Skip to main content
Grammatical Correction
Source Link
Dottard
  • 151.4k
  • 8
  • 65
  • 212

However, there is a big difference between "sons of God", theand, "The Son of God", namely Jesus Christ. I note that in Matt 26:63, the article is not (and cannot be) anaphoric, but must be monadic.

This can be confirmed by examining the Jesus' reply to the High Priest - let me quote Matt 26:63-65 -

However, there is a big difference "sons of God", the "The Son of God", namely Jesus Christ. I note that in Matt 26:63, the article is (and cannot be) anaphoric, but must be monadic.

This can be confirmed by examining the Jesus' reply to the High Priest - let me quote Matt 26:63-65 -

However, there is a big difference between "sons of God", and, "The Son of God", namely Jesus Christ. I note that in Matt 26:63, the article is not (and cannot be) anaphoric, but must be monadic.

This can be confirmed by examining Jesus' reply to the High Priest - let me quote Matt 26:63-65 -

Spelling Correction
Source Link
Dottard
  • 151.4k
  • 8
  • 65
  • 212

givenGiven that the High Priest was a Sadducee, whose beliefs excluded an after-life, it is extremely unlikely that the High Priest would have used the title, "The Son of God" to ask if Jesus was Adam. This is simply because Adam was long dead and could not (in the High Priest's thinking) be alive in Jesus.

given that the High Priest was a Sadducee, whose beliefs excluded an after-life, it is extremely unlikely that the High Priest would have used the title, "The Son of God" to ask if Jesus was Adam. This is simply because Adam was long dead and could not (in the High Priest's thinking) be alive in Jesus.

Given that the High Priest was a Sadducee, whose beliefs excluded an after-life, it is extremely unlikely that the High Priest would have used the title, "The Son of God" to ask if Jesus was Adam. This is simply because Adam was long dead and could not (in the High Priest's thinking) be alive in Jesus.

added 21 characters in body
Source Link
Dottard
  • 151.4k
  • 8
  • 65
  • 212

In its raw sense, "son of God" would normally mean a Godly person who is a devoted follower of God, dedicated to Godly service. We see this phrase, in plural form, used a number of times of ordinary humans who are Christians such as: Matt 5:9, Luke 20:30, Rom 8:14, 19, 9:26, Gal 3:26, 4:6. More often, this phrase is seen in a close variant, namely "children of God", 1 John 3:10, 5:2, Rom 9:8, Phil 2:15, etc.

ThusHowever, there is a big difference "sons of God", the "The Son of God", namely Jesus Christ. I note that in Matt 26:63, the article is (and cannot be) anaphoric, but must be monadic.

In its raw sense, "son of God" would normally mean a Godly person who is a devoted follower of God, dedicated to Godly service. We see this phrase used a number of times of ordinary humans who are Christians such as: Matt 5:9, Luke 20:30, Rom 8:14, 19, 9:26, Gal 3:26, 4:6. More often, this phrase is seen in a close variant, namely "children of God", 1 John 3:10, 5:2, Rom 9:8, Phil 2:15, etc.

Thus, there is a big difference "sons of God", the "The Son of God", namely Jesus Christ. I note that in Matt 26:63, the article is (and cannot be) anaphoric but must be monadic.

In its raw sense, "son of God" would normally mean a Godly person who is a devoted follower of God, dedicated to Godly service. We see this phrase, in plural form, used a number of times of ordinary humans who are Christians such as: Matt 5:9, Luke 20:30, Rom 8:14, 19, 9:26, Gal 3:26, 4:6. More often, this phrase is seen in a close variant, namely "children of God", 1 John 3:10, 5:2, Rom 9:8, Phil 2:15, etc.

However, there is a big difference "sons of God", the "The Son of God", namely Jesus Christ. I note that in Matt 26:63, the article is (and cannot be) anaphoric, but must be monadic.

Source Link
Dottard
  • 151.4k
  • 8
  • 65
  • 212
Loading