Jesus - God and man

.
.
To be read in conjunction with  Part One - "Three Threefold Witness of Jesus" and Part Two - "The Eternal Word and the Begotten Son"

A wee intro (and a very valid question to get us started)

Here we go, the question:  How come Luke 1:32 says (anticipating His arrival) that Jesus shall be called the Son of the most Highest (future tense), and verse 35 says that He shall be called the Son of God (again, future tense), if He was already and has always been a Son?

Secondly, who can answer this just mentioned vital question without saying Jesus has simply not always been a Son?  Coz a son has to be first conceived and then brought forth as a male/'man child'. A begotten son in other words, having the potential to become a man.

It beats me (the word of God always does in the end)!  Has it beaten you, if you really want to be honest with both yourself and God?  In the Holy Bible, sonship is always a process; a consecution; never a predisposition.  Prove me wrong!  In the NT we have Jesus' consecution  ...  the conception; the arrival of the baby Jesus (Luke 2:16); being the arrival of "the man child" (meaning a son); "the child Jesus" entering puberty (Luke 2:27); and Jesus growing in maturity into becoming a man (Zech. 6:12; Luke 1:80 & 2:40, 52).  Hence, "Jesus shall be called the Son"!  After His physical birth, prophesied prior to His birth!

The 'man child'

Furthermore, have you given this much thought?  This is in regards to the prophesied 'man child' prophesied here in Isaiah 66:7:

Do you know what a 'MAN CHILD' is?  It is a SON, that is what it is!  Just as 'a woman child' would be a daughter!  You want logic?  Thatz logic!  You want sense?  Thatz pure unadulterated sense!  You want de English meaning in de English dictionary?  It means the same, for our concern and not just unfounded tradition!  All reasonable and within comprehension!  Definitely not rocket science, deep theology, unfathomable philosophy, or something only reserved for esoteric interpretation, is it?  Or for those who happen to be more academically or ecclesiastically qualified than yourself.  Or intellectually "enlightened" a cut above everybody else!  Yeah ...  MAN CHILD!!  No way around this one!  Unless, you misconstrue or change God's perfect word in the manner of some, to feed the many!

You hear so much echoed from Christendom about the 'christ child', especially around events like Christ Mass and Naivety scenes.  However, you never here much about the 'man child', do you? Especially when you consider one is not mentioned in scripture while the other is ...  multi times!  Why is this?  Not trying to be haughty or anything, but you will find the answer lies here and made plain and clear, if you are prepared to chuck out tradition for traditions sake and for the sake of embracing the pure word of God.  You don't need to take my word for it if you like, but at least take God's word and explore or revisit these scriptures, while rightly dividing, both prayerfully and humbly, and getting His mind on it.  Thatz all I ask!

One other important thing here:  If you don't believe God has preserved and kept His word, for zee English speaking world, in zee universal language of our day, namely the Holy Bible, also know as the Authorized or King James Bible, then you will never get God's word on it.  To the contrary, if you would rather choose a lie then the modern 'new age' bible versions will nicely play into your hands. Thatz coz crucial verses in regards to exposing the Trinity tradition in the Holy Book have been "expertly" tampered with, to suit mans cause and not God's, in style and plausibility.

Whose word do you take?

Here'za few vital comparisons (to getcha thinking outside the square - whoops, I mean triangle):

The word of man, Karl Barth ... "Trinity is the Christian name for God."

The word of God (where I can't find the word Trinity anywhere) ...  "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."  "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow"; "that the name of God and his doctrine (where I can't find the word Trinity anywhere) be not blasphemed."

The word of man, Plato ...  "God can in no way be described."

The word of God ...  "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

The word of man, Alister McGrath (in regards to the Trinity) ...  "many are sorely tempted to add, "The whole thing incomprehensible"!
.
The word of God ...  "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you"!  "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."  "I cannot go beyond the commandment of the LORD"!

The word of man (in regards to the Athanasian Creed's Trinity) ...  "The Father incomprehensible, The Son incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible ...  Not three incomprehensibles ... but ... one incomprehensible."

The word of God ...  "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.".

The word of man, Peter Browne (this Bloke says God has three natures - maybe a nature to suit each faith?) ...  "The most distinctive Christian claim about God is that the Trinity, three persons in one.  This is often thought to contradict the Hebrew notion of "the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) and rightly so, for how can three be one?  The answer is spelled out in the Athanasian creed, and to a lesser extent, the Nicene creed ...  throughout the Bible, we find subtle hints as to the triune nature of God ...  Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians around the world stand united in their idea of the triune God."

The word of God ...  "that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."  "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

The word of man, Tim Chester ...  "Many of us find the doctrine of the Trinity difficult to get our heads round and frankly a bit embarrassing.  What is more, we seem to get by without it.  But, in reality, the Trinity is at the heart of all we believe.  The Trinity gives shape to Christian truth"
.
The word of God ...  "thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart"!  "I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil."  "Thy word have I hid in mine heart"!  "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."  "Thy word is truth"!

The word of man, Christendom (in most segments) ...  "ministers must baptize and you must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost but never in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!"  Bending of course Matt. 28:19, with no record anywhere in all the NT, nor the book of Acts (the record of where it all happened in outward obedience or outward digression) of being baptized outside the name of the Lord Jesus.
.
The word of God (again, where I can't find the word Trinity anywhere) ...  "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."  "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."  "Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"!  "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Thatz what the Bible says on this issue?  If we do not not want to toe the line with God, this may depend on which version we read or whether we listen to and quote man (Deut. 6:4-5 fulfilled in Mark 12:29).  The Holy Bible is clear about the Lord being one Lord and one God, and that He is one.  The new versions very often obscure this and leave it a little open-ended in order to accommodate the Trinity which insists on one God; while this one God they endorse consists eternally of three separate persons (and natures) in heaven at the same time, with three separate functions and identities, doing what they can to skip the 'one God' and 'one Lord' decree, or 'the Lord is one' issue, or rearrange the word .  Understanding, 'the Lord alone' or 'only true God' modern rendering, can still accommodate the Trinity doctrine, which is still supposed to be the one God, but as Three (my emphasis and added commentary at end in italics):

New American (Catholic) Bible (NAB) ... "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!  Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength."  "Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."  end part missing

Eastern Orthodox (ESV) ...  "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.  (ESV) But has a footnote: [1] 6:4 Or, The Lord our God is one Lord; or The Lord is our God, the Lord is one; or The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.  "Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.  And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." end part missing

New Living Translation ... "Listen, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.  And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength."  "Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: 'Listen, O Israel!  The Lord our God is the one and only Lord.  And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength." end part missing

Contemporary English Version ...  "Listen, Israel! The LORD our God is the only true God!  So love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, and strength."  "Jesus answered, "The most important one says: 'People of Israel, you have only one Lord and God. You must love him with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." end part missing

Young's Literal Translation ...  "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah;  and thou hast (past, not present tense) loved Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might".  "and Jesus answered him -- "The first of all the commands [is], Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one and thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of thy soul, and out of all thine understanding, and out of all thy strength -- this [is] the first command".

Darby Translation ...  "Hear, Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah; and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength."  "And Jesus answered him, [The] first commandment of all [is], Hear, Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding, and with all thy strength. This is [the] first commandment."
.
The word of God ...  "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."  "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."

He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son

The biggest obstacle for Christians to get their head around I have discovered, who have been indoctrinated by the Holy Trinity doctrine since birth or new birth, is the Son appearing to be in fellowship or in a relationship with His Father, whereby we can see Jesus addressing and acknowledging His Father in prayer (more on this later).  Therefore, conjecturing mans reasoning to comprehensible logic whereby he leans own his own understanding and not God's.  Therefore, allowing man to justify and proclaim that the Father and the Son are two different people ...  God the Father and God the Son (but don't ever say two, or three, different Gods, will you!).

Remember, the cheesy illustration put forward in Part Two about someone sticking their head out the window and then going outside and throwing tomatoes at it?  Or how about going outside and praising yourself face to face, in this PC age of "building good, positive self-esteem"!  Or how about Jesus' baptism (to get more to the point, and being scriptural) which has already been covered in Part Two ...  the body (1) being dunked by another man, the appearance of a dove (2) in vision form, and a voice (3) from heaven, all happening at the same time?

Okay, hopefully you might see where I'm coming from, because if you claim to be a non nominal Christian, someone born again and believing the Bible as the final authority, then you have got no choice in believing when it comes to divinity, that Jesus is both God and man at the same time.

Dear reader, do you agree?  Coz if you do, you automatically fall in the category (or scenario, or trap, depending on which way you look at it) in explaining away the impossibility of the above illustration in mans three dimensional world.  Or better still, explaining away that it is impossible for one person to be two separate functions in two different places (as if they were two separate people), where in actual fact it is the same person manifested both spiritually and physically at the same time.  Namely, that Jesus was and is both God and man.  This is ...  God in the reality that He has always been God the Word, from everlasting to everlasting; and man, in the reality that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  Hence, Jesus being both the Son of God and the Son of man!  Or Jesus, being both God in heaven and a man on earth, simultaneously (at the same time) as a matter of fact!  Oh, and not to forget ...  "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God"! Merely because, "Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"

Agreed!  Because, if you do agree with the last paragraph you now have a real problem if you happen to believe and endorse the Holy Trinity doctrine.  The reason is very simple ...  coz if the Word had to become flesh in order for God to become man, then the argument mentioned in Part One and Part Two that Jesus had to begotten or become a conceived born Son, in order for Him to fulfil becoming a man, is true after all.  If you want logic and full proof comprehension, then there it is in a nutshell!  There simply can't be any other way ...  Jesus, the prophesied 'man child' (Son) had to become the prophesied 'man child' (Son) in order for the prophetic word to become a reality, whereby we can agree with Isaiah 9:6 being fulfilled in the person and man Jesus Christ:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given"!

Yes, the child had to be born.  The Son had to be given ...  conceived and begotten!  Fulfilling what was written and declared to be future.  Yes, the Son was prophesied but had not arrived (made manifest) at this point in time, verified in advance and predicted by Isaiah 7:14:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall (future tense) give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall (future tense) conceive, and bear a son, and shall (future tense) call his name Immanuel."

Fulfilled here in Hebrews 4:2:

"For unto us (the Jews) was the gospel preached (Immanuel - God is with us), as well as unto them (the Gentiles)"!

Is it not clear here ...  conception had to take place before a son could be beard, then He could be named as "God is with us" (Is. 7:14)!  Because, now that the 'man child' had arrived, all was falling into place, irrefutably that is!  God was indeed dwelling among His people (the Jews) in the flesh.  A child had been born and a son given (it had not happened before and there was no son in a trinity in heaven at this stage), who was going to be given some pretty important names (not 'had been given') such as "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father", AFTER being born on earth, from a woman, in the likeness of sinful flesh!

Therefore, Jesus was not only the mighty God and the everlasting Father, but also the Son, from this point of time and onwards.  Cancelling out Jesus being an everlasting Son (the everlasting Father, yes!) previously and eternally, dwelling co equal with two other persons called God also, as a heavenly trio, prior and ongoing!

Meaning, the 'man child' was now a fulfilled reality and not just a promise as previously.  Furthermore, two important things we have to consider ...  Jesus had to be a man as well as a child.  A man, as God in the flesh, and a child, as a son.  Proving a son can only come as a child and a child can only come from birth ...  being begotten.  Look at Luke 1:35:

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall (future tense) come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall (future tense) overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall (future tense) be born of thee shall (future tense) be called (here it is ...) the Son of God (future tense)."

"Shall be called the Son of God"!!  There it is in plain and clear written language!  Making clear, before there was a Son (that holy thing) there first had to be an operation of the Spirit of God over a virgin called Mary ...  a divine conception in other words!  Proof Luke 1:31:

"And, behold, thou shalt (future tense) conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt (future tense) call his name JESUS."

Who was 'the holy thing' mentioned in Luke 1:35?  Was it God eternal, without beginning and end?  Or was it the Son begotten, beginning as a man child?  Both!  One was actioning (the divine part) while the other was happening (the man part)!  Besides, in the OT the holy thing (not a person in this case, but a type) could not be touched outside the priesthood.  Now here was the holy thing as real life, flesh and blood thing, to behold and embrace as a person, by those who were willing and become part of the new eternal priesthood.  That holy thing had to be first conceived and brought forth as a son in order for it to be a son.  Thatz the prophesied 'man child' ...  God's begotten Son!  There would be no Jesus without a Son in other words!  Look at this next verve which proves Jesus had to become the Son and was not always (eternally) the Son prior ...  Luke 1:32:

"He shall (future tense) be great (the great God - Titus 2:13), and shall (future tense) be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall (future tense) give unto him the throne of his father David".

By now it should be well established that Jesus (whose name had been hidden from the beginning and for a certain period of time through history unto the ripe time) is the everlasting One God of heaven, of creation, of Israel, of the church, as well as being both our personal Lord and Saviour.  We have this same God as God in heaven eternally, becoming man to become our Redeemer and Mediator between God and man.  The mystery revealed ...  God as spirit and eternal, and God as man being begotten and glorified.  The two witnesses, both in relationship as one, and one as two ...  the God everlasting and the God manifested in the flesh!  This is why it was possible for David to say in the OT and confirmed by Jesus in the NT:

"The LORD (God in heaven - with eternity in the equation) said to my Lord (personalized - our redeemer who came in the flesh), Sit thou on my right hand, till (with a time frame now in the equation) I make thine enemies thy footstool."

Yes, only one Lord!  However, to rightly divide we need to understand the dual function of God ...  God as spirit and God as flesh!  One is eternal while the other is begotten.  Moreover, we have to believe in both to be saved.  Without this revelation there is no faith or salvation.  God becomes only a deism or impersonal being, outta range and outta sight, dwelling in the mystical heights of "heaven" above, way beyond the clouds.

Therefore, we have God the eternal invisible God (spirit) coming to earth and being conceived and born a man.  Who happens to be now God in the flesh.  Therefore, we now have the same Lord being both God and man, the crux and essence of the true Christian faith, setting it apart from every other belief, religion and ideology.

Therefore, who belongs, is in, and agrees with this equation?:


The true saints of God say Amen!!  Setting us apart from the world and its religious antiquated or contemporary belief systems.

Jesus and the Father

Jesus and the relationship He had with His Dad (Abba Father - who happened to be the Father) was and is a great way to express and reveal God becoming man and relying on His divinity to be the man He was ...  God in the flesh, the spotless lamb of God ...  perfect in every way as a man  ...  with no guile, no sin, and no hanky panky to His nature or person.  At the same time, God keeps His divinity, reliant on His divinity while dying as a man:

Mark 15:34.  "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice (the Lord as man), saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God (the same Lord as God), why hast thou forsaken me?"

Luke 23:46.  "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said (the Lord as man), Father (the same Lord as God), into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

Therefore, right through the NT you have this uncanny relationship of Father and Son, both the same person, but two manifestations where the Lord as man is reliant on the Lord as God and His Dad.

More so, as our great hope and salvation, Jesus could not be resurrected as mere man.  In scripture we have record of the process of Jesus conceived, made a baby/child, and growing into manhood. We also have Jesus suffering and dying as a man and being resurrected as someone greater than just being a man.

Also remember, Proverbs say, "A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight."  This is why Christendom will always quote verses in regards to the fellowship of the Father and the Son in order to reinforce their Trinity concept (the opposite to "a just weight"), but fail to quote verses like the following (unless they can been changed or omitted as what happens very often in the new bible versions) to make the balance.

Here are some other verses which tip the scales to the making of a fine balance (rightly dividing the Lord God and Jesus the Son/man), whereas "the triune" "Godhead" is "weighed in the balances, and (art) found wanting":

Acts 7:59.  "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Acts 20:28.  "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with His own blood."

Rom.  9:5.  "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.  Amen."

Phil. 2:6.  "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

Jude 25.  "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

Please look at these verses just supplied, prayerfully and humbly, not leaning on your own understanding, nor being sold out on tradition just for traditions sake!  Then you will see God as the "us" at the beginning of the OT in prophetic light, as the Son to come and in conjunction with the NT Father and Son relationship, and not verifying or revealing a trinity three faced/three person God in heaven at all!

If God was three faced and three persons then tradition would be right after all, superseding the Bible.  However, if the Bible is right (because only one can be after taking a serious look at these following contrary graphic depiction's of Christendom's portrayal of the Godhead) then you will have to admit in all honesty that the God, who declares Himself as one Lord and the Lord who is one, is definitely one God and one Person, and not three different personalities as Christendom wrongfully depicts.  After all, are these following graphics representative of the Jesus of the Bible or the Trinity of Christendom?  Traditionalists and nominalists will want to marry both for convenience sake.  However, the NT is implicit about there being only one Saviour, One God, one Lord, one Redeemer, one Bridegroom, one Husband, for one faithful bride ...  the one true virgin church.  Definitely not a two faced, or three faced god in heaven:

















The eternal ministry as both the High Priest of God and the Son God (under examination)

Moving on, let's try and break it down and simplify things even more:




The Son of God was the promised 'man child'.  He was promised to come as He had not arrived yet in the flesh.  Therefore, outside the sure word of prophecy there was no Son of God or 'man child' at this stage.  Just the same, there was no 'man child' or son in heaven.  The few verses in the OT mentioning the Son are recorded in the prophetic sense ...  of the Son of God to come.  Therefore, there was no second person of a heavenly trinity.  Concluding ...  with no second person, there was, and therefore is, no Trinity!

Once the child was born and the son given (begotten) God was now dwelling among men as a man, God in the flesh or the Word become flesh.  God as God was in heaven but God as man was on earth (the Son of God).  Therefore, there is still no son in heaven nor a trinity in heaven.  Moreover, once again, no Trinity!  It is an invention of man, for man, as well as an effective counterfeit of the Godhead to lock in many under the umbrella of Christendom, the manmade substitute for the kingdom of God.  The reason ... that they may never see or enter the real thing, and "taste and see that the LORD is good".

The Son had to be consecrated (set apart) as our perpetual high priest.  It had never happened before.  It had to become an historic act.  A oncer throughout history.  Once and for all, as Hebrews 7:27 and 10:10 puts it very clearly!  Moreover, Hebrews 7:28 declares:

"For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath (the word of promise - the prophetic word), which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."

From what we can get out of the above verse is that a priest was not a priest until he was made a priest through the law (also see verse 21a), just as the Son was not a son (or the Son) until He was made the Son by the sure word of God.  Here's more from verses 14 -16:

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda (he had to be conceived - coming from this seed); of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.  And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec (no longer made from the Levitical priesthood but after a different order) there ariseth another priest (beyond Levitical convention), Who is made (had a beginning as man and was not always the eternal Son), not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life (beyond Levitical convention)."

In other words, just a Jesus was not always a son, likewise, He was not always a priest, running in the same order; but had to spring from the seed of the tribe of Judah.  Whatzmore, He had to have both a beginning as a man (a son - a man child) as well as a priest.  A high priest in fact!  Notice; here is that recorded word 'made' (as in "maketh") again:

Heb. 6:20.  "Whither the forerunner is for us entered (as a man - as a priest), even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

In regards to this new order (beyond Levitical convention) and just encase some may come back at me using the following verse to twist it as to saying Jesus was always a high priest, therefore justifying His eternal coexisting sonship in heaven, let's look at this verse.  Here it is ...  verse 3, in regards to Jesus being after the similitude of Melchisedec (v.15):

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

Basically, what this verse is not pointing out, despite what some might misconstrue (even audaciously teach), is that the man Melchisedec and the man Christ Jesus, were (in this sense) eternal kin spirits without conception or birth.  Just as it is obvious Melchisedec had a beginning (a conception and birth - he was a man after all), we also know from scripture that Jesus as the man child (or being made high priest of the better eternal covenant) was begotten, conceived and born of a virgin, taking on the seed of Abraham, the likeness of sinful flesh, growing up as a child, and increasing in wisdom and stature (Luke 1:80 & 2:40, 52), until His full manhood and eventual betrayal.  There is soo much written evidence from both testaments of the Bible that this cannot be denied!

However, because there is no record in scripture of Melchisedec's genealogy, birth or history; only his priesthood in Jerusalem (he was a type of what was to come); likewise Jesus has this continued priesthood eternally in the new Jerusalem. Unlike the Levitical priesthood, and not after the Levitical priesthood, which had beginning and end, and was only a temporal thing until the new and better eternal covenant arrived, annulling the first.  Fulfilling Psalms 110:4 of course:

"The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

Therefore, as Jesus was made (begotten, conceived) a son (manchild) He was made a priest, not through the temporal OT priesthood, but after 'a man priest' "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life".  Meaning, before Jesus' entry into the world as the manchild (He was the eternal God after all), He was neither a Son nor a priest.  This came later cancelling out His so-called pre-existing priesthood and sonship as the so-called second person of the so-called Trinity, masquerading as the biblical Godhead.  Yes, here's that recorded word 'made' (as in "maketh") which keeps popping up all the time in these appropriate and supportive verses, like the next one conveyed:

Heb. 2:17.  "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be (future tense) a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

Yes, both an historical act and a historical fact.  It only happened once and had to be made and divinely appointed, proving the pre-existing priestly ministry and sonship of Jesus is a religious hoax, or at best, plain ignorance!

Yes, even though He was God the Creator and our Maker, Jesus made Himself a man, a man child, a son, a servant, of no reputation, for our suffering and payment, to be glorified and crowned with glory and honour, that we can be translated and glorified with Him too.

Moreover, although He may have been made (cancelling out the Most Holy Trinity doctrine) He was not created.  He is not, and was never a created being, despite what the JWs or the Christadelphians teach, or any other cult.  Here is final confirmation in this area for this treatise, from scripture as always:

Rom. 1:3.  "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh".

1 Cor. 15:45.  "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

Gal. 4:4.  "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law"

Ph. 2:7 ...  "and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men".

Therefore, how could Jesus be the eternal Son of God, prior to and after creation, but pre NT, if the above verses are God's perfect and pure word?

Behold the man!

It is true though that God or an angel can be referred to as 'a man', as both divinity (Ex. 15:3) and the angelic (Gen. 32:24) in scripture are gendered as man (as the muscular gender - male).  This is in contrast to the unique and special creation of the woman taken from man, for man; the male creature who was created in the likeness of God.  However, when scripture refers to man it is usually referring to man as the created creature, the centred creature of His will, the flesh and blood variety, made for the earth, but created at the same time "in the likeness of (the muscular) God" and " in his own image":

1 Cor. 11:7 ...  "forasmuch as he (man) is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man (taken from his side, from who was created first)."

With the above point now established, and all said and done, there is no concrete evidence from scripture of the existence of the male specie being a son without the conception and birth process.  By looking into this statement and taking it further through biblical analyse, one can see that if this statement is true then two major teachings within Christendom (one traditional and the other embraced over time) are destroyed in an instance.  Namely the Apocrypha's doctrine (extra biblical commentary I must say) of the sons of God being angels (thatz the Nephalim theory) without ever experiencing the birth process from conception, to sonship, then to a man process ...  comes out being found wanting.  In the same way, namely the Holy Trinity doctrine, which has become a large basis to Christendom's existence of presenting three separate persons as God ...  also comes out being found wanting.  Meaning, if the teaching that a son biblically can only be son after being begotten, then both the (introduced) Nephalim concept and the (established) Trinity concept fall flat on their face, to put it in other words.  For a more in-depth study in regards to destroying the biblical righteous seedline through history, by introducing a sons of God fallacy, please click here.

As pointed out at the beginning of this treatise, many get confused by the interchangeable way Jesus is referred to in His temporary status as a man on earth and His eternal and heavenly function.  Remember again ...  Jesus is both God and man!  Meaning, in order to rightly divide the word of truth we must be constantly aware of this and discerning and rightly dividing whether a passage or verse is referring to Jesus as God (eternally) or Jesus in the flesh (after conception) while operating in His earthly role or His glorified role.

The best example I can think of in scripture (which would have to be in the NT of course) would be the passage where Jesus pointed out that He was unaware of the date of His return but counteracted this by declaring that only His Father knew.  Here it is, in Matt. 24:36:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Yes, this was still the one and same God.  However, here we have the invisible, eternal and omniscient God in heaven, not limited to flesh and blood, knowing all things.  Hence, knowing full well the return of the Lord Jesus to earth.  On the other hand we have Jesus the man, being limited by flesh and blood, and time and space, to what He learnt through revelation, experience and growing and ever increasing in wisdom and stature (Luke 1:80 & 2:40, 52), but only knowing beyond this when the Spirit would reveal.

The scenario above is based on a matter of rightly dividing between Jesus as God and Jesus as man.  Some would call it (meaning the same) the deference between Jesus in His divinity and Jesus in His humanity, being worked out.  Here are some further examples from scripture (there are much much more) in order for us to take a ruthless and honest grip of this truth:

Matt. 4:4.  "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone (the Lord in the wilderness being tempted of the Devil), but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (trusting the Lord in heaven).

 Luke 22:42.  "Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me (Jesus the man): nevertheless not my will, but thine (Jesus the Creator), be done."

John 16:10.  "Of righteousness, because I go to my Father (the Lord in heaven), and ye see me (the man) no more".

Rev. 21:22.  "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty (the eternal) and the Lamb (the glorified Son) are the temple of it (important question ...  how can two different people be the one same temple?)."

There is a lot more to the following verse than what initially meets the eye.  Let's revisit 1 Timothy 2:5  again:

"For there is one God (the Lord Almighty and eternal), and one mediator between God and men, the man (the Son, man child) Christ Jesus".

From this verse we don't only have it confirmed that Jesus is the only way and only name we can be saved through, but we also have confirmation in regards to the true gender of God (knocking over a few New Age, PC and effeminate golden cows on the way) as well as the true gender of our one and only Saviour ...  the man Christ Jesus!

Yes, God had to become a man and suffer and relate to us in all the things, knowing the same temptations and depravations etc. we can experience.  Meaning, when it comes to every issue invented, taken to extreme, or genuine, there is only one real issue in the end when it comes to life and death, eternity and God ...  the man Christ Jesus!  He is the issue!  After all, He NEVER waned or yielded to sin or temptation.  In others words, everything in life pertaining to how "we live, and move, and have our being" falls back on what we do with Jesus the man!  Thatz Jesus of Nazareth; the man from Galilee!  Or the man "of the house and lineage of David"!  As in the prophetic words of Zechariah 6:12:

"And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up (from baby, to manchild, to maturity - had to become the Son, was not already the Son) out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD".

When Pilate was confronted with the truth and the dilemma over what to do with it (the real truth that'iz), he found himself in a real quandary.  It all boiled down to one thing, with no escaping the issue!  It was all to do with being found in what he would have to do with Jesus:

John 19:5.  "Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe.  And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!"

Yes, behold the man!  The man Christ Jesus!  What are we going to do with Him?  "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?"  Some will initially acknowledge Him, then fob Him off (as did Pilate).  Some will mock Him and do away with Him drastically.  Others will reinvent Him, to suit the liturgy or the creed.  While a few will acknowledge Him for who He is, and follow it through to the end ...  from the crib to the cross, as both Creator and Redeemer!

Yes ...  God had to become a man, being born as a son (the Son - the manchild) while maturing as a man, and fulfilling His earthly ministry as the lowly servant, for the suffering of death.  Yes ...  some will behold Him as just a man (even branding Him the title of  Superstar or Prophet), and leave it there and miss out.  While others will behold Him as the man ...  the biblical man child ...  God in the flesh  ...  sent to redeem us and point us to God.  Because, through Him, God can only be found:

"Hereby perceive we the love of God: because he laid down his life for us."