The Biblical Meaning of "Son of God"

[Odë:hgöd]

Show us exactly how Jesus is one of David's paternal descendants in a way that clarifies exactly
what you mean.

● Luke 1:32-33 . . The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and
he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

While you are at it, show us how it is possible for a sin nature to be holy.

Jesus couldn't avoid the loss of perpetual youth, however, he easily avoided the
so-called fallen nature because that doesn't come to us from the original sin, rather,
it comes to Adam's posterity from the Serpent a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 12:9 & Rev 20:2)

I know that's true because Eve was fully constructed with material taken from
Adam's body before he tasted the forbidden fruit so it was impossible for him to
transmit the fallen nature to her by means of heredity yet her original sense of
decency was replaced by an altered version the same time as his.

* The Serpent 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. The Serpent's power is so strong that once it takes
hold, only the cross of Christ can liberate people from it. (1John 3:8)

Anyway: 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.
_

 

[Arial]

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 isn't true.

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.

From ChatGPT. Look it up anyway you want from anywhere you want.

---

2.​

The phrase "according to the flesh" (kata sarka) typically refers to human, earthly origin as opposed to divine. It often focuses on:

• Social or physical heritage
• Human status and limitations

In this case, Jesus' “Davidic” status according to human norms would come legally through Joseph, the line of kings.

Even if Jesus wasn’t biologically descended from Joseph, the legal recognition of Joseph as father made Jesus a son of David “in the flesh,” by legal status.

 

[Eleanor]

.
● 1Tim 2:15 . . And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
the transgression.
In a nutshell, when the woman tasted the forbidden fruit, all she did was taint
herself; but when Adam tasted the fruit, his entire posterity instantly became
collateral damage and thus doomed to die-- including Eve because she was
constructed with material taken from Adam's body. (Rom 5:12-21)
So then, seeing as how it's not all that difficult to show that Jesus is one of David's
paternal descendants, and thus Adam's, then had the Lord not been crucified, he
would've eventually passed away of some other cause.
_

Forgetting that God reckons by the father of the child Jesus, whose Father is God, and not by its mother.

God reckons all mankind as sinners through Adam, not through Eve.

 

[Paul]

In regard to the Son of Man the meaning of Son of God is that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The church holds that the logos was eternally begotten of the Father alone before all things and is the Son.
True God from true God. Begotten but not made.

Hebrews 1 is about the Son not about the Christ.
Through whom God made the creation. Clearly predates the Son of Man.

Jesus states His Father and our Father and His God and our God. Thats not ambiguous.

And its God, our Father

The foundation of the Nicene creed is mystery. I'm not sure you can explain how one who has no beginning is a begotten Son of a Father or from any another, but He is stated coeternal and is the Son.


To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

He had a human body and a human spirit but all of Him was God. A foundation of mystery. Unexplainable.

 

[Eleanor]

In regard to the Son of Man the meaning of Son of God is that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.
The church holds that the logos was eternally begotten of the Father alone before all things and is the Son.
True God from true God. Begotten but not made.
Hebrews 1 is about the Son not about the Christ.

Through whom God made the creation. Clearly predates the Son of Man.
Jesus states His Father and our Father and His God and our God. Thats not ambiguous.
And its God, our Father
The foundation of the Nicene creed is mystery. I'm not sure you can explain how one who has no beginning is a begotten Son of a Father or from any another, but He is stated coeternal and is the Son

The divine Son proceeds out from within the divine Father.
The incarnate divine Son is begotten of the Father. That is why he is divine (God).
And his human body has a beginning.

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

He had a human body and a human spirit but all of Him was God. A foundation of mystery. Unexplainable.

He was both God and man, he had two natures, human and divine, in one being, Jesus of Nazareth, as God is three persons in one being, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

 

[makesends]

A few days ago I began re-reading J.I. Packers book "Knowing God". I first read it twenty years ago, and early after "converting" from Arminianism to Reformed theology. I blame the fact that I was so new to the theology that much of his book did not resonate or register. Or if it did, I don't remember that it did. I am only on page 58 and am wondering why I had so little of it underlined!

Made me smile, that.

I didn't even know what Reformed Theology was, nor Calvinism, but for the caricatures. When I read Packer, it was not with the intent to understand Calvinism/Reformed, but because someone who knew my thinking said I should like it. Just backwards from your first reading, it seems, sentence after sentence resonated with what I was already coming to believe, but put it into words and phrases that I needed to hear. Over and over I felt like pounding the desk (floor, bed, whatever), "YES! YES!" EXACTLY!" I didn't know, at first, that it was Reformed theology.

Probably my favorite author is John Owen, though it's been years since I've read him. J. I. Packer wrote the forward in the edition of the first John Owen book I read.

 

[Eleanor]

Made me smile, that.

I didn't even know what Reformed Theology was, nor Calvinism, but for the caricatures. When I read Packer, it was not with the intent to understand Calvinism/Reformed, but because someone who knew my thinking said I should like it. Just backwards from your first reading, it seems, sentence after sentence resonated with what I was already coming to believe, but put it into words and phrases that I needed to hear. Over and over I felt like pounding the desk (floor, bed, whatever), "YES! YES!" EXACTLY!" I didn't know, at first, that it was Reformed theology.

Probably my favorite author is John Owen, though it's been years since I've read him. J. I. Packer wrote the forward in the edition of the first John Owen book I read.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. . .superb!

 

[Arial]

Made me smile, that.

I didn't even know what Reformed Theology was, nor Calvinism, but for the caricatures. When I read Packer, it was not with the intent to understand Calvinism/Reformed, but because someone who knew my thinking said I should like it. Just backwards from your first reading, it seems, sentence after sentence resonated with what I was already coming to believe, but put it into words and phrases that I needed to hear. Over and over I felt like pounding the desk (floor, bed, whatever), "YES! YES!" EXACTLY!" I didn't know, at first, that it was Reformed theology.

Probably my favorite author is John Owen, though it's been years since I've read him. J. I. Packer wrote the forward in the edition of the first John Owen book I read.

Yep.

 

[Arial]

Made me smile, that.

I didn't even know what Reformed Theology was, nor Calvinism, but for the caricatures. When I read Packer, it was not with the intent to understand Calvinism/Reformed, but because someone who knew my thinking said I should like it. Just backwards from your first reading, it seems, sentence after sentence resonated with what I was already coming to believe, but put it into words and phrases that I needed to hear. Over and over I felt like pounding the desk (floor, bed, whatever), "YES! YES!" EXACTLY!" I didn't know, at first, that it was Reformed theology.

Probably my favorite author is John Owen, though it's been years since I've read him. J. I. Packer wrote the forward in the edition of the first John Owen book I read.

I was kind of in the dark when I first began looking into Reformed theology----I didn't even know it was called that. I was seeing it as the sovereignty of God--- that was my first lens. Then it became known to me as Calvinism. My brother gave me the first book, Truths That Transform by James Kennedy. From there I was led via references to quotes in that book to Pink and The Sovereignty of God.

The next book I found on my own browsing through the theology section of a brick and mortar Christian book store (back when they still had them). The theology section was very small but I picked up a book titled Doctrines That Divide by Erin Lutzer?. It deals with all those doctrines and their history, not just the various Arminian vs Calvinism debates through out history. And this is either evidence of my ignorance or a comment on the condition of the modern practices of the church. But that was when I first realized Christianity actually has firm boundaries. The Bible and what is between its covers as to doctrinal teaching.

It was in the quoted references in that book that I made connection with many authors, current and in history, who were/are Calvinist/Reformed. It was when I caught MacArthur in one of his interpretive notes saying that the sacrifices would be reinstated when Jesus comes back as King, that I had a mini-revolt. And that led me to Covenant theology which I found out was Reformed theology. You know, looking backwards, I see God's hand leading me through every step.

 

[makesends]

The divine Son proceeds out from within the divine Father.
The incarnate divine Son is begotten of the Father. That is why he is divine (God).
And his human body has a beginning.

He was both God and man, he had two natures, human and divine, in one being, Jesus of Nazareth, as God is three persons in one being, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

This makes me think of another discussion, about how well we can understand (and explain).

What you say there is accurate, yet I can (in my mind) hear someone else use those words to mean something quite different from what I know you to mean. They would put the Son not only subordinate to the Father, but inferior and attribute creature-hood to him. They would say that the only way he is divine is because he was born of the Father. They would say that he became God.

When I read what you said, I thought to myself how many plants, in my experience in the tropics, banana trees, put out what in Spanish is called, "hijo" which translates, "son". But the translation is a little awkward, and I don't know how to explain why, except that we don't say the plant has sons. The Spanish means more, "offspring", than 'son', but .... nevermind.

My point being that the little plant that grew from the base of the big plant was no less banana tree than the big one was. And like humans are 'in the loins of' our ancestors, that little tree was in the genetics of the first banana tree. The farther I went with trying to analogize this to the fact of Christ's divinity the less it worked!

This, I think, is why I like to consider the 'language' in use in Heaven to be actual fact, and not just representations. The Son proceeds from the Father as THE WORD OF GOD. I like to theorize that for God to think is for God to do. But I'm pretty sure that for God to do is not quite what comes to our minds at hearing, "do". And what God speaks is the Creator? The Trinity doesn't fit human constructs, but it is simple. Riddles, lol.

 

[Paul]

The divine Son proceeds out from within the divine Father.
The incarnate divine Son is begotten of the Father. That is why he is divine (God).
And his human body has a beginning.

He was both God and man, he had two natures, human and divine, in one being, Jesus of Nazareth, as God is three persons in one being, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

yes, the church affirms He was fully God and fully human.
Does His human spirit have a beginning?

The divine Son proceeds out from within the divine Father.
The incarnate divine Son is begotten of the Father. That is why he is divine (God).
And his human body has a beginning.

He was both God and man, he had two natures, human and divine, in one being, Jesus of Nazareth, as God is three persons in one being, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

He had a human body and a human spirit. What part of Him was God? I understand the answer is all of Him but to me that's unexplainable. A mystery.

When did the Divine Son proceed from the Father if He has no beginning? To me that is a mystery.
The creed states begotten of the Father before all Ages. As in eternally begotten. Again how is a coeternal person from any other person? To me its a mystery. The Father is not from any other. The Son is.

The spirit of a man didn't descend from above. Yet Jesus had a human spirit, and He descended. A mystery

I don't try to explain the Trinity. I understand what it states.

I do think He's always been the Son.

 

[makesends]

yes, the church affirms He was fully God and fully human.
Does His human spirit have a beginning?

He had a human body and a human spirit. What part of Him was God? I understand the answer is all of Him but to me that's unexplainable. A mystery.

When did the Divine Son proceed from the Father if He has no beginning? To me that is a mystery.
The creed states begotten of the Father before all Ages. As in eternally begotten. Again how is a coeternal person from any other person? To me its a mystery. The Father is not from any other. The Son is.

The spirit of a man didn't descend from above. Yet Jesus had a human spirit, and He descended. A mystery

I don't try to explain the Trinity. I understand what it states.

I do think He's always been the Son.

I think the differences between the persons are more substantial than we suppose. The Son is the Word of God, God spoke creation into being, and the Son is the Creator. Man shall... live... by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God may well be a pun in the revealing (and no, I am not saying that the Scriptures are the Son.) God is not like us. I suppose that for him to think is to do, and to do is to speak it, roughly put. He need not suppose or weigh options. Reality itself depends on HIM, and is not something to which he must accommodate himself —it is his 'invention', so to speak.

Thus, the Son proceeds from God, the Spirit likewise is God's very Spirit, but neither of these concepts fit what we make of them. God is not in parts, but in persons.

It's a lot easier to make short, valid, statements about what God is not, than to say what he is.

 

[Paul]

I think the differences between the persons are more substantial than we suppose. The Son is the Word of God, God spoke creation into being, and the Son is the Creator. Man shall... live... by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God may well be a pun in the revealing (and no, I am not saying that the Scriptures are the Son.) God is not like us. I suppose that for him to think is to do, and to do is to speak it, roughly put. He need not suppose or weigh options. Reality itself depends on HIM, and is not something to which he must accommodate himself —it is his 'invention', so to speak.

Thus, the Son proceeds from God, the Spirit likewise is God's very Spirit, but neither of these concepts fit what we make of them. God is not in parts, but in persons.

It's a lot easier to make short, valid, statements about what God is not, than to say what he is.

God spoke to us in these last days by His Son.
The deity of the Father living in His Son doing His work. They are one.

Jesus, the Son of Man, was the word of the Father.

God created through the Son. (Through Him all things were made) - The creed states that. The NT states that.
Both were involved in every aspect of Creation.


You state the Son proceeds from the Father but that dictates a point in time that took place but the Son has no beginning. It also suggests the Son came into existence at the Fathers will but the Son has no beginning. (Mystery)

 

[makesends]

God spoke to us in these last days by His Son.
The deity of the Father living in His Son doing His work. They are one.

Jesus, the Son of Man, was the word of the Father.

God created through the Son. (Through Him all things were made) - The creed states that. The NT states that.
Both were involved in every aspect of Creation.

You state the Son proceeds from the Father but that dictates a point in time that took place but the Son has no beginning. It also suggests the Son came into existence at the Fathers will but the Son has no beginning. (Mystery)

Not necessarily ["dictates a point in time"], though it is well noticed, and easy enough for people to think I am implying it.

What God spoke into existence came into existence by the Word of God, but that does not demonstrate WHEN he spoke, except only in a causal sense. God was/is, as the Trinity, and all creation results from his causing it to exist. Also, I skinny'd my statement to the matter of the Son of God being the Word of God, and hardly a comprehensive treatment of that! But there is a lot more to who God the Son is, to which I did not allude, though in my opinion, none of who/what the Son is, is separate from him being the Word.

Also, I hope you did pick up on the fact that what I did say is considered by me only a tentative construction, only a way to look at things, speculation. I don't claim to understand the Trinity. But I can see intuitively, that is must be so.

 

[Paul]

Not necessarily ["dictates a point in time"], though it is well noticed, and easy enough for people to think I am implying it.

What God spoke into existence came into existence by the Word of God, but that does not demonstrate WHEN he spoke, except only in a causal sense. God was/is, as the Trinity, and all creation results from his causing it to exist. Also, I skinny'd my statement to the matter of the Son of God being the Word of God, and hardly a comprehensive treatment of that! But there is a lot more to who God the Son is, to which I did not allude, though in my opinion, none of who/what the Son is, is separate from him being the Word.

Also, I hope you did pick up on the fact that what I did say is considered by me only a tentative construction, only a way to look at things, speculation. I don't claim to understand the Trinity. But I can see intuitively, that is must be so.

All things are from the Father and "through" the Son. (Through Him all things were made is stated in the NT and creed).
Don't worry nobody can explain the trinity as written.
One thing is clear. Jesus has a God and Father. Some think the Logos ceased to exist and became the Son and remained the Son. (not me)
The Foundation of the Trinity is mystery.

Jesus has always been the Son. Eternally begotten of the Father.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.