Why Do they Not Understand The Meaning of the Title 'son of god'?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 20
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
The devout believer of the gospels  proclaim to understand them perfectly yet fail to understand that calling anyone - including the Christ - "son/s of god" is only a title and doesn't  mean that the christ was  a literal offspring of an omnipotent sky dwelling being.

As usual, the gospels themselves prove this to be the case. 



Jhn 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:19 - For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Phl 2:15 - That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world

1Jo 3:1 - Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1Jo 3:2 - Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


 I don't doubt that to explain away these verses  the theist will have to say that it is I who is at fault and that I am interpreting them wrong and they will go about changing and altering words or the whole of these verses to make them appear to mean something else  entirely.
#2
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Arrrrrrrrrrr Scripture. 
You wouldn't have ya God speak anything but. 
It 
Well it.
It just works. 

One way it works.
You translate one scripture it's like, ( oh ok )
Translate four scriptures ( you start to know about God ) 
Ten scriptures. ( You are getting this.)
Twenty / twenty five scrips in ( CONGRATULATIONS you are now in the top 1000 of all time at scripture deciphering.) 
By the end of the first read it becomes bloody obvious that god made this book to for YOU. 
Your a top 100 translator. 
NO ONE,  THAT'S NO ONE knows God like you. 

Another way is. 

Well that verse is not to be takin literally. 

Whatever it is for, it is brilliant.

This could be all cleared up with my  ( TILII version of the bible. ) or  tell it like it is bible
All the scriptures removed and the meanings put it place. 







#3
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I don't know that I've ever heard anyone claim Jesus is the literal off-spring of God. Except maybe the Mormons.
#4
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
In luke, an angel speaks to Mary:

Lk 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

In Matthew, an angel speaks to Joseph:
Mt 1:20 “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

It seems clear enough that the Holy Spirit had the role of father to Mary's child.


Jesus was the Son of God.  The more generic 'sons of god' was used for believers.   Believers were sons, but they weren't the son.

In Jn 3:16 the gospel writer avoids ambiguity:  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The alternative view - that Jesus was adopted rather than fathered by God - was declared heretical in the 2nd century.

I better add that the above is my understanding of mainstream theology - I don't believe in gods!


#5
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I'm guessing there's still websites that promote the idea of Christians being baffled (in a discouraged sense) by various verses.

There are numerous issues in the Bible like the Sonship of Jesus that have required a lot of research, with still differing opinions. But how this gets turned into Christians being baffled, discouraged, on the defensive, etc. is baffling itself. Issues like these is what makes Bible study fascinating. It's really like science actually.

The disadvantage the more miitant atheist (often a former believer, minister, or theologian) has is that they (not referring to you or Stephen) completely stop researching once they've drawn a conclusion that the Bible is (fill in the blank with negative reference). They don't learn anymore, and often seem to resent those that keep on researching, and find various claims to be misunderstanding of scripture. We all have misunderstood scripture at times, whether Christian or non-believer. It's a continual learning process. It never comes to an end.



Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

In Matthew, an angel speaks to Joseph:
Mt 1:20 “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

It seems clear enough that the Holy Spirit had the role of father to Mary's child.

Then who was "the holy spirit"?


The Talmud’s Mishna describes Jesus as “a bastard son of an adulteress” describing Jesus as “ben Pantera” (son of-Pantera) a corruption of the Greek word/name  parthenos. Pantera was said to be a Roman archer from Sidon in Phoenicia but had served in Syria.


“concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the “seed” of David    according to the flesh”. Romans 1:3; 

If we have to read this as literal then this would mean that the so called holy spirit was a person of the line of David ; A royal,  as the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke state.


“Now Jesus himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph”. Luke 3:23.KJV



The son of Joseph? Not the son of God? Luke is not only explicit in what he says; he is adamant about what he says and is sure of his sources:

“For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.”. Luke 1:1-3 KJV.


Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Issues like these is what makes Bible study fascinating.

I find the subject of religion absolutely fascinating. But I treat it as historical rather than 'religious'.
#8
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Then you are sadly mistaken, there is little of history contained in that book of fiction. An example 400yrs of slavery in Egypt and not a word of it retold by the Egyptians. Amazing.
#9
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
The bible is as fictitious as Harry Potter, why aren't you researching those tomes? Oh I did enjoy your stereotypical awakening in another thread, you can find millions of those.
#10
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
@Stephen
@RoderickSpode



JESUS IS GOD FOR DUMMIES!


The following direct passages, which are only a few examples of many, show Jesus the Christ as Yahweh God incarnate, period! This is why the majority of the divisions of our faith are Trinitarians! HELLO?

“But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:15-16)   Without controversy, who was manifested in the flesh as the living god of the church? You got it, Jesus, praise! 2+2=4.

“Thomas answered and said to Him, “MY LORD, MY GOD”(John 20:28)  Here Thomas is calling Jesus Yahweh god! Any questions?

JESUS HIMSELF SAYS HE IS GOD: “Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father, how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?” (John 14:9)  GET IT?

Now, here is the irony if anyone shows bible passages or narratives that contradict the biblical axioms stated above where Jesus is God, then that would be a CONTRADICTION!  Therefore, fellow Christians, watch your step with the direct ramifications of trying to defend contradictions within our faith, understood? Thank you.


.

#11
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The creed of the church might help explain the distinction of Christ...


"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made:"



Jesus Christ is The Word of God, or The Truth.




"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

If ye love me, keep my commandments.
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."



"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."



The grand point here is that, as Saint Athanasius put it.. "God became man so that man might become God". That is what we call theosis. Not to become God in essence, but through cooperation with divine energies. The Christ in us, or even, putting on Christ through our baptism.


So there is a distinction between The Son of God, and even a peacemaker, who will be called son of God according to Jesus. Jesus is special.

#12
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac



.
Mopac,

Once again, quit dancing around the May Pole, does your pagan church and you believe that Jesus is God incarnate, or just the son of Yahweh God?  This is a very simple question, therefore you should be able to answer it.


.
#13
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The Orthodox Catholic Church is the very church that began at pentecost with an unbroken lineage of every Bishop back to ordination by. the apostles.

What church do you belong to? I doubt you even belong to any.

But the answer to your question is in the next segment of the creed.



"Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end."


#14
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
“Now Jesus himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph”. Luke 3:23.KJV

The son of Joseph? Not the son of God? Luke is not only explicit in what he says; he is adamant about what he says and is sure of his sources:

KJV in full reads "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed)[sic] the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"

So Jesus was only supposed to be the son of Joseph!  Of course if Joseph was not Jesus' father that makes a nonsense of the genealogy linking him to David in the following verses!

I think that sort of thing is inexplicable.   As Luke was obviously not stupid I doubt he didn't spot the inconsistency, so why didn't he fix or hide it?  Or at least try to?   I have no idea, but lots of other people have had ideas of varing complexity and credibility.   I'm think it likely that luke wanted to to write that a) Jesus was virgin born and b) a descendant of David, through the traitional male line.  Luke couldn't think of way to recocile the two so simply didn't bother, relying on the absence of much critical analysis in those days!  Or people can choose one of the many other conjectural reconciliations - there's loads on the 'net.


#15
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac



.
MOPAC, 

In reference to my post #12 to you, do you have any thoughts upon your own, instead of always giving thoughts of others?  Are you that brainwashed and inept? Or, does your church allow you to answer a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION on your own? Are you proud that you have to continually acquiesce in this manner to questions directed to you? Huh?

I WANT YOUR DIRECT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, UNDERSTOOD, therefore, why make yourself even more dumbfounded looking within this forum?  To save yourself further embarrassment, I'll ask the question AGAIN. Ready?

Do you believe that Jesus is Yahweh God incarnate, or the Son of Yahweh God. STOP!  Now, answer this SIMPLE question.

BEGIN:


.



#16
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Jesus Christ is The Word of God, who is God, co-essential with The Father and The Holy Spirit. That being the case,  Yahweh is not one in a Trinity, but the whole Trinity.


Jesus Christ is both God incarnate and The Son of God.

#17
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac



.
Mopac,

YOUR INDIVIDUAL QUOTE, FOR A CHANGE:   "Jesus Christ is The Word of God, who is God, co-essential with The Father and The Holy Spirit. That being the case,  Yahweh is not one in a Trinity, but the whole Trinity.  Jesus Christ is both God incarnate and The Son of God"

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? Jesus represents Yahweh God, Himself, and the Holy Spirit, where there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore, Jesus Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both. The Son was begotten by the Father, but existed before He was begotten. Christ is just as old as his Father, and the Father is just as young as his Son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but He is of the same age as the other two, praise!


. 

Topic's author
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser

 I'm think it likely that luke wanted to to write that a) Jesus was virgin born and b) a descendant of David, through the traitional male line.  Luke couldn't think of way to recocile the two so simply didn't bother, relying on the absence of much critical analysis in those days! 

 As I have said on another thread: 

One has to ask, why the silence from Mark and John concerning the "virgin birth"? The answer is simple; there wasn’t one in the sense that we today understand the word virgin. Not only did they not know about it, but they didn’t have a clue about the childhood of the saviour that didn't save himself never mind his people.either! This in turn must give rise to the question of why did Matthew and Luke, whose gospels are (in a large part) said to be borrowed from Mark, feel the need to mention a virgin birth? And we have to keep in mind that Mark is believed to have been the first of the gospels yet he has absolutely nothing to say about the virgin birth of Christ. 


It cannot be  denied that there are clearly two different genealogical sources coming from both these gospels Matthew and Luke; at Matthew 1:2-17 King James Version and Luke 3:23-38.KJV

But Luke had this to add:

“For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.”. Luke 1:1-3 KJV.


Simply put, Luke is telling us above that these people (his sources) knew and perfectly understood what they were talking about and it was the truth that they were conveying to us (and Luke) because his sources had witnessed it all. And that it was ‘good enough for him’ so it should be good enough for us. Luke obviously couldn’t have known what Matthew had written in his genealogical list. So in layman's terms it meant 'accept it or kindly go away'.

It is also interesting that Eusebius said this  in his History of the Church. "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages”when referring to the bloodline lists of  Matthew 1:2-17 and and Luke 3:23-38.

“to dilate”? One can only imagine translates as ‘who do you think you are looking at these genealogies with your eyes wide open’. Or ‘don’t allow your eyes to become too dilated, you may see the contradiction and know the truth’.  It does beg the question as to why Matthew and Luke even took the time to add these genealogical lists to their gospels because they should instantly throw doubt (for the Christian) as to the divinity of Jesus and his very existence and are therefore pointless because we cannot after all, forget that Mary, Jesus’ mother was a virgin, wasn’t she? What is more, we have the two evangelists, Matthew and Luke, both showing us that Joseph is the direct descendant of King David. And this is not to mention that they don’t even agree as to whom Joseph’s father of was:

“And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary”. Matthew 1:17.KJV 

Luke 3:23;  “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, the son of Heli”.KJV


#19
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
It is also interesting that Eusebius said this  in his History of the Church. "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages”when referring to the bloodline lists of  Matthew 1:2-17 and and Luke 3:23-38.
I looked this up.  Eusebius is 4th century and the line quoted introduces his preferred resolution of the discrepancies between the genealogies, so this debate has been going on a long time! 


As I see it, one chooses between a) Matthew and Luke independently 'creatively' expanding on Mark or b) one of several convoluted resolutions that preserves the inerrancy of the text. 

I don't understand the psychology that makes anyone take the latter course - but then again I doubt they understand the psychology of unbelievers!

I think very few people sit down to write something with the intention of being completely objective and unbiased.  'Everything is propaganda' (especially posts on DArt!)... assuming an author is out to persuade (not to inform) is a good guideline.


#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Son, more like Sun. Jesus was Lucifer, the lightbringer. Satan was God of the OT.