ever since this debate started, there have been a few on the org, myself included who were convinced that otan referred to the pharoah akhenaton and the god aton or aten or otan when transliterated it has many spellings, anyway it was obvious to those who ahve studied egyptology, akhenaton was responsible for casting asisde the pantheon of gods and replacing them with one god the aten or sundisc, he is credited in many circles for being the founder of modern monotheism, altho at the time he was considered a heretic,

anyway this theory was obvious to some but confusing to many who havent studied egypt and fair enough, but i have just heard m2tp from the live ep and prince states the opposite of nato is monotheism, so as stated previously it is reference to the old pharoahs revolution but more specifiaclly to monotheism, its being the opposite to nato in anything but spelling backwards i dont know wht he means, maybe someone else can figure it out.

but rest asured otan means the one god,

if anyone cares to read a little on ahkenaton it will be obvious 2 u too.

p.s the cover 2 the peace single from a couple of yers back features a hieroglyph of the otan (sun disc reaching out and touching the pharoah)
.

Lust said:


During the New York "One Night Alone" concert Prince sang the lyric as "The Opposite of Nato is Monotheism".

Monotheism of course being a belief that there is only one true God so this makes sense with your theory Lust.

So... is Prince saying that a world of many nations should come together to believe in one God (or that the many different gods are actually the same God)?? And more importantly, is Prince saying that he believes in a sun god and/or that Jesus is somehow connected to ancient sun worship?

http://www.nato.int/

go to the bottom of the page...on the left, the copyright.

Could be..but huh?? "The Opposite of NATO is Monotheism" (or Otan)?? Still makes no sense. What the heck does NATO have to do with god anyway?

He must have been smoking something fierce when he wrote that line.

The Egyptian Aten (or Aton) theory is old news - it makes the most sense - but it annoys me that he spells it "OTAN" in the lyrics pages of the CD. Artistic license?

And while we're at it, what does NATO have to do with theology anyway?

TheMax said:

the spelling doesnt matter because its all just translitaeration from hieroglyphics, the egyptians didnt prounonce A like we do in the word anus but it would have been more like the a in the A in shAlom but wit a longer accent making the way prince pronounces otan the same as if u wrote it aten, his spelling is just convenient 2 prove his nato point which i still dont know what it is.

maybe his interpritation of monotheism is not just the belief in one god but that everybody believes in that one god,

so as nato is for defense in non peace situations ,

nato = war
war is the opposite of peace
monotheism according to my speculative definition will lead to peace
otan is monotheism

therefore making otan the opposite of nato


this is just a theory

is prince saying that if we all believed in the same god, there would be world peace and therefore no need for nato.

lust said:

Wonder if Prince REALLY believes in this.

Let's look at the facts. The 3 main religions that believe in monotheism don't seem to get along very well do they. Heck the problems in the middle east involve 2 of these religions. Actually it centers around all 3 in one form or another. A doesn't like B, and B doesn't like C cause C is real friendly with A. Etc..etc.

Oh and guess what..as weird it it seems, those 3 religions do believe int the same god. Except they can't make up their minds what god is trying to tell them.

Meanwhile the rest of the world, which doesn't believe in this god or monotheism, would just love to go on living their lives and not have to deal with those monotheistic religions and their squabbles.

I thought we'd already discussed this at some point?

Prince is big in to Egypt, as I recall, so it would obviously make sense that he knows all this.

Akhenaten was a pharaoh in the 18th dynasty, as I recall. The paintings of him with his family are portrayed like no other pharoah had ever been shown. He in embraces with his family and the like. Generally depicted rather feminine, as I recall. With breasts. They believe it was a genetic disorder.

Father of Tutankhamen, husband of the famous Nefertiti, and well-hated for his banishment of the worship of all other Gods besides Aten, his one-god.

Anyhow, not a lot of Akhenaten relics survive, as after he died, people destroyed his name, and his image, and their disdain for Akhenaten even carried on to Tutankhamen. His name is erased off of the temples he commissioned - even though he re-allowed polytheism in Egypt.

Oh, and they believe Tutankhamen was murdered by his successor, Aye. Bashed over the head.

I can think of one Scripture in particular that might shed light on the comment that NATO would be the opposite of monotheism. Even though the major groups of the 3 monotheistic religious organizations do indeed war with each other and court NATO and other allies such as the UN and individual nations, this is actully frowned upon in the Scriptures. Surprised? Why? When have the major religions of especially Christendom been concearned that their actions are in conflict with the book and it's author they claim to represent?

James 4:4"Adulteresses, do YOU not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God."

Therefore (and this is by far not the only Scripture that agrees with this) since friendship or alliance with the world would constitute one an enemy of God, then NATO or allying oneself with this would, in effect, be the opposite of God and his will. Just as Ancient Israel was chastised for forming alliances with worldly governments, showing a lack of faith in the eyes of God, so too does he repeatedly warn Christians of the dangers of such aldultress relationships. In that light, is where that comment makes sense.

wow... some people are bringing this topic up and back up an back up and back up...people do some morereading on here too...there are loads of threadsabout this subject and it is everytime the same...
However... Bible teacher... a week ago i try to make the same kind of reasoning as you just did and came to the conclusion that perhabs Prince is trying to say that the opposite of Nato is WTS (Watchtower Tract Society)... Maybe he says Otan because it sounds cooler than WTS... (that last remark was a joke...)

here is what I said...07/22/02 1:52pm

:

Think about it... because Prince says a little more than just simply the opposite of Nato is Otan...
[This message was edited Wed Jul 31 5:24:34 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]

Fuck, I'm just going to march to Paisley and ask him my damn self on what he meant!

Thanx for all this information. Far fetched it is.

hyah!

sojourner said:

thats what the spanish said to christopher columbus

CmputrBlu said: [quote]
Oh and guess what..as weird it it seems, those 3 religions do believe int the same god. [\quote]

Not true. Neither Islam nor Judaism believe Jesus is God in the flesh. (And for that matter, Jesus' divinity is a very controversial subject among many Christians as well).

I don't think it's a far-fetched theory at all. And I've heard this theory explained before by others.

soulsplash said:

Actually, real Christians don't believe Jesus is God either. It is not a Biblical teaching. Only church dogma asserts this and is bought into by many adherants in Christendom. Jesus did not claim to be God, only his Son. If you read the Bible, instead of listening to what religion claims it teaches, there would be less confusion. So, yes, in essence, Jehovah (Yahoweh,YHWH) is the same god as in Islam (Allah= "the God"). The 3 have the same God, essentially, just different views. Christians= Jesus came as messiah and paid the Ransom and now rules as appointed king; Judaism= Jesus was not the guy they wanted. They are still looking for him; Islam= Jesus was a prophet, but Mohammed is the premier prophet and what he said goes. They also feel the Scriptures are valid but have convinced themselves they have been corrupted even though this contradicts the Quran's own words and evidence to the contrary.
So, the God is the same, they just have different forms of religion to try and worship Him.
[This message was edited Wed Jul 31 21:52:25 PDT 2002 by Bibleteacher89]

Bibleteacher89 said:

Jesus as Creator God: "For by Him were all things created... He is before all things, and by Him all things consist..." (Colossians 1:12-22).

Jesus as Creator God: "...All things were made by Him... He was in the world, and the world was made by Him..." (John 1:1-14).

Jesus called God: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God..." (John 20:24-29).

Jesus called God: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given... and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).

Jesus called God and Creator: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever... And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands" (Hebrews 1:1-14).

Jesus calls himself God: "...Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58 ). "What is his [God's] name? ...I AM" (Exodus 3:13-14).

Jesus equal to God and over all: "Let his mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God... made in the likeness of men... at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord..." (Philippians 2:5-11).

Jesus is God in bodily form: "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him... For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

Jesus is God in the flesh: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23).

God is Jesus the Lamb: Who else but God Himself could be holy and pure enough to be the sacrifical Lamb for all mankind? "God Himself will provide a Lamb" (Genesis 22:8 ).

Jesus is not an angel (Hebrews 1:5,6; 2:5, 16; John 17:5; Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2:9,10; Isaiah 42:8 ).

Bibleteacher89 said:

http://www.randytv.com/secret/unfax.jpg

soulsplash said:

Hmmm...very interesting here.
I am ashamed to say that I do not devote the time I should to studing the bible.
I wish I had an open minded person around me to study with. I wish I could go deep with this, but do not have much solid foudation to explore with.
anyhow, this is the way I have always perceived Jesus.
Jesus the son of God...had God within him because he is his son...Just like I have my father and mother within me, because I am their daughter...doesnt mean that I am my father...but he is within me.
example: ice...it is made of water, can be steam if boiled, can be water if melted...they r not the same thing in a sense, but they are one because each componet is made from the other.

billysparxxx said:

Yeah, go, go, go!!!

soulsplash said:

Soulsplash: THANK YOU!!! Set that so-called bibleteacher straight.

You obviously are true student of dogma and not Scripture. How do you use a Scripture to try and prove the Trinity that totally disproves it? Unreal.
I'm not going to get into everything that is flawed with your reasoning and logic but I will hit a few main points that are proof enough from the Bible and history that prove without a doubt that Jesus is not the same or equal to his Father, Jehovah.

First off, noting the scriptures you seem to think back up your dogma...

Philippians 2:5-6
Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

Hello?!? What does Paul say here? That Jesus did NOT try to seize position equal to God.

Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;”

forgot to include this in your misquote of that passage. I guess it would have contradicted your spurrious conclusion. It clearly states he is the "Image" of God, not God himself.
Also that he was created by God and then used as an instrument in creation as the rest of the passages say. That is why The Scriptures clearly state he is the "only begotten son" of God, and not God.

Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Indeed this refers to Jesus as a mighty god. Ever wonder why this does not say he is Almighty God? Because he is not. You see, it is not incorrect to refer to Jesus by the title "god" (as you try to point out in other verses here to assert he is God) and him not be GOD Almighty. Why? Well, let's look at Jesus' words. Would he not have taken advantage of opportunities to prove this when given them? Why then did he not at:

John 10:31-36
Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?

Notice in here in verse 33 that is was Pharasees who accused him of trying to be equal to God. Well, Jesus goes on in verse 34,35 to quote, as he often did, from the mosaic law covenant at Psalm 82:1-6 where the Scriptures also correctly give the title "gods" to the judges of Israel...mere men. Was this asserting THEY were almighty Jehovah? hardly. Indeed, Jesus goes onto say in verse 36 that they falsely accuse him of blasphemy by claiming, not that he was God...but God's Son.

That being said, do some reseach on John 1:1 and you will see exactly what this is saying. Jesus is a god, godlike, divine in origin. This thought is conveyed by the original Greek here in context. Not as the Trinity influenced King James translators inferred by their lose translation of it.

Also, some things you all need to think about:
If Jesus were God, how is Revelation 1:1 possible?

Revelation 1:1
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John

Tell me...why would Jesus, if he were indeed God, need to receive the revelation FROM God in order to then pass it along channels for John to receive? Because he is not God and is subordinate to his Father, that's why.

Also, this Scripture will be abundantly clear for any still on the fence:

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

If this does not clear up any notions that Jesus is God, you are truly blind. Here, Paul even redundanly clarifies the position and relationship between Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. Verses 24,27,28 especially pay attention to. Here it mentions that after the mellenial reign of Jesus to come, he hands back the kingdom to Jehovah, his Father. And in 27,28...just to be perfectly clear for all you who seem to not get it, Paul clarifies that even though God has subjected all things to Jesus, that it is certainly NOT including God being in subjection, for it is by God's authority all this is possible anyway.

So, chew on that. Meditate on it and take it before Jehovah God in prayer. Then next time you will not revile those of us who know and teach the Scriptures, not as a hobby...but as a lifestyle that is part of our very person.

well said bibleteacher.

well reasoned, logical interpretation.

unlike what soulsplash manged to 'reproduce'... with all the omissions, taking away the basic meaning of what is written.

good 'work'.

Abrazo said:

if i quoted the whole Bible u still wouldn't be happy.

u got a Bible, right? Go read it and tell me what meaningful parts i left out, then we'll discuss. now, as to what BibleTeacher is "saying"...

P.S. LadyCabDriver -- u remember me? u wrote me once after i posted a few particular interviews on a.m.p. Jesus is Lord, amen?

Bibleteacher89 said:
Philippians 2:5-6
Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

Hello?!? What does Paul say here? That Jesus did NOT try to seize position equal to God.

soulsplash says:
"...thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:6).

But why stop at verse 6? "But made himself of no reputation..." (Like the Holy Spirit, Jesus does not boast about Himself). "...and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). Jesus is God who was "made in the likeness of men," and "In the form of God... [Jesus] took upon him the form of a servant."

Bibleteacher89 said:
Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;”

forgot to include this in your misquote of that passage. I guess it would have contradicted your spurrious conclusion. It clearly states he is the "Image" of God, not God himself.
Also that he was created by God and then used as an instrument in creation as the rest of the passages say. That is why The Scriptures clearly state he is the "only begotten son" of God, and not God.

soulsplash says:
Again, why stop at that verse. You admit that verse 15 is about Jesus, so then is not verse 16 and 17? "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17). Are you saying that someone other than God created "all things"?

Bibleteacher89 said:
Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Indeed this refers to Jesus as a mighty god.

soulsplash says:
You do see in that verse that Jesus is also given the title "Eternal Father"? Jesus is the Son and the Father -- He is God. He is the Prince of Peace and the King of Kings, even the Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). Would you deny this?

"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:" (Deuteronomy 10:17). How can God be Lord of lords if Jesus is also Lord of Lords? Because they are the same person/being.


Bibleteacher89 said:
Ever wonder why this does not say he is Almighty God? Because he is not. You see, it is not incorrect to refer to Jesus by the title "god" (as you try to point out in other verses here to assert he is God) and him not be GOD Almighty. Why? Well, let's look at Jesus' words. Would he not have taken advantage of opportunities to prove this when given them? Why then did he not at:

John 10:31-36
Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?

soulsplash says:
I see no problem with this verse. Was not Adam also called a son of God? Aren't angels also called sons of God? This does not mean that "sons of God" are only men and angels. Adam and the angels were a direct result of God's creation, and who is the Creator? Look above. Jesus is! And who is the Father? Look above. Jesus is! And who is the Son? Look above. Jesus is! And who is God and Saviour? Look up for your redemption draweth nigh (Luke 21:28 ).

Bibleteacher89 said:
Notice in here in verse 33 that is was Pharasees who accused him of trying to be equal to God. Well, Jesus goes on in verse 34,35 to quote, as he often did, from the mosaic law covenant at Psalm 82:1-6 where the Scriptures also correctly give the title "gods" to the judges of Israel...mere men. Was this asserting [i]THEY were almighty Jehovah? hardly. Indeed, Jesus goes onto say in verse 36 that they falsely accuse him of blasphemy by claiming, not that he was God...but God's Son.

That being said, do some reseach on John 1:1 and you will see exactly what this is saying. Jesus is a god, godlike, divine in origin. This thought is conveyed by the original Greek here in context. Not as the Trinity influenced King James translators inferred by their lose translation of it.[/i]

soulsplash says:
Jesus says He is the One God, not "a god." In Revelation 1:11 and 22:13 Jesus says, "I am the first and the last," and in Isaiah 44:6 God says, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

I purposely left out the first part of that last verse, but before I share it, let me ask: Who is the King of Israel? Jesus is the King of Israel, the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:11, 37; John 18:37; 19:19). But isn't the King of Israel also God? Who is the Redeemer? God is often called the Redeemer (Psalm 78:35; Isaiah 54:5; 63:16).

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

"...thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel" (John 1:49, see also: Matthew 27:42; Mark 15:32; John 12:13).

Jesus is God: the King of Israel, Redeemer, Lord of hosts, First and Last, Eternal Father, Mighty God, Son of God, Prince of Peace, King of Kings... the ONE and only God.

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

Bibleteacher89 said:
Also, some things you all need to think about:
If Jesus were God, how is Revelation 1:1 possible?

Revelation 1:1
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John

Tell me...why would Jesus, if he were indeed God, need to receive the revelation [i]FROM God in order to then pass it along channels for John to receive? Because he is not God and is subordinate to his Father, that's why.[/i]

soulsplash says:
Remember that verse we started with? It says that Jesus set aside his divinity to appear in the likeness of man, and as redundant or silly as it sounds, God's divinity comes from God. And Jesus, as God in human form, was given the revelation by God of nonhuman form to give to John, a man. If God had not appeared to John as a man, John as a man would've certainly died in the presence of God's fully glory. Afterall, God said to Moses, "...there shall no man see me, and live" (Exodus 33:20).

Bibleteacher89 said:
Also, this Scripture will be abundantly clear for any still on the fence:

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

soulsplash says:
When the old earth and heaven have passed away, will not all flesh pass away with it and all things be subject to God? God's flesh will also pass away and He will be revealed to us as "all in all" -- the One eternal glorious God!

Bibleteacher89 said:
If this does not clear up any notions that Jesus is God, you are truly blind. Here, Paul even redundanly clarifies the position and relationship between Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. Verses 24,27,28 especially pay attention to. Here it mentions that after the mellenial reign of Jesus to come, he hands back the kingdom to Jehovah, his Father.

soulsplash says:
And why is that? Because after the millennial reign, everything physical will pass away. Jesus is God in the physical, the first and the last

Bibleteacher89 said:
And in 27,28...just to be perfectly clear for all you who seem to not get it, Paul clarifies that even though God has subjected all things to Jesus, that it is certainly NOT including God being in subjection, for it is by God's authority all this is possible anyway.

soulsplash says:
"But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (Hebrews 1:8 ). God is saying that Jesus is God ("O God"). This is similar to what David says in Psalm 110:1 -- "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand..." Did we ever have a doubt who David's Lord is? God. And in this verse, God (to be revealed in the flesh as Jesus, "God with us") is subject to God (not in the flesh, with full divine power and authority).

"Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me" (John 12:44-45).

"For unto which of the angels said he [God] at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" (Hebrews 1:5). Jesus is not an angel.

"And again, when he [God] bringeth in the first begotten [Jesus] into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Hebrews 1:6). Isn't one of the ten commandments, "thou shalt worship no other god" (Exodus 34:14)? Therefore, Jesus is not "a god" -- He is THE God!

"For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior..." (Isaiah 43:3). "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:11). "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" (1 John 4:14). Who is the Saviour? God or Jesus? Both! But how can that be? Because they're the same person/being! Jesus is God.

Look here: "But hath in due times manifested his [God's] word through preaching, which is committed unto me [Paul] according to the commandment of God our Saviour; To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour" (Titus 1:3-4). Notice how in one verse God is called the Saviour but then in the very next verse Jesus is called the Saviour; even though, God says there is no other Saviour but Him (Isaiah 43:11). How can this be? Jesus is God!


Bibleteacher89 said:
So, chew on that. Meditate on it and take it before Jehovah God in prayer. Then next time you will not revile those of us who know and teach the Scriptures, not as a hobby...but as a lifestyle that is part of our very person.

soulsplash:
It's ALL only by the grace of God, you know? But even the Pharisees who prided themselves in the use of Scripture could not understand how the Christ could be God:

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions" (Matthew 22:41-46).