread without, like, Being at
all?
The Jews couldn’t grasp any of this, wondering what He meant. Was He literally
asking them to chow down on Him? And there was still that nagging, ‘how
could He be Bread descending out of heaven?’ Indeed the inherently spiritual
nature of the world was completely lost on them. They didn’t realize that
the Bread, being the flesh, was literally going to be given up
for the sake of the life of the world (ref. 2 Cor. 5:14.) Instead,
they asked, “How can He be giving us His flesh to eat?” Again, I beg us
in Christ not to follow their inconclusiveness. Jesus is making an example of
them, so lest we become as foolhardy, I suggest apprehending this analogy now.
He doesn’t go magically “simile” to “metaphor” to “simile” again because it’s
convenient for you.
Okay, there’s still a bit of this chapter left to go, but we haven’t
heard from Aaron in a while. What does he have to say on this passage?
If we take Christ’s words to mean that he literally came down
from heaven from a pre-existent state, then, to be consistent, we must also
believe that it was Christ as a mortal, flesh-and-blood human who
pre-existed and then came down from heaven.
*sigh*
Okay, to be told Christ is the Bread obviously refers to His flesh. That
doesn’t mean the flesh must also have been in heaven. Where is this
written?? This assumes and adds to the text. It doesn’t say “the
flesh was in heaven,” it says the Flesh is out of heaven.
When He says He descends, He doesn’t say, “My Bread has descended from
heaven,” but “I have descended from heaven.” The last passage we looked
at said, “I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven.” ‘Living
Bread’ is a title – descriptive of the “I,” but not the subject. There’s a
subject/verb agreement in Greek – the verb must agree with the subject
in person and number. Here, I and descend very much agree! Does
this connect to the overall point? No, but I don’t need someone saying, “dO yOu
rEAliZE tHaT GreEk WorKS dIFfeRenTLy thAn eNgLIsh, bRo?”
What’s the issue, here? There’s a notable clarity in the word usage that
absolutely shows that Jesus knew what He was saying, knew it would confuse the
hell out of the Israelites, and apparently, that it would snare even some
designated beforehand. Reminder: John 1:14 – the Word became flesh. This
is, by definition, a “descent.” Philippians 2:7 clarifies, “emptied Himself.”
However, no one who believes in the doctrine of the
pre-existence of Christ would affirm that a mortal, flesh-and-blood human
literally came down out of heaven and was “incarnated.”
Yes, because it’s not Scripturally sound, not what Scripture said, and
Scripture clarified itself in John 1. Jesus’ analogy here doesn’t
change, recontextualize or alter the previous verses in any way.
But if Christ wasn’t saying that he literally descended from
heaven as a flesh-and-blood human, then what is the meaning of these verses?
This is either going to remind me of George Carlin or the ending of Lost.
I’ll leave that to the nerds.
It was, apparently, an idiom among the Jewish people to say
that something came down from heaven if God was its direct source.
*sigh* It’s the ending of Lost. So the reason the Jews
weren’t apprehending this was because they thought it was an idiom! This
isn’t an ‘idiomatic’ issue, but a spiritual one. They grouped the terms
“Bread descending from heaven” the same way Aaron did, and it’s why they
were so confused, per verse 42.
For
example, the brother of our Lord wrote that “all good giving and every
perfect gratuity is from above, descending from the Father of
lights” (James 1:17).
Oh, good! Glad Aaron references this, I guess.
Every perfect gratuity is from above, last I checked (ref. Rom. 9:16,
18, 2 Cor. 12:7-10.) But so what?
These verses do not, of course, mean that the good things in
our lives literally come down from heaven (much less that they undergo some
kind of mystical transformation before we receive them). What James meant is
clear: God is the author and source of the good things in our lives (including
the wisdom by which the saints should live).
So, we’re dealing, then, with yet another misapprehension of the spiritual
discussion. Comparing James to the words of Jesus isn’t quite fair, here,
as the context is, once again, completely different. No, we don’t literally
see a bright light as we win the lottery or come into an understanding of
the truth. We do, however, recognize intuitively that we have received a spiritual
blessing. The difference, in Jesus’ case, is that His very descent, being
Bread, becoming flesh, was a literal sign, and they didn’t get it. James is speaking of perfect
gratuities and good giving, both conceptual in nature. Jesus is
speaking of Himself, literally.
In light of how such [idioms are] used in Scripture, Jesus’
words in John 6:38 and elsewhere are clear: Jesus, who was generated
supernaturally in the womb of his mother, Miriam, “descended from/out of
heaven” and is “from above” in the sense that God is his Father, and the direct
source from whom he originated.
Oof. This would be true of the passage if “Bread descending out of
heaven” wasn’t the Jews’ literal issue that they’re obviously wrong about. They
didn’t recognize that He was producing signs – that He was the Messiah –
and kept asking for them – so much so that when it came time for them to
understand the spiritual nature of His ‘Bread,’ that He descended out
of heaven, they instead ‘murmured’ and didn’t believe Him.
Later in John’s account, we read the following
exchange between Christ and his disciples: “I came out from the Father
and have come into the world. Again, I am leaving the world and am going to
the Father.” His disciples are saying to Him, “Lo! now with boldness art
Thou speaking, and not one proverb art Thou telling. Now we are aware
that Thou art aware of all and hast no need that anyone may be asking Thee. By
this we are believing that Thou camest out from God.”
Note: when Aaron says ‘later,’ he means, ‘much later,’
like ten chapters later, when that exchange with the Israelites had long
gone. Like, ‘we’re-in-John-16:28-and-He’s-by-the-garden-of-Gethsemane-the-night-before-His-death’
later. You would think, that in more plainly stating, without the
Bread analogy, that He is out of God, that is, the Subjector in the heaven
that He has descended out of, and come into the world, that
Aaron’s line of ‘considerations’ would be put to rest, here. Hell, even the disciples,
who struggled to understand many of His words, understood that He was “now
speaking boldly,” as in, He was actually being clear and direct
to them. How much clearer could Jesus be? Does He need John to draw
a diagram? At what point can we just, like, believe Him? Alas,
What was previously spoken of more figuratively as Christ’s
“descending from heaven” is, in these verses, more plainly stated as Christ’s
simply coming “out from God.” Jesus could declare that he “came out from the
Father” because, as the one responsible for the miraculous conception in his
mother’s womb (Luke 1:35), God was his direct source. Jesus “entered the world”
when he was conceived, and left the world and went to the Father at his
ascension.
Ah. So it’s all figurative and nothing He’s saying must be grounded in
any sort of reality. That’s an issue, here. Just ‘idiom’ it all away and eat,
drink and be merry.
No, He “came out from the Father,” because He’s clearly defined in John
1 as being so. The passages don’t say “entered” – this is Aaron’s supposition.
The passages say “generated,” or “BECAME.” The passage above, the one Aaron
turns figurative, is not. There’s no reason for Him to be figurative on stuff
like this in private with the disciples the day before His death, especially
when He had dealt with the unbelieving Jews and their lack of apprehending His
pre-earth glory. This is why He plainly states the reality, here.
If He ascends to the heavens, the natural conclusion was that He descended
as well, as He literally said, believe it or not.
The Christian community, for some reason, cannot apprehend that He died.
They think He went through a state change, to heaven or hell or some such. They
cannot believe that He truly touched death, thus do not believe in His
sacrifice. Yet, as Paul points out, He must have died, if He is to be
resurrected. The same critical thinking should be applied, here. As an
anonymous member in Christ wrote to me concerning this subject, “Paul makes it
a clear distinction. This is why John 1 is so important. Those who don’t get
this are Christian in rationalization only. To this day, [man’s] secularism,
especially the sciences, are working to solve all of the mysteries.”
He must have descended, if He is to ascend. Just as He gains, He must also
lose. This is the order in which God operates. We must first be blind, in order
to see. It need not be more complicated than this! Again I say: lest we become
like the very Christian community that lies about our Father, we should not
follow in their footsteps, and truly believe what Jesus is saying.
John 6:62:
This is snaring you? If, then, you should be beholding the Son of
Mankind ascending where He was formerly -- ?
The context is sound. The disciples heard His teaching, that He was not
of earthly origin, and is accomplishing the will of His Father, and found
it hard to comprehend. “Hard is this saying! Who can hear it?” Jesus turns to
them, being aware that they don’t understand, and says what He says
above, in bold. Aaron says:
In response to this enigmatic question, the question
naturally arises, “Where was the Son of Mankind ‘formerly?’
In the celestials, haha.
I believe the key to answering this question is found in the
expression “Son of Mankind.”
Is it, now?
The expression “Son of Mankind” (or “Son of Man”) is not
original to Christ, but is derived from a prophetic passage found in the book
of Daniel.
Go figure! Daniel 7:13-14:
I was perceiving in the
visions of the night, and behold, with the clouds of the heavens One like a son
of a mortal was arriving; He came unto the Transferrer of Days, and they
brought Him near before Him. To Him was granted jurisdiction and esteem and a
kingdom, that all the peoples and leagues and language-groups shall serve Him;
His jurisdiction is an eonian jurisdiction that shall not pass away, and His
kingdom shall not be confined.
Huh, almost like we’re
concerned with an eonian revelation of the Messianic kingdom, while
the John passage is concerned with eonian life imparted by God through
the Son, but please, continue.
Every usage of the title “Son of Mankind” by Christ points
back to this key passage, and may thus be understood as having been Christ’s
way of identifying himself with the prophesied Messianic figure seen by Daniel
in the night visions.
Let’s roll with it, for the sake of argument.
It must be emphasized that the title “Son of Mankind” refers
to a human descendent of Adam and Eve and not to some sort of pre-existent
celestial spirit-being that God created before the creation of the universe.
A son of mankind, maybe,
not the Son of Mankind, which is what we call a ‘title,’ as He is also
referred to as the Son of God, but please, again, continue.
As such, the “Son of Mankind” had no existence outside of
Daniel’s vision until Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother, Miriam.
This is still Aaron’s logic, not God’s. I almost cannot figure out how
he got here. So rendered, the passage would read,
If, then, you should be beholding the Son of Mankind ascending where He
was formerly, as the Messiah -- ?
I think? This is my best guess at what Aaron’s saying. So, the Son of
Mankind now isn’t the Son of Mankind until His kingdom is revealed? Is He the
Son of Mankind only when He is ruling? Or is it like He’s arriving and
because He’s arriving this means He wasn’t actually anywhere formerly? Wait,
please, Aaron, clarify what you mean.
“Formerly” means at the time when Daniel received his vision
of the Son of Mankind ascending to heaven and being presented to God. And when
Christ Jesus – the one whom Daniel saw in his vision – ascended to God forty
days after his resurrection, he fulfilled the prophecy found in Daniel 7:13-14.
If, then, you should be beholding the Son of Mankind ascending where He
was formerly, in the book of Daniel, which you should know I’m clearly
referencing, you silly disciples -- ? Don’t you know I obviously just
titled myself as Son of Mankind, so this can only be what I’m referring to? And
yet you all don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Old Testament, for
what? No, no, forget the eonian life thing, I’m confused! Just like the throng,
huh guys? I’m going all out, right in front of you, ready to die, and you
dunces think I existed beforehand? You thought I mean what I say? Use your
brain next time!
Comments
Post a Comment