| | That seems to be wrong, too: it's not about John's usage, it is about how Jesus Christ used the phrase. And in the gospel, he described himself time and time again as ''the son of man'' and not as ''the Son'', and especially not as ''the Son of God''. In the epistles, John makes it clear that He is the Son of God, and he does so not by using the word υἱὸς its own. As Jesus Christ uses the word, υἱὸς means son, descendant. You are trying to crowbar a later insight in this word: that's bad translating - and bad theology. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:11, 22 June 2014 (EDT) | | That seems to be wrong, too: it's not about John's usage, it is about how Jesus Christ used the phrase. And in the gospel, he described himself time and time again as ''the son of man'' and not as ''the Son'', and especially not as ''the Son of God''. In the epistles, John makes it clear that He is the Son of God, and he does so not by using the word υἱὸς its own. As Jesus Christ uses the word, υἱὸς means son, descendant. You are trying to crowbar a later insight in this word: that's bad translating - and bad theology. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:11, 22 June 2014 (EDT) |
| | + | :"human being" (ἀνθρώπου) does modify "son" (υἱὸς), but that does not mean it should be translated as "son of a human being" or "son of man." Instead, it means that the "son" is of God, but that son is a human being. Hence "Son of God, a human being" is the English that is closest to the original meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 June 2014 (EDT) |