Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Can angels have human babies? | Gen 6:4 | Ray | 2158 | ||
Dear Minister, Thank you for your input here. Malachi 2:10 reads,"Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created us?"NKJ The capitalization of father is up for debate, it seems for the NASB is not capitalized. It is certainly true that we can have only one father. Jesus even, can not be the son of Joseph and the Son of God in my mind. There can only be one father and there is only one God as Malachi says, the Creator. So I agree, a son can produce a son but I can't agree that a son can produce a Son unless in a spiritual sense as Jesus discussed with the Pharisees about David, or in Jesus case when it was by the Holy Spirit. Not only then is Jesus the Son of Joseph in the spiritual sense but He is the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham per Matthew l:l in my mind. But back to Adam and the Creator. Adam was made out of the dust of the ground; created, made. He is not a Son. He was pronounced good. He was called Man. But we know he sinned and died spiritually. In a sense then, he bacame a man. But initially, he was made. Job 38:28 says, "Has the rain a father? Or who has begotten the drops of dew? From whose womb has come the ice? And the frost of heaven, who has given it birth?" In Adam's case also there didn't have to be a father, just a Creator. In your references I didn't find any reference to angels or fallen angels. I found children of God, adopted sons of the spirit, and in my mind Daniel spoke of one like the Son of God. Matthew 4 spoke of His angels but not in reference to the sons of God. But we can certainly put our amen to Matthew 14:33 This is certainly God's Son. Looking at 1 Cor 15:20, "But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man (fallen Adam) came death, by a man (the Man Jesus) also came the resurrection of the dead." Parenthesis mine The twenty second verse echoes this contrast of man and Man. You said that due to the earthly laws he "was considered as" the son of Joseph. This could be another reading of "being supposedly the son of Joseph." But I believe that the correct reading of scripture would be "being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph. Scripture translators have had no problem in calling Him the Son of David; why not the Son of Joseph and Son of Abraham, or even of the Man, Adam? The second Adam. I don't think an earthly example carries any weight here. Later, Ray V.H. |
||||||
2 | Can angels have human babies? | Gen 6:4 | kalos | 2214 | ||
Dear Ray V.H.: Greetings! I read with interest your posting, "Dear Minister, Thank you for your input..." It is not my intent to take issue with you, but I would just like to point out one or two things. . . . Regarding your sentence: "Not only then is Jesus the Son of Joseph in the spiritual sense..." I would like to know: Who ever accurately and correctly called Jesus the son of Joseph? Luke 3:23 New King James Version: "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..." "*as was supposed.* Luke had already established the fact of the virgin birth (1:34,35); here he made clear once again that Joseph was not Jesus' true father" (p. 1529, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . You wrote concerning Adam: "In a sense then, he became a man." I would have to disagree with you. God *created* Adam as a man. I cannot agree that sometime subsequent to his creation, Adam *became* a man, since he was a man from the moment of his creation. . . . You wrote: "In Adam's case also there didn't have to be a father, just a Creator." Please note what it plainly says in Luke 3:38: "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Repeating: "Adam, the son of God." If one wishes to debate whether the meaning of "Adam, the son of God" is literal or metaphorical, one may do so. But in the Scriptures, when the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it be nonsense. . . . (Yet it is true that not every statement in Scripture was meant to be taken literally. No one can deny that often Scripture uses figurative language. Care must be taken to distinguish the figurative from the literal. Notice that in the above paragraph, I did not say "literal sense." To be safe, I prefer to use the term "the plain sense.") . . . Again, thank you for a most interesting posting. In Christ, JVH0212 |
||||||
3 | Can angels have human babies? | Gen 6:4 | Ray | 2417 | ||
Dear JVH, I'm going to have to change my thoughts or at least clarify what I was saying. Thanks for writing. I was reading in the Greek/English Interlinear New Testament published by Tyndale that the phrase "being as was supposed the son of Joseph" is literally, "being (the) son, as it was being thought, of Joseph, the (son) of Heli, the (son) of Matthat,...the (son) of Adam, the (son) of God." Now all of that is written in capitals so you have to interpret as you see fit. Like I've said in the past, we all individually have to decide who this Person is. I want to point out two things. The word "BEING" means that it is true. The correct reading is not "being supposedly" but "being, as was supposed" or here in the Greek, being the Son, as it was being thought, of Joseph". Now of course the capital S is my interpretation. But Joseph knew he wasn't the father, and Jesus in the temple was doing His Father's business, so nothing was being denied. I've said that one can only have one father. Joseph had sons, God sent His Son. Spiritually He is the Son of Joseph, Son of David, and the Son of Abraham per Matthew's gospel verse one. NASB Matthew 1:20b, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son;...""God with us." Scripture is one of contrasts;Spirit or spirit-flesh,light-darkness, God-gods,and not least Man-man, Son-sons. We have to have that in the scriptures to understand what it is saying. When I talked earlier about Adam being a Man, I was thinking that he was made good, and in a sense after the fall he was just a man. a sinner just like you and me. But continuing to think about it and of course reading Genesis 1:26 and Gen 5:2 we can see that God created man, male and female, and named them Man in the day when they were created. So, you're right, he was always a man. Now, let's go back to the Greek and look at the Son of Joseph. You asked where it was stated that Jesus was the Son of Joseph. See Mark 6:3 , Son of Mary, and Matthew 13:53, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"NASB Of course I would interpret it Man and Son. The New King James has it Man and son, yet they both capitalize He. Where is the consistency here? NASB says Jesus came to His hometown yet in Matt 13:57 it seems that the story is about "his hometown". Again where is the consistency? I got off the track. Look at the Greek, and the New King James version where the words that are not in the Greek are in italics. It's like I typed it at the start of this long writing, sorry. The words in italics are in parenthesis. So we see (the) Son of Joseph, of Eli, of ...David..Abraham...of Adam, of God." Now do you see that the Son of Joseph is referred back to when it says, "of Adam, (the Son) of God." In other words, "being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph,...but actually the Son of God." Or with punctuation, "being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph, ...of Adam,--the Son of God." Later, Ray V.H. |
||||||