Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Dave]

DAVEH:   Why did you change man to mankind, John?  Is the root word the same?  I'm out of town, and don't have my reference books, nor do I have time to look into it at the moment.  But it sure seems to me that there is a big difference between man and mankind.  If they were originally meant to be the same, I would have thought the Bible translators would have been anxious to use the same term, yet they chose a different one.      So......what am I missing here?   Is your assumption based on something other than traditional Protestant thought? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my posted comment below, I say "God and man."    He is the Son of God and, thus, God Himself  (John 5:18).  He is the Son of Man, thus, man(kind) himself.   As Son of God,  He is the fullness of the very nature of God,  the visible presentation of the invisible God.   As Son of Man, He is the prefect(ed) representative of man !!   As a result,   in Him,  mankind, full of faith, escapes judgment  (John 5:24 and Col 1:22, where the word translated "blameless" means "unaccused" or he who "cannot be called into account"  -  Thayer).  PTL !!   JD      -----Original Message----- From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:41:11 -0700 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 DAVEH:   And......the Son of man as well.   Do other TTers not find that immensely important? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't be fooled.  The scriptures plainly teach that Jesus Christ was God and man.   -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.