The Adam Inheritance - The Myths of Armageddon 
The End-Time debacle -The Plague of Religion.

This beautiful valley of Jezreel/Megiddo will never see an end-time battle

His Promises - How valid?

Last site edit:  April  16  2017

In defence of the sidelined God Jehovah, Creator of the Universe and Father of Humanity

Click sitemap here for ease of focused access

Contact: dieter.g@namesanctify.com

Son of Man

In the former covenant literature, generally referred to as the Old Testament, Jehovah used this phrase to address Ezekiel more than 90 times.

The Hebrew actually reads:  Son #1121 בֵּן ben of Adam #0120 אָדָם 'adam

So Ezekiel was a descendant of that very first human lump of red clay humus person we have come to know as Adam from the appropriately named bible book Genesis.

So, that is why the NT contributing writers had Jesus use Son of Man with reference to himself, or did they in fact do so as deemed throughout the Christian realm from non-existing manuscript copies of the originals?

Someone out there in a Christian scholar-land site suggested that the OT's Son of Adam ought to be a reasonable and perhaps the right title for the Lord in the NT, if only Jesus had not come from heaven, or so the saying goes, and a trite saying it is, because Jesus was the second human lump of red clay humus person sourced from the depth of the earth but this time via Mary's womb and became known to us as the last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45 — See Psalm 139:13-15.


That poor man Jesus has been the trampoline for Trinitarian scholars long enough now.  The titular phrase Son of Man in the NT has been part of the Trinitarian playground of apostate Christianity for some 1800 years.  Time to remedy that.


So then, the second Adam Jesus, having been especially created in the manner of the first Adam, neither descended from Adam #1 nor did he come down from heaven.

Now that was easy!


Jesus was the antitype sheep to stand in as a proxy for the heavenly only begotten angelic ‘son’ of Jehovah actually offered as per John 3:16 in sacrifice as Israel's final atonement and second Passover.

Yes, it is as simple as that.  

The type was set when a sheep saved Abraham's only begotten son Isaac and with that Jehovah's firstborn son and Seed of Abraham Israel still in his loins
—–  Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 41:8; Hebrews 11:17.

Both Abraham and Jehovah had their only-begotten sons saved by a sheep.


The upshot of this is that Jesus could never have originated that titular phrase Son of Man with reference to himself, simply because he was a newly created son of God; another Adam.

While we do not know exactly what he actually said, Son of God would certainly have been the only appropriate title in view of his special creation by God and the historical significance of that title –– Luke 3:38.


Have commented on that title phrase Son of Man previously, but only specifically with reference to his total and complete humanity, his humanness, not his origin.


Can add little to this, having reported on these matters on other pages.