Son of Man ( vs Son of God)

[Jesus_is_LORD]

 

[Beetow]

It's actually fairly easy to show Jesus was/is a bona fides human being rather than
some weird form of divine hominid.

• Luke 1:30-33 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give
him the name Jesus. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.

Before Jesus could be considered for David's throne, he first had to be among
David's biological descendants; no exceptions.

• Ps 89:35-36 . . Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.

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

The New Testament verifies that Jesus satisfies the biological requirement in those
Psalms.

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

• Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a mite
ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny;
for example:

• Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

Abraham's seed in that verse obviously refers to spiritual progeny; whereas David's
seed in the passages above refers to biological progeny because David's seed is 1)
the fruit of his body and 2) of his loins according to the flesh.

So then; if Jesus was one of David's biological descendants, and David was one of
Adam's biological descendants: then by association, Jesus was one of Adam's
biological descendants too.
_

 

[Waggles]

Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, ... ...

5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah,
7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, ... ...

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

 

[Waggles]

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, ... ...

Luke 3:37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[Beetow]

Jesus' genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are questionable due to the listings
of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.

In Matthew's genealogy, the two men are linked to David via Solomon. In Luke's
genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.

Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as Abihud
in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.

Unfortunately, to date there exists no consensus among the experts how best to
resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in both
genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd have to consider the data
compromised.

NOTE: It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common names so we
shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies. However, they are
listed as father and son in both genealogies, which we cannot expect reasonable
people to accept as mere coincidence.
_