Jesus The Son Of Man Infers There Are Also Jesus The Sons Of Other Beings

As it goes, some 2000 years ago God (or as I refer to Him, "Father") took on a material form here on Earth as the male offspring of a human being, a son of a member of mankind....or Son of Man, if you will.

Now as far as I know, to people who saw Jesus it was readily apparent that the body He inhabited was the body of a human being and not something else....and I don't believe that's ever been in dispute.

So.... if in all of eternity God really did only take on a physical form this one and only time here on our planet..then why the need to add on the qualifier "of Man" unless it was necessary to differentiate from some other physical incarnation of God? If He only did it once here on Earth then it would have been more accurate to simply be refered to as Jesus THE Son, with THE as in THE one and only.


I surmise that what with all the inhabitable planets, possible dimensions, infinite multiverses, and branching timelines God has incarnated an infinite number times in an infinite number of realities.

Sure would be nice if “God” would just say what he wanted us to know instead of all the cryptic bs.

With all the times the Bible was translated, revised, edited, and outright changed for whatever reason history’s rulers wanted, I put very little weight on anything the book says now.

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
Sure would be nice if “God” would just say what he wanted us to know instead of all the cryptic bs.

With all the times the Bible was translated, revised, edited, and outright changed for whatever reason history’s rulers wanted, I put very little weight on anything the book says now.

right on mate.

The Bible is simply what man think's he knows about God.

Our relationship with God is individual and unique .

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

With all the times the Bible was translated, revised, edited, and outright changed for whatever reason history’s rulers wanted, I put very little weight on anything the book says now.

Sure is easy to spot people who parrot baseless conclusions and
lies. Do some research of your own.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

unless it was necessary to differentiate from some other physical incarnation of God? I

even though it is not explicitly stated that he created them it is infered. his other created being were angels and he calls them
the sons of God in Job 38: 7

Job 38: 7
New American Standard Bible
When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

others say that he created the angles on the first day, using Genesis 1 as the source, by using he created heaven and earth.

Genesis 1:1
New American Standard Bible
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

and others say in Exodus 20 when Moses gives the commandments and use the creation using the six days as an example

Exodus 20:11
New American Standard Bible

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

a reply to: MissSmartypants


also don't forget that he flooded the world to rid it from the nephilim /giants, who were the off spring of angels and women.

there are other verses that use the sons of God / or another way of referring like to God in Genesis, Job,

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
Sure would be nice if “God” would just say what he wanted us to know instead of all the cryptic bs.

With all the times the Bible was translated, revised, edited, and outright changed for whatever reason history’s rulers wanted, I put very little weight on anything the book says now.

Apart from translations and the changing of languages themselves, the Bible has a fairly clear adherence to narrative integrity over the thousands of years its books have been around.

Also, very few rulers have been in any position to change the Bible significantly due to the fact that it has remained highly popular and has been duplicated numerous times by devout copyists who took great pains to retain its veracity, even to the point where they copied spelling errors and spilt ink blotches on the primary 'masters'. Revisionists could not put major changes into Bibles because everyone could just refer back to older copies and would easily identify divergences.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Perhaps if the story was actually true instead of Christian dogma... then sure i'd imagine God would do the same thing for all sentient beings living on planets

Im more of the opinion that the god of this planet isn't the real one... and its likely all planets such as this one has its own "overlord"

a reply to: MissSmartypants


Have you been watching Supernatural season 15?

I hate to be picky from a grammar standpoint...but, I simply AM, The word in your thread title should be IMPLIES, not infers. An inference is an action mentally drawn by the recipient of given information. The subject in this case (Jesus/God) being the son of Man IMPLIES your premise. The recipient of the implication is the person who infers—-in this case that would be the readers of your post. If my explanation is lousy, just Google when to use imply and infer correctly.

As to your post itself: from Greek, anthropos IS man. Words are the only way the description could be made by human writers. Jesus was present in human form on this earth. It surely does not preclude God from taking the FORM of whatever sentient being might be elsewhere or anywhere. However, it’s not requisite.

God creates, He was not created. Ancient philosophers long ago referred to God as the “uncreated Creator” and wrote of His infinite nature. No beginning, no ending—-hence no NEED for His creation. Physical manifestations on other worlds? Sure, if so desired. If you believe God is infinite in His nature, He has no constraints.

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading it.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

I dont think so. More like Jesus, son of god. That god potentially being Osiris, god of the underworld. And his mother Isis, daughter of Geb, the god of the sky. That last part of course only if you believe in the the parallels between the bible and book of Horus, but still I cannot recall Jesus being referred to as the "son of man" in the bible.

a reply to: azvol

I feel your pain. My wife has a masters in english so semantic debates are pretty common in my world.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

An interesting idea, but if Jesus was incarnated many times and saved all those species using the same modus, it would be lots of re-sacrificing of Christ going on.

I'm fairly sure that would be contrary to the "once and for all" nature of his sacrifice as noted in; Romans 6:9-10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:24-28, Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 10:14 and 1 Peter 3:18, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Also Jesus became sin at the Crucifixion and therefore to be sacrificed at other times, he could not be 'sinless' at those other sacrifices. 2 Corinthians 5:21

Also in Acts 4:12 it says that no one can be saved by any name except by Jesus (but it also has a few qualifiers).

But an interesting thought, none the less.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

The prophets talked about a “Son of Man.” Jesus referees to himself as the prophets had, to help those of his time to put together who He was, after His ascension. The messianic profile, in the old testament, was scattered about in a thousand little pieces, so his disciples and followers had to comb through the scriptures and put it all together after his death, resurrection and ascension. Look up Dr. Michael Heiser and the Naked Bible podcast. He’s a biblical scholar and he’s got some episodes on the topic. Enjoy- he’s fantastic.

a reply to: drewlander

I cannot recall Jesus being referred to as the "son of man" in the bible.

actually he used that term quite a bit when referring to himself...

Matthew 12
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776


With all the times the Bible was translated, revised, edited, and outright changed for whatever reason history’s rulers wanted, I put very little weight on anything the book says now.

Funny how, given all the "various translations"...the Bible pretty much word for word sums up everything going on today, in our time!

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: drewlander

I cannot recall Jesus being referred to as the "son of man" in the bible.

actually he used that term quite a bit when referring to himself...

Matthew 12
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the translation is wrong .

All these years taken out of context , Perhaps what Jesus said was I am " A son of God " not " The son of God " .

The Essenes a Tribe/Group many surmise Jesus originated from literally called them selves " Son's of God " .

Jesus was a half god as for calling him a son of man woman had to standing but now if you like we can call him son of women as Jesus had a Human MOM a a god as daddy .

Kind like half the Greek demie gods seams some of paganism carried over even Into the new testament .

Anyone every accutly read the first Book ?
( the angles of the lord looked down upon the earth they see the daughters of man they see the daughters of man are beautiful the take wife of the daughters of man they have children from the daugerts of man .

also HOLD NO other GOD before me now why would god need to make that rule if he was the Only god and assuming he is all powerful again why make the rule as he can just destroy any other god with a wink ?


God him selfs says twice there are Other gods besides Him self ((( let US make man in OUR image )))
anyway the Bible destroys its own standing when any one with half a brain who thinks for them self read it .

God knows every thing right ? then he knew even before he made Adam and eve they would eat from the tree he know the devil would ta;lk eve into it and yet he put the tree there anyway .

GOD SET man up to Fail then gets pissed at man when it happens .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

John 10
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

originally posted by: azvol


I hate to be picky from a grammar standpoint...but, I simply AM, The word in your thread title should be IMPLIES, not infers. An inference is an action mentally drawn by the recipient of given information. The subject in this case (Jesus/God) being the son of Man IMPLIES your premise. The recipient of the implication is the person who infers—-in this case that would be the readers of your post. If my explanation is lousy, just Google when to use imply and infer correctly.

As to your post itself: from Greek, anthropos IS man. Words are the only way the description could be made by human writers. Jesus was present in human form on this earth. It surely does not preclude God from taking the FORM of whatever sentient being might be elsewhere or anywhere. However, it’s not requisite.

God creates, He was not created. Ancient philosophers long ago referred to God as the “uncreated Creator” and wrote of His infinite nature. No beginning, no ending—-hence no NEED for His creation. Physical manifestations on other worlds? Sure, if so desired. If you believe God is infinite in His nature, He has no constraints.

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading it.

Hey...words aren't the boss of me, I'm the boss of words....and they'll mean whatever I tell them to mean...and yeah, you're right.