Son of God - Humanity or Deity?

[all4Him]

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself out to be the Son of God!”


David Bernard claims the term "Son of God" cannot be used apart from the humanity of Jesus. If this is correct; why would the Jews want to crucify Him for simply making a claim to His humanity?

"We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms 'Son of God,' 'Son of man,' and 'Son' are appropriate and biblical."

"Many other verses of Scripture reveal that we can only use the term “Son of God” correctly when it includes the humanity of Jesus." David Bernard The Oneness of God pgs. 98-99

I have always understood the term "the Son of God" to be in relations to the Father and not to humanity. The term Son of Man, it would seem to be in relations to His humanity.

 

[RiJoRi]

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself out to be the Son of God!”


David Bernard claims the term "Son of God" cannot be used apart from the humanity of Jesus. If this is correct; why would the Jews want to crucify Him for simply making a claim to His humanity?

I have always understood the term "the Son of God" to be in relations to the Father and not to humanity. The term Son of Man, it would seem to be in relations to His humanity.

This is an interesting study. Go for it!
You may want to take Matt 26:64-ish and Daniel 7:13 into consideration also

Just keep in mind that this is not a major doctrinal point such as the Resurrection. Some day we'll know for sure! 😊

--Rich

 

[CrowCross]

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself out to be the Son of God!”


David Bernard claims the term "Son of God" cannot be used apart from the humanity of Jesus. If this is correct; why would the Jews want to crucify Him for simply making a claim to His humanity?



I have always understood the term "the Son of God" to be in relations to the Father and not to humanity. The term Son of Man, it would seem to be in relations to His humanity.

Over the years I've read many commentaries and has heard from many scholors that say David Bernard is wrong.

For example.... The Jewish leaders understood exactly what Jesus meant by the phrase “Son of God.” To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God. The Son of God is “of God.” The claim to be of the same nature as God—to in fact be God—was blasphemy to the Jewish leaders; therefore, they demanded Jesus’ death. Got Questions

 

[all4Him]

This is an interesting study. Go for it!
You may want to take Matt 26:64-ish and Daniel 7:13 into consideration also

Just keep in mind that this is not a major doctrinal point such as the Resurrection. Some day we'll know for sure! 😊

--Rich

It is a major doctrinal point since it denies the deity of the Son of God, therefore, denying the Son. If you don't have the Son, you don't have the Father. This turns into a salvation issue.

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP

the term Son of God is his FLESH BODY that he came in. many see the term "God" in son of God and assume from above, no, listen to the scriptures, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." what is born is FLESH, because the Son of Man is Given as Isaiah 9:6 states, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

the Child, Flesh and bone with blood, is the "Son of God", because God who is the Holy Spirit conceived that child in the woman womb. but the Son of man is GIVEN, or came from Heaven, never BORN. John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." and one more, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

so the Son of Man is "spirit", small case "s" in spirit, because God shared Spirit was made G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), while in that NATURAL Flesh

man wisdon will get one lost in a heartbeat.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[all4Him]

Addressing the OP

the term Son of God is his FLESH BODY that he came in. many see the term "God" in son of God and assume from above, no, listen to the scriptures, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." what is born is FLESH, because the Son of Man is Given as Isaiah 9:6 states, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

the Child, Flesh and bone with blood, is the "Son of God", because God who is the Holy Spirit conceived that child in the woman womb. but the Son of man is GIVEN, or came from Heaven, never BORN. John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." and one more, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

so the Son of Man is "spirit", small case "s" in spirit, because God shared Spirit was made G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), while in that NATURAL Flesh

man wisdon will get one lost in a heartbeat.

PICJAG, 101G.

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’?
Joh 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified),
Joh 10:36 are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

According to this, was it blasphemy for Jesus to claim He has a flesh body? The Jews were very aware of the meaning of the term "the Son of God" and the implication of the meaning. Jesus was making Himself equal with the Father. The term has absolutely nothing to do with His fleshly body. The term "the Son of Man" speaks to His incarnation. Which in the way it was used, it also spoke of His deity (cf. Daniel 7:13)

Mar 14:61 But He kept silent and did not offer any answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and *said to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Mar 14:63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest *said, “What further need do we have of witnesses?
Mar 14:64 “You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him as deserving of death.
Mar 14:65 And some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists and say to Him, “Prophesy!” Then the officers took custody of Him and slapped Him in the face.

Mat 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I place You under oath by the living God, to tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mat 26:64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See, you have now heard the blasphemy;
Mat 26:66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

Your view is easily refuted just by these few verses. Allow me to quote your own words, "man wisdon will get one lost in a heartbeat."

 

[101G]

According to this, was it blasphemy for Jesus to claim He has a flesh body? The Jews were very aware of the meaning of the term "the Son of God" and the implication of the meaning. Jesus was making Himself equal with the Father. The term has absolutely nothing to do with His fleshly body. The term "the Son of Man" speaks to His incarnation. Which in the way it was used, it also spoke of His deity (cf. Daniel 7:13)

thanks for the reply, the Jews knew carnal knowledge, for Christ ask them this also, Matthew 22:41 "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them," Matthew 22:42 "Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David."
Matthew 22:43 "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,"
Matthew 22:44 "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?"
Matthew 22:45 "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"
Matthew 22:46 "And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."

see, they didn't know. as for "god", which are human Judges, the same David, the psalmist said this, Psalms 82:5 "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course."
Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

now listen carefully at the very next verse, Psalms 82:7 "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."

but I ajure you to read the whole Psalms for edification.

Your view is easily refuted just by these few verses. Allow me to quote your own words, "man wisdon will get one lost in a heartbeat."

yes, and let me fulfill it for you,

Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

right hand is simply means in POWER. an anthropomorphism

this seen a good place to teach this.

here the RIGHT hand is expressing the WILL of God in POWER as the ARM of God in POWER. so the Standing on the RIGHT Hand... in Power, scripture, Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

so have all of the Lord's enemies been made his footstool? and has the Lord returnes in, in, in, POWER yet? listen to your verse Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

so he sits untill.... he come again. and he's sitting at WHERE? sitting at the right hand of power there it is, the RIGHT HAND indicate POWER. see how easy it is to reprove your statements.

if you need any help in understanding this concept of "POWER" at the Right habd, just ask.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[all4Him]

thanks for the reply, the Jews knew carnal knowledge, for Christ ask them this also, Matthew 22:41 "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them," Matthew 22:42 "Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David."
Matthew 22:43 "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,"
Matthew 22:44 "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?"
Matthew 22:45 "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"
Matthew 22:46 "And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."

see, they didn't know. as for "god", which are human Judges, the same David, the psalmist said this, Psalms 82:5 "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course."
Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

now listen carefully at the very next verse, Psalms 82:7 "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."

but I ajure you to read the whole Psalms for edification.

yes, and let me fulfill it for you,

right hand is simply means in POWER. an anthropomorphism

this seen a good place to teach this.

here the RIGHT hand is expressing the WILL of God in POWER as the ARM of God in POWER. so the Standing on the RIGHT Hand... in Power, scripture, Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

so have all of the Lord's enemies been made his footstool? and has the Lord returnes in, in, in, POWER yet? listen to your verse Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

so he sits untill.... he come again. and he's sitting at WHERE? sitting at the right hand of power there it is, the RIGHT HAND indicate POWER. see how easy it is to reprove your statements.

if you need any help in understanding this concept of "POWER" at the Right habd, just ask.

PICJAG, 101G.

Nothing you posted refute anything I wrote. As the text clearly shows the Jews understood the term The Son of God was not pointing to Jesus' flesh.


Mat 16:15 He *said to them, “But who do you yourselves say that I am?”
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mat 16:17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Why would the Father have to reveal to the disciples that the Son of the living God was His human nature? Your view just doesn't make sense when put up to the scriptures. Here is further proof.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

(Before you try to deny this translation. A.T. Robertson: But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text).

The term Son of God has absolutely nothing to do with His humanity; it was strictly understood of His deity and relations to His Father. Only those who deny the true nature of the Son of God hold to a view like yours.

Joh_1:49 Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel!”

Isa_44:6 “This is what the LORD says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Do you see it? Nathanael shows that the term The Son of God and the King of Israel are synonymous.

Luk_4:41 Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” And yet He was rebuking them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that He was the Christ.

You can deny all day long, but the disciples, Pharisees, Sadducees, and demons all understood the term the Son of God was not a reference of His humanity.

 

[101G]

Nothing you posted refute anything I wrote. As the text clearly shows the Jews understood the term The Son of God was not pointing to Jesus' flesh.


Mat 16:15 He *said to them, “But who do you yourselves say that I am?”
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mat 16:17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Why would the Father have to reveal to the disciples that the Son of the living God was His human nature? Your view just doesn't make sense when put up to the scriptures. Here is further proof.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

(Before you try to deny this translation. A.T. Robertson: But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text).

The term Son of God has absolutely nothing to do with His humanity; it was strictly understood of His deity and relations to His Father. Only those who deny the true nature of the Son of God hold to a view like yours.

Joh_1:49 Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel!”

Isa_44:6 “This is what the LORD says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Do you see it? Nathanael shows that the term The Son of God and the King of Israel are synonymous.

Luk_4:41 Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” And yet He was rebuking them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that He was the Christ.

You can deny all day long, but the disciples, Pharisees, Sadducees, and demons all understood the term the Son of God was not a reference of His humanity.

I disagree with your assessment. the term Son of God is his humanity, and not his deity, the Son of MAN, (Spirit), TOOK PART IN our humanity., supportive scripture, Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

see the difference? "TOOK PART", and he was not a "PARTAKER" in our humanity. understand Son of God is Flesh, bone and BLOOD. well there is no flesh and blood in heaven nor came from heaven.

and the Jews took him for a NATURAL man,
John 10:33 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." so the Jew did not think the term "Son of God is his deity.

now understand, when in the flesh.... NATURAL Flesh, in the G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') state, he had "BLOOD", upon resurrection, he had no Blood. see the difference now? listen to the Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 15:35 "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" 1 Corinthians 15:36 "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:" 1 Corinthians 15:37 "And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:" 1 Corinthians 15:38 "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body."

so the body changes... now do God CHANGE, who is a "Spirit?".

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[all4Him]

I disagree with your assessment. the term Son of God is his humanity, and not his deity, the Son of MAN, (Spirit), TOOK PART IN our humanity., supportive scripture, Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

see the difference? "TOOK PART", and he was not a "PARTAKER" in our humanity. understand Son of God is Flesh, bone and BLOOD. well there is no flesh and blood in heaven nor came from heaven.

and the Jews took him for a NATURAL man,
John 10:33 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." so the Jew did not think the term "Son of God is his deity.

now understand, when in the flesh.... NATURAL Flesh, in the G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') state, he had "BLOOD", upon resurrection, he had no Blood. see the difference now? listen to the Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 15:35 "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" 1 Corinthians 15:36 "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:" 1 Corinthians 15:37 "And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:" 1 Corinthians 15:38 "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body."

so the body changes... now do God CHANGE, who is a "Spirit?".

PICJAG, 101G.

You are the one saying that the term Son of God refers to His humanity.

 

[101G]

You are the one saying that the term Son of God refers to His humanity.

READ MY LIPS, Son of God is Flesh bone and Blood that came out of Judah, not "FROM" Judah, but out of Judah. got it? Son of man (the Shared Spirit) came from Heaven. do I make myself clear.

Son of God is the Flesh he took part in. and the Son of Man is the EQUALLY SHARED "Spirit"

now if I said that the Son of God is his deity, please find that post so I can correct it.... thanks in advance.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[all4Him]

READ MY LIPS, Son of God is Flesh bone and Blood that came out of Judah, not "FROM" Judah, but out of Judah. got it? Son of man (the Shared Spirit) came from Heaven. do I make myself clear.

Son of God is the Flesh he took part in. and the Son of Man is the EQUALLY SHARED "Spirit"

now if I said that the Son of God is his deity, please find that post so I can correct it.... thanks in advance.

PICJAG, 101G.

Read the Bible, the Son of God is NOT speaking of His Flesh. There are plenty of verses that easily refute your position.

Let us take a look at your logic.

Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son (your view flesh, bone and blood) , whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.

Your logic tells us that the Son was flesh, bone and blood when He created the world.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

Your logic tells us that the Son was flesh, bone and blood when He existed in the beginning with the Father.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Your logic tells us that the Word was already flesh, bone, and blood before He became flesh.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

Your logic tells us that God the only Son was flesh, bone and blood who is in the arms of the Father, before His incarnation.

Col 1:16 for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Your logic goes against all the verses I posted. Tell me, how can the Son of God, who according to you, "is Flesh bone and Blood that came out of Judah," is the flesh, bone and blood that all things were created, and the flesh, bone and blood IS before all things, and in the flesh, bone and blood, all things hold together?

You need to realign your doctrine to fit the Word of God instead of realigning the Word of God to fit your doctrine.

 

[101G]

Read the Bible, the Son of God is NOT speaking of His Flesh. There are plenty of verses that easily refute your position.

Let us take a look at your logic.

Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son (your view flesh, bone and blood) , whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.

thanks for the reply, so lets look at your logic. if the Son of God is NOT flesh and blood, then why is God speaking by this flesh and blood? because he spoke by FLESH and BLOOD men, (prophets) before. and the Lord Jesus as a man, and was a prophet, is he not?. so by BIBLE and not what you think is logic, but lets prove it. Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
NOW the son of God is "BORN", question, "is what was BORN of Mary., (as a matter of Fact any woman), flesh and bone, with blood was the son of God? the scripture states the son of God was born. now is a "spirit" born of any woman, yes or no?... we suggest you think twice or three time before you answer....

so your hebrew 1:3 is not good for this, meaning it's use there.

Your logic tells us that the Son was flesh, bone and blood when He created the world.

ERROR, I never said that, nor any truthful Logic either, only man wisdom and his faulty logic ASSUME that. if you think I did then find that post. and, if it says that then I'll correct it.... so find the post...

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

not FLESH and Blood, he the Ordinal Last was with the Ordinal First in the BEGINNING... we suggest you understand that term "WITH" YIKES!. so that verse is correct. the diversified Spirit.
Just as I said before the same PERSON in John 1:3 is the same ONE PERSON in Isaiah 44:24 who made all things.

Your logic tells us that the Son was flesh, bone and blood when He existed in the beginning with the Father.

MY Logic? post that post where I said this.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Your logic tells us that the Word was already flesh, bone, and blood before He became flesh.

again you ERROR.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

Your logic tells us that God the only Son was flesh, bone and blood who is in the arms of the Father, before His incarnation.

another ERROR on your Part

Col 1:16 for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Your logic goes against all the verses I posted. Tell me, how can the Son of God, who according to you, "is Flesh bone and Blood that came out of Judah," is the flesh, bone and blood that all things were created, and the flesh, bone and blood IS before all things, and in the flesh, bone and blood, all things hold together?

You need to realign your doctrine to fit the Word of God instead of realigning the Word of God to fit your doctrine.

What you need to do is read my post again, lol, lol, lol,

NOW LISTEN REAL CAREFULLY. THE SON OF GOD WAS NEVER AT THE BEGINNING... Genesis 1:1 or at Genesis 1:26... YIKES!
BUT "JESUS" WAS..... now this is what I been saying every day, and will always say, and never STOP SAYING. now if you think i made a different statement from the one above, I challenge you to find that post.

so instead of telling 101G to realign his doctrine, ........ 101G say to you ... "RE-READ" my doctrine, it's in plain sight.

so all4Him, can a woma birth "spirit" ...... this will put an end to the Son of God nonesense at the beginning. (smile), ... cain't wait to hear that answer.

PICJAG, 101G

PS, if you cannot quote me, or arrive at a statement that I may have said or have suggested to have said, be it logic or not.... then don't quote 101G at all... ok. if I said something, present the Post please.... thanks in advance.

 

[Yahchristian]

I have always understood the term "the Son of God" to be in relations to the Father and not to humanity. The term Son of Man, it would seem to be in relations to His humanity.

I personally understand the term “the Son of God” to mean “God incarnate”.

But to clarify your view...

Is “that holy thing” called “the Son of God”which was born to Mary relating to humanity?

Luke 1:35... And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

 

[all4Him]

thanks for the reply, so lets look at your logic. if the Son of God is NOT flesh and blood, then why is God speaking by this flesh and blood? because he spoke by FLESH and BLOOD men, (prophets) before. and the Lord Jesus as a man, and was a prophet, is he not?. so by BIBLE and not what you think is logic, but lets prove it. Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
NOW the son of God is "BORN", question, "is what was BORN of Mary., (as a matter of Fact any woman), flesh and bone, with blood was the son of God? the scripture states the son of God was born. now is a "spirit" born of any woman, yes or no?... we suggest you think twice or three time before you answer....

so your hebrew 1:3 is not good for this, meaning it's use there.

ERROR, I never said that, nor any truthful Logic either, only man wisdom and his faulty logic ASSUME that. if you think I did then find that post. and, if it says that then I'll correct it.... so find the post...

not FLESH and Blood, he the Ordinal Last was with the Ordinal First in the BEGINNING... we suggest you understand that term "WITH" YIKES!. so that verse is correct. the diversified Spirit.
Just as I said before the same PERSON in John 1:3 is the same ONE PERSON in Isaiah 44:24 who made all things.


MY Logic? post that post where I said this.

again you ERROR.

another ERROR on your Part

What you need to do is read my post again, lol, lol, lol,

NOW LISTEN REAL CAREFULLY. THE SON OF GOD WAS NEVER AT THE BEGINNING... Genesis 1:1 or at Genesis 1:26... YIKES!
BUT "JESUS" WAS..... now this is what I been saying every day, and will always say, and never STOP SAYING. now if you think i made a different statement from the one above, I challenge you to find that post.

so instead of telling 101G to realign his doctrine, ........ 101G say to you ... "RE-READ" my doctrine, it's in plain sight.

so all4Him, can a woma birth "spirit" ...... this will put an end to the Son of God nonesense at the beginning. (smile), ... cain't wait to hear that answer.

PICJAG, 101G

PS, if you cannot quote me, or arrive at a statement that I may have said or have suggested to have said, be it logic or not.... then don't quote 101G at all... ok. if I said something, present the Post please.... thanks in advance.

I guess I proved my point, because even you don’t agree with your own logic. You were the one saying that the “Son of God” means flesh, bone and blood. I showed how that logic cannot work in light of the Scriptures.

 

[all4Him]

I personally understand the term “the Son of God” to mean “God incarnate”.

But to clarify your view...

Is “that holy thing” called “the Son of God”which was born to Mary relating to humanity?

Luke 1:35... And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

We are talking about to separate topics. The term “The Son of God” is not speaking of His Flesh, but His relationship with The Father. Luke 1:35 is speaking of the conception of Jesus, not that the term refers to His body of flesh.

 

[Yahchristian]

Luke 1:35 is speaking of the conception of Jesus, not that the term refers to His body of flesh.

Just to clarify our views...

Is this statement true?

The term “the Son of God” in Luke 1:35 (right after “shall be called”) refers to the phrase “that holy thing which shall be born of thee” (right before “shall be called”).

Luke 1:35... And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I say True.

 

[101G]

I guess I proved my point, because even you don’t agree with your own logic. You were the one saying that the “Son of God” means flesh, bone and blood. I showed how that logic cannot work in light of the Scriptures

well here's the same thing, LOOK, you said, "Luke 1:35 is speaking of the conception of Jesus, not that the term refers to His body of flesh."
all4Him, I would like to ask you a point blank question, "can a woman birth a spirit?"... yes or no.

your answer please, only a yes or no is needed, no explanation... thank you.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[all4Him]

Just to clarify our views...

Is this statement true?

The term “the Son of God” in Luke 1:35 (right after “shall be called”) refers to the phrase “that holy thing which shall be born of thee” (right before “shall be called”).

Luke 1:35... And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I say True.

The statement is very true if you understand it correctly. This verse is speaking of the miraculous conception and Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. It also speaks to His deity and preexistence (cf. Isa_7:14; Isa_9:6; Gal_4:4). It is NOT speaking of His human nature. The verse you took out of context is actually a fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6-7.

Isa 9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of armies will accomplish this.


Luk 1:32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
Luk 1:33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”


We should NEVER build doctrine from a single verse, especially if it is taken out of context.

 

[all4Him]

well here's the same thing, LOOK, you said, "Luke 1:35 is speaking of the conception of Jesus, not that the term refers to His body of flesh."
all4Him, I would like to ask you a point blank question, "can a woman birth a spirit?"... yes or no.

your answer please, only a yes or no is needed, no explanation... thank you.

PICJAG, 101G.

It is not speaking of His birth, but the conception, so the question has nothing to do with anything I posted, and it has nothing to do with the passage. Please don't waste my time with silly questions.

You said above: the term Son of God is his FLESH BODY

You have yet to prove this statement.

The early Gnostic teaching that made its way into the church, taught the Son of God could not have come in the flesh because deity could not become something as sinful as flesh. Both John and Paul refuting this heresy.

1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now it is already in the world.

1Jn 4:14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
1Jn 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.

Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

A.T. Robertson: Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.


What does this prove? It proves that Jesus Christ, the Son of God preexisted His incarnation, and had come in the flesh.