The Biblical Meaning of "Son of God"

[Eleanor]

.
For lack of a better way to put it, the Bible's supreme being is presented in text as
a composite unity, viz: He has interacted with mankind wearing a variety of hats,
and I dare say none of those hats is more complex than the Word's incarnation.

It doesn't take long for most Bible readers to realize that much of the information
we're given relevant to the Word's incarnation doesn't add up, i.e. it doesn't
harmonize; and I suspect that's because we're looking at an incarnation that is both
human and divine, viz: an incarnation who is temporal and eternal simultaneously.
In point of fact, Jesus often antagonized his opponents by sometimes speaking of
himself as deity and at other times speaking of himself as human.

NOTE: According to Luke 1:31-33, the Word's incarnation has two paternal fathers,
the one divine and the other human, so that Jesus could speak of himself as deity
and he could speak of himself as mankind. I think quite a few Bible readers much
prefer him one way or the other, rather than both simultaneously. As someone fully
God and fully Man--a.k.a. the Son of God and the Son of Man --the Word's
incarnation can be a mite confusing at times.
_

Jesus was sired by God the Father, while Joseph was his legal father entitling him to the throne of David.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Joseph was helpful in securing Jesus a legal spot in Solomon's genealogy, while
quite useless for establishing him as David's paternal descendant.

The thing is: before any man can be considered for David's throne he has to be one
of the king's natural descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The new testament verifies Jesus is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated
unto the gospel of God, concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual
progeny as well as biological progeny; but in David's case; seed refers to biological
progeny because Christ was 1) the fruit of David's body and 2) of David's loins
according to the flesh.

So then, seeing as how Jesus was David's paternal descendant, then of course
Jesus was Adam's paternal descendant too because we all, including David, descend
from a common ancestor.

● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of
all the living.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth.
_

 

[Eleanor]

.
Joseph was helpful in securing Jesus a legal spot in Solomon's genealogy, while
quite useless for establishing him as David's paternal descendant.

The thing is: before any man can be considered for David's throne he has to be one
of the king's natural descendants; and that's on oath.

That is your assumption, not to mention Mary was a descendant of David.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The new testament verifies Jesus is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated
unto the gospel of God, concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual
progeny as well as biological progeny; but in David's case; seed refers to biological
progeny because Christ was 1) the fruit of David's body and 2) of David's loins
according to the flesh.

So then, seeing as how Jesus was David's paternal descendant, then of course
Jesus was Adam's paternal descendant too because we all, including David, descend
from a common ancestor.

● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of
all the living.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth.
_

 

[Arial]

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated
unto the gospel of God, concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh

What do you think is meant by "according to the flesh" in those passages? There are theological arguments that involve Mary's lineage as the lineage that provides the biological link to David. However, Mary's lineage as given in Luke only connects Jesus as a biological descendant of David through Nathan (not the kingly line of Solomon) while Matt traces it through Joseph which is the kingly line----(Solomon).

Your post seems to be focused on not the kingly line, but is presenting that Jesus was born in Adam, and therefore of the same nature as all those born in Adam, as a fallen and sinful being. Which is antithetical to his being without sin.

Consider this when it comes to "according to the flesh". The structure of Matthews lineage is to show Jesus as the Messianic King. Therefore the kingly (royal) line of David. It shows him as the true heir of David's throne. Jesus through legal adoption by Joseph according to Jewish cultural norms, inherited full legal, social and covenantal rights to the throne of David.Matthew shows his right to the throne is legal.

All that brought into play, "according to the flesh" can mean(I believe more legitimately as it maintains the sinless purity of the Savior) Jesus' legal and covenantal status as Joseph's son, "according to human reckoning", gave him rightful claim to David's line. The importance of Joseph not being his biological father is for him to NOT be born in Adam.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

What do you think is meant by "according to the flesh" in those passages?

I have no more to say about David's flesh than what there is in post No.42
which, all in all, is probably a mite off-topic and for that I apologize.

The importance of Joseph not being his biological father is for him to NOT be born in Adam.

According to Luke 1:31-33, the Word's incarnation had two paternal fathers, the
one divine and the other human, so that Jesus could speak of himself as deity and
he could speak of himself as mankind. I think quite a few Bible readers much prefer
him one way or the other, rather than both simultaneously. As someone fully God
and fully Man--a.k.a. the Son of God and the Son of Man --the Word's incarnation
can be a mite confusing at times.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

The importance of Joseph not being his biological father is for him to NOT be born in Adam.

One's human origin isn't solely determined by their biological fathers.

The thing is: Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body, viz; she
wasn't constructed directly from the earth's soil like he was. So then, every woman
who owes her human origin to Eve, also owes their human origin to Adam because
she was constructed with material taken from him.

So then, if even the slightest amount of any kind of material in Mary's body was
used to construct Jesus, then he too owes his human origin to Eve and thus to
Adam.

Quite a few folks attempt to circumvent that bit of biological fact by claiming that
Mary wasn't Jesus' natural mother, rather, they claim Mary was his surrogate mother
and Jesus was an implant. However, the angel predicted that Mary would conceive
Jesus in her womb. That right there rules out the possibility that Jesus was inserted in
Mary's body as an implant. No, she was his natural mom alright; no getting out of
it.
_

 

[Eleanor]

I have no more to say about David's flesh than what there is in post No.42
which, all in all, is probably a mite off-topic and for that I apologize.




According to Luke 1:31-33, the Word's incarnation had two paternal fathers, the
one divine and the other human, so that Jesus could speak of himself as deity and
he could speak of himself as mankind.

His mankind comes through Mary, his legal title to the throne comes through Joseph.

I think quite a few Bible readers much prefer
him one way or the other, rather than both simultaneously. As someone fully God
and fully Man--a.k.a. the Son of God and the Son of Man --the Word's incarnation
can be a mite confusing at times.
_

 

[Arial]

One's human origin isn't solely determined by their biological fathers.

The thing is: Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body, viz; she
wasn't constructed directly from the earth's soil like he was. So then, every woman
who owes her human origin to Eve, also owes their human origin to Adam because
she was constructed with material taken from him.

So then, if even the slightest amount of any kind of material in Mary's body was
used to construct Jesus, then he too owes his human origin to Eve and thus to
Adam.

Quite a few folks attempt to circumvent that bit of biological fact by claiming that
Mary wasn't Jesus' natural mother, rather, they claim Mary was his surrogate mother
and Jesus was an implant. However, the angel predicted that Mary would conceive
Jesus in her womb. That right there rules out the possibility that Jesus was inserted in
Mary's body as an implant. No, she was his natural mom alright; no getting out of
it.
_

Jesus wasn't constructed.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Jesus wasn't constructed.

● Luke 2:6-7 . .While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and
she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

● Gal 4:4 . . When the time had fully come, God sent His son, born of a woman

Children born of a woman generally begin their presence as a teensy little gamete,
and from thence specialized cells build upon specialized cells until a human form
begins to take shape, so that by nine months of gestation they are easily
recognizable as human offspring.

The thing is, nobody starts out in their mother's womb as easily recognizable
human offspring. No, it takes nature quite a while to get them to that point; and
even then, infants don't stay infants. Instead they continue growing outside the
womb until one day their childhood is gone, replaced by an adult. I am convinced
in my own mind that the Word's incarnation underwent a normal human
development exactly like that the same as every other Jewish person born of a
woman in that day.
_

 

[David Lamb]

● Luke 2:6-7 . .While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and
she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

● Gal 4:4 . . When the time had fully come, God sent His son, born of a woman

Children born of a woman generally begin their presence as a teensy little gamete,
and from thence specialized cells build upon specialized cells until a human form
begins to take shape, so that by nine months of gestation they are easily
recognizable as human offspring.

The thing is, nobody starts out in their mother's womb as easily recognizable
human offspring. No, it takes nature quite a while to get them to that point; and
even then, infants don't stay infants. Instead they continue growing outside the
womb until one day their childhood is gone, replaced by an adult. I am convinced
in my own mind that the Word's incarnation underwent a normal human
development exactly like that the same as every other Jewish person born of a
woman in that day.
_

Except that, unlike "every other Jewish person born of a woman in that day," no human male was in volved in the conception of Jesus which resulted in His birth.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Except that, unlike every other Jewish person born of a woman in that day, no human male was involved in the conception of Jesus which resulted in His birth.

FAQ: From whence did the Word obtain a Y chromosome for his incarnation's male
gender?

REPLY: In the beginning, God constructed a complete woman front to rear, top to
bottom, side to side, and inside and outside with some material taken from a man's
body. So I should think God is easily capable of doing something like that in
reverse, i.e. capable of constructing a man's chromosomes with some material
taken from a woman's body. And seeing as how every woman descends from Eve,
and her from Adam, then any and all material taken from Mary's body to construct
the Word's incarnation, owes itself to Adam's body; the same as we all do.
_

 

[Arial]

FAQ: From whence did the Word obtain a Y chromosome for his incarnation's male
gender?

REPLY: In the beginning, God constructed a complete woman front to rear, top to
bottom, side to side, and inside and outside with some material taken from a man's
body. So I should think God is easily capable of doing something like that in
reverse, i.e. capable of constructing a man's chromosomes with some material
taken from a woman's body. And seeing as how every woman descends from Eve,
and her from Adam, then any and all material taken from Mary's body to construct
the Word's incarnation, owes itself to Adam's body; the same as we all do.
_

What is the point of speculating about what God could do and then saying that is what he did? Does it prove your point that Jesus was born in Adam and therefore with a sin nature? You keep deviating from your claim and hiding it. The conversation becomes about other things and the heretical claim that Jesus had a sinful nature is lost to the conversation. Plus it has nothing to do with the Biblical Meaning of Son of God.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Jesus was born in Adam and therefore with a sin nature?

It's commonly believed among conventional Christians that the so-called sin nature
-- a.k.a. the fallen nature --is passed on to children from their biological fathers. Oh?
From whence did Eve get it?

She was fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his tasting
the forbidden fruit so it was impossible for him to transmit anything but his original
nature to her by means of heredity, yet her original sense of decency was replaced
with an alternative version right at the same time as Adam's.

FAQ: If the sin nature isn't inherited from people's biological father, then whence
are they getting it?

REPLY: My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has the power
of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human
mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, John 8:44, Eph 2:2.

FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of the
womb?

REPLY: Adam and his wife demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb; and if not in the womb, then certainly
no later than when we're born. (Ps 51:5 & Ps 58:3)

So then: even if Joseph had fathered baby Jesus, the child wouldn't have
necessarily been born with the so-called fallen nature because it's not transmitted
by one's natural parents. No, it's spread around by the Devil-- so it was likely a
simple matter for the Holy Spirit to keep the Serpent's paws off young Jesus to
ensure he would come into the world a sinless man.
_

 

[Eleanor]

It's commonly believed among conventional Christians that the so-called sin nature
-- a.k.a. the fallen nature --is passed on to children from their biological fathers. Oh?
From whence did Eve get it?

She was fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his tasting
the forbidden fruit so it was impossible for him to transmit anything but his original
nature to her by means of heredity, yet her original sense of decency was replaced
with an alternative version right at the same time as Adam's.

FAQ: If the sin nature isn't inherited from people's biological father, then whence
are they getting it?

REPLY: My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has the power
of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human
mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, John 8:44, Eph 2:2.

FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of the
womb?

REPLY: Adam and his wife demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb; and if not in the womb, then certainly
no later than when we're born. (Ps 51:5 & Ps 58:3)

So then: even if Joseph had fathered baby Jesus, the child wouldn't have
necessarily been born with the so-called fallen nature because it's not transmitted
by one's natural parents. No, it's spread around by the Devil-- so it was likely a
simple matter for the Holy Spirit to keep the Serpent's paws off young Jesus to
ensure he would come into the world a sinless man.
_

FAQ: From whence did the Word obtain a Y chromosome for his incarnation's male
gender?

From whence did God obtain chromosomes for both male and female at creation?

REPLY: In the beginning, God constructed a complete woman front to rear, top to
bottom, side to side, and inside and outside with some material taken from a man's
body. So I should think God is easily capable of doing something like that in
reverse, i.e. capable of constructing a man's chromosomes with some material
taken from a woman's body. And seeing as how every woman descends from Eve,
and her from Adam, then any and all material taken from Mary's body to construct
the Word's incarnation, owes itself to Adam's body; the same as we all do.
_

 

[Arial]

It's commonly believed among conventional Christians that the so-called sin nature
-- a.k.a. the fallen nature --is passed on to children from their biological fathers. Oh?
From whence did Eve get it?

Eve got it from disobeying God. Same way Adam did. It is not a genetic passing of a sin nature that is coming from the father. It is Adam, the man, who stood as the federal head of all humanity----according to God's decree. It is what humanity has become---sinners. But as the man as federal representative, in whatever way (scripture does not tell us) it is the father that is the transmitter. All human men and women have human fathers. It is impure and unholy to have a sin nature.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Eve got it from disobeying God.

According to Rom 5:12-21 it was God's decision that if sin and death were to come
into the world, they would do so by means of the solo actions of one man working
alone, just as life and righteousness would come into the world by means of the
solo actions of one man working alone. In other words: if Eve was to contract the
fallen nature, she had to do so by means of Adam eating the fruit rather than on
her own.
_

 

[Arial]

According to Rom 5:12-21 it was God's decision that if sin and death were to come
into the world, they would do so by means of the solo actions of one man working
alone, just as life and righteousness would come into the world by means of the
solo actions of one man working alone. In other words: if Eve was to contract the
fallen nature, she had to do so by means of Adam eating the fruit rather than on
her own.
_

Sin is sin no matter who commits it, whether male or female. And one who sins is a sinner.