The Son of the man

[uglyandthin]

Hi all:

Was Jesus the Son of Man or was he the Son of "the Man"? Is there a difference, and if so, what is it? Before you answer, please do a little research of Genesis 1:26-28 and also Matthew 8:20, 10:23, 12:8, 12:40, 17:22, 24:30, Luke 17:26 and also John 3:13. Please look up these scriptures in a Greek interlinear of the Bible to get what is actually written. This has revealed a lot to me, I hope it will do the same for you.

In the account in Genesis, the large print New World Translation has some very helpful footnotes that reveal to the discerning eye the true import of these scriptures. Feel free to use a Hebrew Interlinear on Genesis 1:26-28, one such is http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm . Check it out and then feel free to comment. Of course you can comment without fully researching this, as I'm sure some will, but that would defeat the purpose of this thread wouldn't it?

uglyandthin

[elihu]

Hi Uglyandthin,

probably way off pitch, the way i read it is God said "LET US make MAN in our image"
so Jehovah is having dialogue with someone when he says "let us", which means that the ones he is talking of making in his image are new addititions to his existing creations which he refers to as "male and female" i take them to be mankind.

Christ refering to himself as the "son of Man" does not fit comfortably with the suggestion that Jehovah was speaking to others about creating him.
but like i said i am probably way off pitch with regard to what you mean.

elihu

[Tsaphah]

I'll jump in later on this, with both feet. Interesting subject and question U&T. Thanks for the link. This particular site and source is done quite well. It's hard to get the Hebrew presented right, or should I say, left. It's completely opposite of English. I've always had a thought about why this is so. There are some other sites out there that have tried and failed. This site doesn't have the letters backward, but they lack the accent and vowel marks which are quite important. Overall, I like it a lot. It will be well used by me. Another research source for my digital library.

Tsaphah

[Tsaphah]

The following is for reference only. We must remember that the writer of this information believes in the Trinity, and as such, is influenced by those beliefs. You should be able to see those influences when you read it. Once again, it is from W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, pp. 47-50.

SON
HUIOS (Greek ) primarily signifies the relation of offspring to parent (see John 9:18-20; Gal. 4:30). It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics (see below). "It is used in the N.T. Of (a) male offspring, Gal. 4:30; (b) legitimate, as opposed to illegitimate, offspring, Heb. 12:8; (c) descendants, without reference to sex, Rom. 9:27; (d) friends attending a wedding, Matt. 9:15; (e) those who enjoy certain privileges, Acts 3:25; (f)those who act in a certain way, whether evil, Matt. 23:31, or good, Gal. 3:7; (g) those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph. 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom. 8:14; (h) the destiny that corresponds with the character, whether evil, Matt. 23:15; John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3,
or good, Luke 20 : 36 ; (i) the dignity of the relationship with God whereinto men are brought by the Holy Spirit when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 8:19; Gal. 3:26. . . .
"The Apostle John does not use huios, 'son,' of the believer, he reserves that title for the Lord; but he does use teknon, 'child,' as in his Gospel, 1:12; 1 John 3:1, 2: Rev. 21:7 (huios) is a quotation from 2 Sam. 7:14.
"The Lord Jesus used huios in a very significant way, as in Matt. 5:9, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God,' and vv. 44, 45, 'Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be (become) sons of your Father which is in heaven.' The disciples were to do these things, not in order that they might become children of God, but that, being children (note 'your Father' throughout), they might make the fact manifest in their character, might * become sons.'
See also 2 Cor. 6:17, 18.
"As to moral characteristics, the following phrases are used: (a) sons of God, Matt. 5:9, 45; Luke 6:35; (b) sons of the light, Luke 16:8; John 12:36; (c) sons of the day, 1 Thess. 5:5; (d) sons of peace, Luke 10:6; (e) sons of this world, Luke 16:8; ( f ) sons of disobedience, Eph. 2:2; (g) sons of the evil one, Matt. 13:38, cp. 'of the'Devi1,' Acts 13:10; (h) son of perdition, John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3. It is also used to describe characteristics other than moral, as: (i) sons of the resurrection, Luke 20:36; (j) sons of the Kingdom, Matt. 8:12; 13:38; (k) sons of the bridechamber, Mark 2:19; (l) sons of exhortation, Acts 4:36; (m) sons of thunder, Boanerges, Mark 3:17."*

Notes: (I) For the synonyms teknon and teknion see under CHILD.
The difference between believers as 'children of God' and as 'sons of God' is brought out in Rom. 8:14-21. The Spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are "children of God," and, as such, they are His heirs and joint-heirs with Christ. This stresses the fact of their spiritual birth (vv. 16, 17). On the other hand, "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God,"i.e., 'these and no other.' Their conduct gives evidence of the dignity of their relationship and their likeness to His character. (2) Pais is rendered "son" in John 4:51. For Acts 13:13, 26 see below.

From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 167-169, and on Thessalonians, pp. 158-159.

Son of Man
In the N.T. this is a designation of Christ, almost entirely confined to the Gospels. Elsewhere it is found in Acts 7:56, the only occasion where a disciple applied it to the Lord and in Rev. 1:13; 14:14 (see below).
"Son of Man" is the title Christ used of Himself; John 12:34 is not an exception, for the quotation by the multitude was from His own statement. The title is found especially in the Synoptic Gospels. The occurrences in John's Gospel, 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28 (9:35 in some texts); 12:23, 34 (twice); 13:31, are not parallel to those in the Synoptic Gospels. In the latter the use of the title falls into
two groups, (a) those in which it refers to Christ's humanity, His earthly
work, sufferings and death, e.g., Matt. 8 : 20 ; 11 : 19 ; 12 : 40 ; 26 : 2,
24 ; (b) those which refer to His glory in resurrection and to that of His
future Advent, e.g., Matt. 10:23; 13:41; 16:27, 28; 17:9; 24:27, 30 (twice), 37, 39. 44.
While it is a Messianic title it is evident that the Lord applied it to Himself in a distinctive way, for it indicates more than Messiahship, even universal headship on the part of One who is Man. It therefore stresses His manhood, manhood of a unique order in comparison with all other men, for He is declared to be of heaven, 1 Cor. 15:47, and even while here below, was "the Son of Man, which is in Heaven," John 3:13.
As the Son of Man He must be appropriated spiritually as a condition of possessing eternal life, John 6:53. In His death, as in His life, the glory of His Manhood was displayed in the absolute obedience and submission to the will of the Father (12:23; 13:31), and, in view of this, all judgment has been committed to Him, who will judge in full understanding experimentally of human conditions, sin apart, and will exercise the judgment as sharing the nature of those judged, John 5:22, 27. Not only is He man, but He is "Son of man," not by human generation but, according to the Semitic usage of the expression, partaking of the characteristics (sin apart) of manhood belonging to the category of mankind. Twice in the Apocalypse, 1:13 and 14:14, He is described as "One like unto a Son of man," R.V. (A.V., ". . . the Son of Man"), cp. Dan. 7:13. He who was thus seen was indeed the Son of Man, but the absence of the article in the original serves to stress what morally characterizes Him as such. Accordingly in these passages He is revealed, not as the Person known by the title, but as the One who is qualified to act as the Judge of all men. He is the same Person as in the days of His flesh, still continuing His humanity with His Deity. The phrase "like unto" serves to distinguish Him as there seen in His glory and majesty in contrast to the days of His humiliation.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________

Now let's address the question of “Son of the Man”. This leads to another question of who is “the Man”. I won't get into any euphemisms of our time and age. We are only concerned with the Hebrew and Greek words, use of terms, and phraseology. In the scriptures listed in the original post, almost all use the Greek term “ho hulos tou anthropos”, literally, “this/the son of this/the man”. The definite article is used, ho=this, that, these (depending on what the subject is). The word hulos=a son, generally used of the offspring of men. This term is used at Matt. 1:1 to trace the ancestry of Jesus from Abraham. The Book of Mark also uses this term at Mark 1:1, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the “hulos theos”; Son of God. This scripture does not use the definite article “ho” here because it specifically names the subject as Jesus Christ. As for the word, anthropos=a human being, whether male or female. In these cases, Jesus is speaking of himself, so it is a man.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to insert the original Greek letters here. The original Greek uses the genitive singular form of “tou”, which can be translated as “of the” or “the”. But this is not the case to be used here. The genitive form is used primarily as a construction noting the relationship to “hulos” and “anthropos”. In this case, the word for son, and man are connected. This same term is used in the Septuagint, when translating the Hebrew, “bar 'enash or kabar 'enash” to “hulos anthropos”. “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One.” (Dan 7:13) This is one of the reasons the English translations use the phrase, “Son of Man”. This term, “Son of Man” is only found in the Greek synoptic gospel accounts, and is only used by Jesus, applying the term to himself. There is one other place where this term is used in the Greek scriptures, and not spoken by Jesus. It is spoken by Stephen just before he is stoned to death. (Acts 7:56) And, in all cases, the translators us “Son of Man, and not “Son of the Man”.

Do you suppose that Jesus used that phrase to identify himself as the one spoken of by Daniel? Most of the crowd probably didn't get the connection.

So U&T, where do we go from here?

Agapé,
Tsaphah

[uglyandthin]

The following is for reference only. We must remember that the writer of this information believes in the Trinity, and as such, is influenced by those beliefs. You should be able to see those influences when you read it. Once again, it is from W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, pp. 47-50.

SON
HUIOS (Greek ) primarily signifies the relation of offspring to parent (see John 9:18-20; Gal. 4:30). It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics (see below). "It is used in the N.T. Of (a) male offspring, Gal. 4:30; (b) legitimate, as opposed to illegitimate, offspring, Heb. 12:8; (c) descendants, without reference to sex, Rom. 9:27; (d) friends attending a wedding, Matt. 9:15; (e) those who enjoy certain privileges, Acts 3:25; (f)those who act in a certain way, whether evil, Matt. 23:31, or good, Gal. 3:7; (g) those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph. 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom. 8:14; (h) the destiny that corresponds with the character, whether evil, Matt. 23:15; John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3,
or good, Luke 20 : 36 ; (i) the dignity of the relationship with God whereinto men are brought by the Holy Spirit when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 8:19; Gal. 3:26. . . .
"The Apostle John does not use huios, 'son,' of the believer, he reserves that title for the Lord; but he does use teknon, 'child,' as in his Gospel, 1:12; 1 John 3:1, 2: Rev. 21:7 (huios) is a quotation from 2 Sam. 7:14.
"The Lord Jesus used huios in a very significant way, as in Matt. 5:9, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God,' and vv. 44, 45, 'Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be (become) sons of your Father which is in heaven.' The disciples were to do these things, not in order that they might become children of God, but that, being children (note 'your Father' throughout), they might make the fact manifest in their character, might * become sons.'
See also 2 Cor. 6:17, 18.
"As to moral characteristics, the following phrases are used: (a) sons of God, Matt. 5:9, 45; Luke 6:35; (b) sons of the light, Luke 16:8; John 12:36; (c) sons of the day, 1 Thess. 5:5; (d) sons of peace, Luke 10:6; (e) sons of this world, Luke 16:8; ( f ) sons of disobedience, Eph. 2:2; (g) sons of the evil one, Matt. 13:38, cp. 'of the'Devi1,' Acts 13:10; (h) son of perdition, John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3. It is also used to describe characteristics other than moral, as: (i) sons of the resurrection, Luke 20:36; (j) sons of the Kingdom, Matt. 8:12; 13:38; (k) sons of the bridechamber, Mark 2:19; (l) sons of exhortation, Acts 4:36; (m) sons of thunder, Boanerges, Mark 3:17."*

Notes: (I) For the synonyms teknon and teknion see under CHILD.
The difference between believers as 'children of God' and as 'sons of God' is brought out in Rom. 8:14-21. The Spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are "children of God," and, as such, they are His heirs and joint-heirs with Christ. This stresses the fact of their spiritual birth (vv. 16, 17). On the other hand, "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God,"i.e., 'these and no other.' Their conduct gives evidence of the dignity of their relationship and their likeness to His character. (2) Pais is rendered "son" in John 4:51. For Acts 13:13, 26 see below.

From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 167-169, and on Thessalonians, pp. 158-159.

Son of Man
In the N.T. this is a designation of Christ, almost entirely confined to the Gospels. Elsewhere it is found in Acts 7:56, the only occasion where a disciple applied it to the Lord and in Rev. 1:13; 14:14 (see below).
"Son of Man" is the title Christ used of Himself; John 12:34 is not an exception, for the quotation by the multitude was from His own statement. The title is found especially in the Synoptic Gospels. The occurrences in John's Gospel, 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28 (9:35 in some texts); 12:23, 34 (twice); 13:31, are not parallel to those in the Synoptic Gospels. In the latter the use of the title falls into
two groups, (a) those in which it refers to Christ's humanity, His earthly
work, sufferings and death, e.g., Matt. 8 : 20 ; 11 : 19 ; 12 : 40 ; 26 : 2,
24 ; (b) those which refer to His glory in resurrection and to that of His
future Advent, e.g., Matt. 10:23; 13:41; 16:27, 28; 17:9; 24:27, 30 (twice), 37, 39. 44.
While it is a Messianic title it is evident that the Lord applied it to Himself in a distinctive way, for it indicates more than Messiahship, even universal headship on the part of One who is Man. It therefore stresses His manhood, manhood of a unique order in comparison with all other men, for He is declared to be of heaven, 1 Cor. 15:47, and even while here below, was "the Son of Man, which is in Heaven," John 3:13.
As the Son of Man He must be appropriated spiritually as a condition of possessing eternal life, John 6:53. In His death, as in His life, the glory of His Manhood was displayed in the absolute obedience and submission to the will of the Father (12:23; 13:31), and, in view of this, all judgment has been committed to Him, who will judge in full understanding experimentally of human conditions, sin apart, and will exercise the judgment as sharing the nature of those judged, John 5:22, 27. Not only is He man, but He is "Son of man," not by human generation but, according to the Semitic usage of the expression, partaking of the characteristics (sin apart) of manhood belonging to the category of mankind. Twice in the Apocalypse, 1:13 and 14:14, He is described as "One like unto a Son of man," R.V. (A.V., ". . . the Son of Man"), cp. Dan. 7:13. He who was thus seen was indeed the Son of Man, but the absence of the article in the original serves to stress what morally characterizes Him as such. Accordingly in these passages He is revealed, not as the Person known by the title, but as the One who is qualified to act as the Judge of all men. He is the same Person as in the days of His flesh, still continuing His humanity with His Deity. The phrase "like unto" serves to distinguish Him as there seen in His glory and majesty in contrast to the days of His humiliation.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________

Now let's address the question of “Son of the Man”. This leads to another question of who is “the Man”. I won't get into any euphemisms of our time and age. We are only concerned with the Hebrew and Greek words, use of terms, and phraseology. In the scriptures listed in the original post, almost all use the Greek term “ho hulos tou anthropos”, literally, “this/the son of this/the man”. The definite article is used, ho=this, that, these (depending on what the subject is). The word hulos=a son, generally used of the offspring of men. This term is used at Matt. 1:1 to trace the ancestry of Jesus from Abraham. The Book of Mark also uses this term at Mark 1:1, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the “hulos theos”; Son of God. This scripture does not use the definite article “ho” here because it specifically names the subject as Jesus Christ. As for the word, anthropos=a human being, whether male or female. In these cases, Jesus is speaking of himself, so it is a man.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to insert the original Greek letters here. The original Greek uses the genitive singular form of “tou”, which can be translated as “of the” or “the”. But this is not the case to be used here. The genitive form is used primarily as a construction noting the relationship to “hulos” and “anthropos”. In this case, the word for son, and man are connected. This same term is used in the Septuagint, when translating the Hebrew, “bar 'enash or kabar 'enash” to “hulos anthropos”. “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One.” (Dan 7:13) This is one of the reasons the English translations use the phrase, “Son of Man”. This term, “Son of Man” is only found in the Greek synoptic gospel accounts, and is only used by Jesus, applying the term to himself. There is one other place where this term is used in the Greek scriptures, and not spoken by Jesus. It is spoken by Stephen just before he is stoned to death. (Acts 7:56) And, in all cases, the translators us “Son of Man, and not “Son of the Man”.

Do you suppose that Jesus used that phrase to identify himself as the one spoken of by Daniel? Most of the crowd probably didn't get the connection.

So U&T, where do we go from here?

Agapé,
Tsaphah

Thanks for the input. Could you comment on Genesis 1:26-28. Do you see any significant difference between man that was "made" by "Us" in verse 26 and then "the man" who was "created" directly by God, not "Us" in verses 27 and 28, and how does this "the man" relate to Jesus being termed the Son of "the" man? Also, do you notice any subtle differences between what God said to man in verse 26 compared to what he said to "the man" in verses 27 and 28. On first and possibly second read it seems we are seeing an explanation of the same "creative" event, but on closer examination could we perhaps actually see an explanation of two distinct events? I do, but it seems I am in a distinct minority. I repeat my earlier advice that people look at the footnotes in the large print NWT for some explanation of the words used in the Hebrew in these verses and the surrounding text.

uglyandthin

[Juan23]

Thanks for the input. Could you comment on Genesis 1:26-28. Do you see any significant difference between man that was "made" by "Us" in verse 26 and then "the man" who was "created" directly by God, not "Us" in verses 27 and 28, and how does this "the man" relate to Jesus being termed the Son of "the" man? Also, do you notice any subtle differences between what God said to man in verse 26 compared to what he said to "the man" in verses 27 and 28. On first and possibly second read it seems we are seeing an explanation of the same "creative" event, but on closer examination could we perhaps actually see an explanation of two distinct events? I do, but it seems I am in a distinct minority. I repeat my earlier advice that people look at the footnotes in the large print NWT for some explanation of the words used in the Hebrew in these verses and the surrounding text.

uglyandthin

I'm not sure what the difficulty is. When Adam and Eve were created Jesus had already been in existence for a long time.
(Rev 3:14) "And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce'a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,

So the "us" in Gen 1:26 is Jehovah and Jesus. Adam and Eve were created by Jehovah thru Jesus (as all other creation were). ( Col 1:16) because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

Jesus being referred to as "the Son of man" simply mean he was a man emptied of his divine nature. (Php 2:7) No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men. He was not a man/god as some supposed. He was a man, a perfect man just like Adam.

Although Gen 1:27 seem to indicate that God directly created a man and woman, this cannot be because he created all other creation thru Jesus.

[Tsaphah]

Thanks for the input. Could you comment on Genesis 1:26-28. Do you see any significant difference between man that was "made" by "Us" in verse 26 and then "the man" who was "created" directly by God, not "Us" in verses 27 and 28, and how does this "the man" relate to Jesus being termed the Son of "the" man? Also, do you notice any subtle differences between what God said to man in verse 26 compared to what he said to "the man" in verses 27 and 28. On first and possibly second read it seems we are seeing an explanation of the same "creative" event, but on closer examination could we perhaps actually see an explanation of two distinct events? I do, but it seems I am in a distinct minority. I repeat my earlier advice that people look at the footnotes in the large print NWT for some explanation of the words used in the Hebrew in these verses and the surrounding text.

uglyandthin

It’s just the way that the Hebrew, Greek, and other languages are structured. English doesn't use words in the same way. This is rather hard to explain because with some English words that are rooted in Latin or Greek, they have similar grammar rules but not exactly the same. Most other languages have masculine, feminine, and neutral genders, along with the word endings or form that indicate such. The English language is a conglomeration of many other languages and derives from what is called the PIE (Proto Indo-European) group. The easiest way to show you this is the following explanation and table. I'm not sure how this will show up, for the.

the
late O.E. þe, nominative masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun and adjective. After c.950, it replaced earlier se (masc.), seo (fem.), þæt (neut.), and probably represents se altered by the þ- form which was used in all the masc. oblique cases (see below). O.E. se is from PIE base *so- "this, that" (cf. Skt. sa, Avestan ha, Gk. ho, he "the," Ir., Gael. so "this"). For the þ- forms, see that. The s- forms were entirely superseded in English by mid-13c., excepting dialectal survival slightly longer in Kent. O.E. used 10 different words for "the" (see table, below), but did not distinguish "the" from "that." That survived for a time as a definite article before vowels (cf. that one or that other). Adv. use in the more the merrier, the sooner the better, etc. is a relic of O.E. þy, originally the instrumentive case of the neuter demonstrative þæt (see that).

(Unfortunately, the table will not keep it's formatting, and loses it's purpose here.)

In the scripture in Genesis, in the original Hebrew, if it is literally translated, does not read well in English. For one thing, the verbs, nouns, and definite articles are mixed up. We have to rearrange them to make sense in English. Also, we have to drop some definitives to have the sense of what is being said, make sense. There used to be specific rules of grammar that are pretty much non-standard now. One such rule deals with "the". As a definitive, there were correct and incorrect ways in which it was pronounced. When the, preceded a word beginning with a vowel, it was pronounced as thee, as in thee old man. When the, preceded a word beginning with a consonant, it was pronounced as thuh, as in thuh dog runs as thuh man jumps and thee old man laughs.

In Genesis 1:25, literally translated, it reads, “and he is making God animal of the land to species of her and the beast to species of her and every of moving animal of the ground to species of him and he is seeing God that good.” Now, is he God? Or is God animal of the land? Who is her? Can you see where confusion can come in with a literal translation? It is necessary for the translator to arrange the words into a proper structure for the particular language group of the reader.

The particular questions you raise in Gen 1:26-28 brings in the same sort of questions. Look at Gen 1:24, And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” Did God make the animals, or did the earth make them? Like wise, in verse 26, “and he is saying (elohim) God we shall make human in image of us as likeness of us...”. Reading this in English, “And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...”. Then in verse 27, it says, “and he is creating {elohim) God the human in image of him..”, which reads, “So God created man in his [own] image..”. Did God make man alone, even though in verse 26 it says, “Let us make man..”? I'm sure everyone is familiar with the Ford Motor Company. When Henry said, “Let's make a horseless carriage that everyone can afford.” He had the automobile made. Did Henry Ford, alone, make the automobile? Of course not. Other employees did the work, but Ford was the creator and credited with making the automobile.

In this case, we do not know whom God was addressing in verse 26. We can make assumptions based on other scriptures but we really don't know.

So, to answer the question, Did God alone create “the man”, No. He used others to help him with that task. Was it Jesus who helped in the creation, was it Jesus who was addressed in verse 26? (Col 1:15-17)

Agapé,
Tsaphah

[uglyandthin]

It’s just the way that the Hebrew, Greek, and other languages are structured. English doesn't use words in the same way. This is rather hard to explain because with some English words that are rooted in Latin or Greek, they have similar grammar rules but not exactly the same. Most other languages have masculine, feminine, and neutral genders, along with the word endings or form that indicate such. The English language is a conglomeration of many other languages and derives from what is called the PIE (Proto Indo-European) group. The easiest way to show you this is the following explanation and table. I'm not sure how this will show up, for the.

the
late O.E. þe, nominative masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun and adjective. After c.950, it replaced earlier se (masc.), seo (fem.), þæt (neut.), and probably represents se altered by the þ- form which was used in all the masc. oblique cases (see below). O.E. se is from PIE base *so- "this, that" (cf. Skt. sa, Avestan ha, Gk. ho, he "the," Ir., Gael. so "this"). For the þ- forms, see that. The s- forms were entirely superseded in English by mid-13c., excepting dialectal survival slightly longer in Kent. O.E. used 10 different words for "the" (see table, below), but did not distinguish "the" from "that." That survived for a time as a definite article before vowels (cf. that one or that other). Adv. use in the more the merrier, the sooner the better, etc. is a relic of O.E. þy, originally the instrumentive case of the neuter demonstrative þæt (see that).

(Unfortunately, the table will not keep it's formatting, and loses it's purpose here.)

In the scripture in Genesis, in the original Hebrew, if it is literally translated, does not read well in English. For one thing, the verbs, nouns, and definite articles are mixed up. We have to rearrange them to make sense in English. Also, we have to drop some definitives to have the sense of what is being said, make sense. There used to be specific rules of grammar that are pretty much non-standard now. One such rule deals with "the". As a definitive, there were correct and incorrect ways in which it was pronounced. When the, preceded a word beginning with a vowel, it was pronounced as thee, as in thee old man. When the, preceded a word beginning with a consonant, it was pronounced as thuh, as in thuh dog runs as thuh man jumps and thee old man laughs.

In Genesis 1:25, literally translated, it reads, “and he is making God animal of the land to species of her and the beast to species of her and every of moving animal of the ground to species of him and he is seeing God that good.” Now, is he God? Or is God animal of the land? Who is her? Can you see where confusion can come in with a literal translation? It is necessary for the translator to arrange the words into a proper structure for the particular language group of the reader.

The particular questions you raise in Gen 1:26-28 brings in the same sort of questions. Look at Gen 1:24, And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” Did God make the animals, or did the earth make them? Like wise, in verse 26, “and he is saying (elohim) God we shall make human in image of us as likeness of us...”. Reading this in English, “And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...”. Then in verse 27, it says, “and he is creating {elohim) God the human in image of him..”, which reads, “So God created man in his [own] image..”. Did God make man alone, even though in verse 26 it says, “Let us make man..”? I'm sure everyone is familiar with the Ford Motor Company. When Henry said, “Let's make a horseless carriage that everyone can afford.” He had the automobile made. Did Henry Ford, alone, make the automobile? Of course not. Other employees did the work, but Ford was the creator and credited with making the automobile.

In this case, we do not know whom God was addressing in verse 26. We can make assumptions based on other scriptures but we really don't know.

So, to answer the question, Did God alone create “the man”, No. He used others to help him with that task. Was it Jesus who helped in the creation, was it Jesus who was addressed in verse 26? (Col 1:15-17)

Agapé,
Tsaphah

Hi Tsaphah:

I really appreciate the time and effort that you put into your replies and to this reply specifically. It shows that you are a very thoughtful person. Thanks again, but I will ask you to look even closer than you have. You see, the book of Genesis, especially the first few chapters covers a period of at least thousands of years and possibly millions of years or more of time. Just the expression "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." although only one sentance, 10 words, 55 letters and spaces encompasses an eon of time.

My point is, and I know you already know this, is that just because words in the bible are close to each other in proximity does not necessarily mean they happened right after each other in time. There could be a time interval between events described. I think that is the case here.

As to who the "us" is in verse 26, I do not think this is talking about a discussion between co-Trinity members Jehovah and Jesus as I do not ascribe to the Trinity which is to me a false story. And you are right, we cannot say for sure who the us is referring to. But we can use our God given brains to try and narrow it down. A clue I think is that in verse 26, which I think is a totally seperate time period as what is mentioned in verses 27 and 28, is that it says let us "make" man (or human in the hebrew) in "our" image and likeness, but in verses 27 and 28 which very possibly could be many years later in cosmic time, it is written as And God (not us) proceeded to "create" the man ("the" human in the hebrew) in his image (not in the image of us), in God's image (not in the image of us) he created (not made) him, male and female he created them. This last part is a detail that is left out of verse 26. Was it left out by mistake, or was it done so for a purpose? Now compare verse 28 and what God placed "the man" over with what man in verse 26 was placed over and see if you can pick up the subtle details. I know you can if I did. I get the impression you are smarter than I am by a measure.

I will ask you to examine these scriptures very closely and abandon the preconcieved notion that they are just a re-telling of the same event and look at it as if they are describing two very different events in two very different time periods. If you do, you may see what I have seen. I hope you do. If not, I can live with it.

In proverbs 8 verse 30 it says "then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was especially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,". Since Jesus is the master worker, it implies that thier were other workers. This is reinforced by the fact that Jesus obviously compares his relationship with God to the relationship with others. I think these are the "us" mentioned in verse 26. The man made in verse 26 was in the image of God and the angels who were his workers, amongst them Jesus or Michael, his Master worker.

But "the man" mentioned in verses 27 and 28 which also includes the cloning of Eve was "created" in God's image alone. Jesus being the Son of the man is a reference to the fact that he not only emptied himself and took a slaves form (as a man) but it specifically identifies himself as a genetic son of pre fall Adam. Adam was "the man" and Jesus is the Son of the man in that he was a perfect man as Adam was before he sinned. If Jesus is just the Son of Man he cannot lay claim to sinlessness for the offspring always carries the defect of the father. I will grant the fact that Jesus (Michael) could have been in on this "creation" with his Father, but "the man" was made in the image of God alone. This of course is a very important detail.

Look at this with a fresh eye without predisposition or prejudice and see what you see. That's all I ask.

uglyandthin

[Tsaphah]

Hi Tsaphah:

Look at this with a fresh eye without predisposition or prejudice and see what you see. That's all I ask.

uglyandthin

Hi uglyandthin,
I already have looked at this with fresh eyes, many times. I understand what you are thinking about. They have crossed my mind many times over the years. The internet has come a long way in providing the sources that I longed for over the years. Now I have them available to peruse, and give me new perspectives. I had a wonderful teacher who taught me how to learn. He instilled in me, a desire to "check things out", to see if it all made sense. He said, "Don't just take my word for it, check it out, I may be wrong." I don't have predispositions or prejudices about what I see or read. I look at things from all angles. Let me take some time to digest what you have said, so that I can make an intelligent reply to all you ask.

The writer of Genesis, although said to be Moses, I think included many others that preceded Moses. I believe that those individuals, Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, etc., down to Moses, wrote down this history on clay tablets. Those in the line, received these tablets as an inheritance. Moses was chosen to compile these records, thus, the book of Genesis. The record was transferred to scrolls. It is also possible that these tablets were put into the ark of the covenant, along with the other tablets and manna.

Yes, what you say about the earlier part of Genesis, is brief. That is the style of writing that is used in some places in the bible. The first portion of Genesis is referred to as a synopsis. It covers many things that occurred without the necessary details. In many cases, they are not necessary to the main story or record. It's like an introduction. They lay the basis for what is to come later.

Anyway, that's just a theory of mine. Who knows what is given those under inspiration. The best example is the Revelation given to John.

I'll get back to you on this.

Tsaphah

[uglyandthin]

Hi uglyandthin,
I already have looked at this with fresh eyes, many times. I understand what you are thinking about. They have crossed my mind many times over the years. The internet has come a long way in providing the sources that I longed for over the years. Now I have them available to peruse, and give me new perspectives. I had a wonderful teacher who taught me how to learn. He instilled in me, a desire to "check things out", to see if it all made sense. He said, "Don't just take my word for it, check it out, I may be wrong." I don't have predispositions or prejudices about what I see or read. I look at things from all angles. Let me take some time to digest what you have said, so that I can make an intelligent reply to all you ask.

The writer of Genesis, although said to be Moses, I think included many others that preceded Moses. I believe that those individuals, Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, etc., down to Moses, wrote down this history on clay tablets. Those in the line, received these tablets as an inheritance. Moses was chosen to compile these records, thus, the book of Genesis. The record was transferred to scrolls. It is also possible that these tablets were put into the ark of the covenant, along with the other tablets and manna.

Yes, what you say about the earlier part of Genesis, is brief. That is the style of writing that is used in some places in the bible. The first portion of Genesis is referred to as a synopsis. It covers many things that occurred without the necessary details. In many cases, they are not necessary to the main story or record. It's like an introduction. They lay the basis for what is to come later.

Anyway, that's just a theory of mine. Who knows what is given those under inspiration. The best example is the Revelation given to John.

I'll get back to you on this.

Tsaphah

Hi Tsaphah:

I know that whey you reply, it will be with honesty and conviction whether it leads you the same place that it has led me or not. I can't ask, nor expect anything more. May Jehovah and Jesus bless you in your reflection. Your brother,

Frank

[Tsaphah]

One thing that is important here, is to get the original sense of the Hebrew words. This is a hard thing to do because we are removed nearly seven thousand years from the time it was written. Original Hebrew has held it's meanings for a long time, so we can assume that the original meanings are still accurate. The other thing that we must consider is the accuracy of the scholars and their translations and associated meanings. The one I trust the most is the German scholar, Dr. William Gesenius. He spent his lifetime in the study and development of a Lexicography and Grammar of the Hebrew and Chaldean language. This has been a trusted source since the early 1800's.

When discussing the verses of the creation/making of Adam, we can get a deeper understanding of what was really said, and a truer meaning, by using the Hebrew. I will be using the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon by Gesenius.

You can't use the English language to arrive at numbers or placing of words in a sentence. Hebrew and Greek wasn't written with sentences, punctuation, or capital, and lower case letters as English is written. Greek uses upper and lower case letters but they aren't used to designate where a sentence begins or ends. Both languages were written with ideas and thoughts grouped together. Some words are called root words. Like a plant, the flowers derive from the roots. So adding to the root or base meaning, we arrive at more results from the root meaning.

So let's take a look at how the first part of Genesis starts. It deals with one subject, the creation. “In the beginning...”. The root word for beginning is “rash”, meaning “head”, or “highest part”, but pronounced as “rosh”, then added to this is “yh”, which adds to the meaning that it has an ongoing idea with it. So the word is “rashyh”, pronounced “ray-sheeth”, meaning beginning in English. In this case, it is the two objects which are the “heavens” (which are higher), and the “earth” (which is lower) but, still a part of the idea or action of creating. It also carries the meaning or idea that there was nothing before this happening.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) This is a very simple, straight forward statement that covers a lot of territory. It doesn't go into detail. We can say that it's the outline. The following portions of the steps of creation are covered in the next verses. (Gen 1:2) Some of these offer a few more tidbits of information but, not a lot of detail. So, what are included in the heavens? The heavens, “shamayim”, include, things invisible, what we call spiritual, the physical bodies of the universe, and the area around the earth containing the atmosphere. We can't see the air, but we see it's effects on the things around us, and we feel it and breathe it. This first sentence doesn't go into details about what was involved in the making of the heavens. Next, is the earth, this round ball that we live on. It can mean, the entire planet, the flat surface of the ground, the mountains, the land occupied by a particular people, the dirt, sand, etc. All of this was taking place over a large amount of time. How much time, we don't know. We do know that it wasn't 24 hours, as some people will argue. Jehovah God does not break his laws of physics. A 24 hour time period is only relative to the earth. There are still people that believe the earth is flat, like a round plate. :cool:

Then, the interesting thing is in verse 3. “Then God said,”. Why would he have to say anything, if there wasn't another being to hear? The old argument of, “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” In this case, yes, there was other beings around. At least there was when the earth was made. Let's, just for the sake of argument, say there wasn't anyone there. It doesn't matter because as the scripture says, when Jehovah commands something, it will happen. (Isa 55:10-11)

As for verses 26 through 30, they are dealing with one event. How long this creation took, we don't know. One thing is sure, and that is that we have to understand what is actually being said, and meant here. I've looked at this quite a while back and was truly amazed at what it means. Many years ago, while studying the works of Plato, I was taken by “Plato's Republic”. I won't get into a long discussion of it here, but the apostle Paul uses a similar analogy, which states, “...a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things;”. That Greek word, “skia”=shadow (pronounced skee-ah”, has the meaning of: “shade caused by the interception of light, an image cast by an object and representing the form of that object.” The Hebrew word used at Gen 1:26 is, “tselem”=image, is from the root meaning, “shadow”. These two words convey the same thought or idea. We are a mere shadow of the reality. This man, whether it be me, you, some other man, or Adam, they are all shadows of the real thing. The name, Adam, is a short form of “'adamah”, the Hebrew word for ground, earth, land, dust of the ground. It is also translated as red ('adam), the color of the earth which Adam was created from. (Gen 2:7), (La 4:7; Na 2:3)

Yes, at the end of your explanation, you hit it. It is just a different way of explaining what I am also saying. Yes, Jesus was the master worker along side the other “angels/spirit creatures”, made ones. Satan also was one of them, a brother of Jesus, at the time. Jesus/Michael was the “prototokos=first born or first type of the heavenly creatures. (Lk 2:7; Rom 8:29; Col 1:15, 18; Rev 1:5), (Jn 1:2-3, 14) We have an English word which derives from this Greek word, it is proto-type. He was also the Son of Man, the other perfect man, capable of fulfilling the equal sacrifice or ransom value, for the original Adam.

If we use a human example which we are familiar with, it would be the carpenter who is a master of his trade. Everyone comes to him, to have things made because of his skill and mastery of the wood. No matter what he creates, it is perfect. He then gives birth to a son, a clone, so to speak. This son grows into another master worker along side his father. The two of them create master works. This is the case of Jehovah and his Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus/Michael was to inherit all the works of his father, Jehovah, when the appropriate time came. However, another son, Satan, became jealous and wanted the inheritance. When he found out he wouldn't inherit it, he decided to destroy it all, so that his brother would not inherit it. (IE. Jacob and Esau).

I hope this helps. I believe that in the long run, we are in agreement.

Agapé,
Tsaphah

"In the field of observation, chance favors the prepared mind." - Louis Pasteur

[uglyandthin]

Hi Tsaphah:

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Here is a research article on the subject that most will no doubt not agree with but which is very interesting and compelling. I hope some of you agree.

http://www.biblecodeintro.com/intro5.html

uglyandthin

[Tsaphah]

Before we take someone else's word for what they think it means, by appearing to give a scriptural reference, read what is said by them. “Jesus said that we should scrutinize every little detail of every scripture...” Where did Jesus say that?

They give a scriptural reference to “17 Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law [of God, the whole bible] by any means and not all things take place (Matthew 5).

Let us therefore apply this kind of scrutiny to the account of the creation of mankind in Genesis 1.”

No, let's not. This scripture has nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about at Mathew 5-17, 18. Trying to apply this is really taking a scripture “out of context”, to try to prove a point. First of all, why bother to argue with archeologists, or geologists about the age of the earth, or how long man is supposed to have existed? They believe in the “hypothesis” (large guess), not “theory” (smaller guess), that carbon 14 decays at a steady rate, “and always has”. They use the “hypothesis” that the universe has existed in this “steady state” for billions of years, and never changed. That's the only way they can give credence to their “hypotheses”. These “hypotheses” have only been around and accepted, since being introduced by James Hutton in 1785, when he submitted his thesis paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He essentially said, “The earth must be much older than had previously been supposed, in order to allow enough time...” So, let's throw around some large figures that make it impossible to be observed or proved. How scientific is that?

Also, “The Resolution” is completely useless also. “And God [Elohim literally 'Gods' meaning the holy spirit under God's direction]”, is a poor attempt to make Jehovah a triune God according to the other falsehoods. The Hebrew, “Elohim”, does not “literally” mean “Gods”, plural, or as “the holy spirit under God's direction as part of a trinity. It has the same function in the Hebrew language as many other foreign languages from the Mediterranean area. It is called word conjugation. In other words, it is the way a word spelling is ended. These have certain usages that are not always recognized in the speech of the common people. This is usually only used in the written words. The plural conjugation used does not always have the plural sense, as to number. Sometimes it is used to show authority, or a higher position, such as royalty. It is also used as a formal way of speech. That's where “thee”, “thy”, and “thou”, come from. That is now considered to be archaic and unused in modern English.

I could go into a lot of detail here but, as my professor always said, “Don't take my word for it. Check it out.” Don't take anyone's word for it, not even mine. Most people are those that fall into the category from a quote by Alexander Pope in 1709. "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." It means that a small amount of knowledge can cause people to think they are more expert than they really are. This also reminds me of what Jesus said, “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you.” (Lk 10:21)

They present a shell game. Most shell games involve three shells. Which one hides the pea? Guess right and you win. Better yet, which one is God? If you guess right, you get everlasting life.

Tsaphah

The correct answer is: The pea isn't under any of the shells. You LOSE.

[Tsaphah]

While looking into this subject, I came across some interesting information. Today there was an article about CERN (European Center for Nuclear Research), “aiming to recreate conditions” that “gave rise to the universe 13.7 billion years ago.” WOW!! They have it down to the tenth of a billion. It's not 14 billion, or 13 billion, or even 13.5 billion. Now that's pretty accurate when you're talking about several hundred million years, give or take.

In the article they also make the comment, “, how the universe 'evolved'.” If you were to ask one of these “scientists” what they meant by “evolve”, I'm sure you would get an explanation that is totally different from the original meaning of the word. The word is from Latin, 1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll". Then there is “evolution” which is derived from the Latin, 1640s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from L. evolutionem "unrolling of a book," noun of action from evolvere (see evolve). Used in various senses in medicine, mathematics, and general use, including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 by Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution. (Online Etymology Dictionary http://www.etymonline.com/)

Darwin, who was given the title of Father of Modern Evolutionary Thought, never believed or taught the idea that is used today. He taught "adaptation" of species, and not the idea that organisms "evolved" into different species, or forms of species that is taught today.

Based on this information, and the original meaning of the Latin, I do believe in “evolution”. But, not in the sense of the modern day usage. The history of man, the earth, the universe, and Jehovah God's purpose for it all, is being “rolled out” in the scroll of the Bible. It is slowly being unrolled to reveal his amazing plan for those who believe in Him and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Tsaphah

[SlaveForJah]

But "the man" mentioned in verses 27 and 28 which also includes the cloning of Eve was "created" in God's image alone. Jesus being the Son of the man is a reference to the fact that he not only emptied himself and took a slaves form (as a man) but it specifically identifies himself as a genetic son of pre fall Adam. Adam was "the man" and Jesus is the Son of the man in that he was a perfect man as Adam was before he sinned. If Jesus is just the Son of Man he cannot lay claim to sinlessness for the offspring always carries the defect of the father. I will grant the fact that Jesus (Michael) could have been in on this "creation" with his Father, but "the man" was made in the image of God alone. This of course is a very important detail.

Hello again, U&T.

There are a couple of points I believe you may be overlooking.

You said: "Jesus being the Son of the man...specifically identifies himself as a genetic son of pre fall Adam."

My reply: Adam had no offspring pre-fall. Even if Adam were a "second" man, or a subset of "man" from verse 26, as "the man" from verse 28, Adam had no offspring until after the fall. Genesis 4:1,2a puts it this way:

"Now Adam had intercourse with Eve his wife and she became pregnant. In time she gave birth to Cain and said: “I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.” 2 Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel."

The fall occurred as recorded in Genesis 3:6,7. It was not until after the fall that Adam began to call the woman Eve.

"After this Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she had to become the mother of everyone living." - Genesis 3:20

After what? After the fall and after Jehovah's sentence upon the perpetrators. So, it is made pretty clear that Adam and Eve had no offspring until after their sin and fall.


You said: "If Jesus is just the Son of Man he cannot lay claim to sinlessness for the offspring always carries the defect of the father."

My reply: Christ was in fact sinless, and could claim as much precisely because he was not the son of Adam or "the man" from verse 28. The Physician recorded it this way:

"So the angel said to her: “Have no fear, Mary, for you have found favor with God; 31 and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.” 34 But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man?” 35 In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son." - Luke 1:30-35

Jesus could lay claim to sinlessness because Joseph was not his father, Jehovah God was. His sinless life in the heavens was transferred to conceive in the womb of the virgin, which Holy Spirit protected and overshadowed. Mary's own virginity, in fact, had very little to do with Jesus' inheritance of no sin. The virginity was mainly to show that Jesus' conception and birth were miraculous in nature, and that the taint of sin was not passed on from father (Joseph) to son, since Joseph was not his father. Jehovah had no sin which to pass on to His son.

Additionally, Christ was not only not "the son of "the man"", but as Pilate said, was "the Man" himself. By his actions throughout his life and 3 1/2 year ministry, culminating with his sacrifice at Golgotha, Christ became the Eternal Father, repurchasing the human race from bondage to sinful sonship to Adam.


Hope this helps.


Agape

SlaveForJah

[uglyandthin]

Hello again, U&T.

There are a couple of points I believe you may be overlooking.

You said: "Jesus being the Son of the man...specifically identifies himself as a genetic son of pre fall Adam."

My reply: Adam had no offspring pre-fall. Even if Adam were a "second" man, or a subset of "man" from verse 26, as "the man" from verse 28, Adam had no offspring until after the fall. Genesis 4:1,2a puts it this way:

"Now Adam had intercourse with Eve his wife and she became pregnant. In time she gave birth to Cain and said: “I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.” 2 Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel."

The fall occurred as recorded in Genesis 3:6,7. It was not until after the fall that Adam began to call the woman Eve.

"After this Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she had to become the mother of everyone living." - Genesis 3:20

After what? After the fall and after Jehovah's sentence upon the perpetrators. So, it is made pretty clear that Adam and Eve had no offspring until after their sin and fall.


You said: "If Jesus is just the Son of Man he cannot lay claim to sinlessness for the offspring always carries the defect of the father."

My reply: Christ was in fact sinless, and could claim as much precisely because he was not the son of Adam or "the man" from verse 28. The Physician recorded it this way:

"So the angel said to her: “Have no fear, Mary, for you have found favor with God; 31 and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.” 34 But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man?” 35 In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son." - Luke 1:30-35

Jesus could lay claim to sinlessness because Joseph was not his father, Jehovah God was. His sinless life in the heavens was transferred to conceive in the womb of the virgin, which Holy Spirit protected and overshadowed. Mary's own virginity, in fact, had very little to do with Jesus' inheritance of no sin. The virginity was mainly to show that Jesus' conception and birth were miraculous in nature, and that the taint of sin was not passed on from father (Joseph) to son, since Joseph was not his father. Jehovah had no sin which to pass on to His son.

Additionally, Christ was not only not "the son of "the man"", but as Pilate said, was "the Man" himself. By his actions throughout his life and 3 1/2 year ministry, culminating with his sacrifice at Golgotha, Christ became the Eternal Father, repurchasing the human race from bondage to sinful sonship to Adam.


Hope this helps.


Agape

SlaveForJah


Hi SFJ:

Sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. I will try to clarify, but hope I won't confuse the situation even more. I was not trying to imply that Jesus was an "actual" son of Adam, but was suggesting that his genetic make-up made him the constructive progeny of pre sin Adam, not a post sin son of Adam. He was "a corresponding ransom" in every sense of the word and had to reflect his "sonship. No doubt when Jehovah engineered the life of Michael in Mary's womb he took enough of the genetic material or coding from Adam and David for that matter to make Jesus a genetic son of both Patriarchs, but without the flawed genetic material. Jesus indeed had the genetic right to David's throne and to be called the Son of the Man. The Man being Adam, pre-fall. Jesus was the "last Adam", but not of the one that eventually sinned, but pre-fall. Hope this helps.

I happen to believe that Adam was created in the same way by Jehovah through the pre existing "man" who were already on the earth as a consequence of the efforts of "us". Because they are made in the image of "us" which I think are the angels, they did not procreate like the angels but did so like Jesus was made. Chew on that for a while.

Frank

[Tsaphah]

Hi SFJ:

Sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. I will try to clarify, but hope I won't confuse the situation even more.

Frank

Hi Frank,
I had to smile at your response. It's so hard to even talk about a subject, let alone write about it, without being misunderstood. I came across this quote that pretty much says it all.

“Writing gives you the illusion of control, and then you realize it's just an illusion, that people are going to bring their own stuff into it.” - David Sedaris, American writer

Even when you talk about something that you think about, you can't get the other person to understand what you are thinking. That's because they come from another place and bring their own experience and beliefs into it. That's why it needs clarification, sometimes. And, then, they still may not see your point. That is why so much of the Bible is argued about today. ( Lk 10:21)