The Sons of God.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 58
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2


 I have mentioned a few times on this forum that kings of Israel and Judah were called sons of god and had never been challenged to put forward evidence for that claim until very recently -today in fact, when a extremely frustrated member said this:

"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21  Tradesecret

I don't ever remember being asked to "prove" this claim/ my claim before , but still here we are.

  It is believed the evidence is there in the religious scriptures and  these would be the same scriptures that Tradesecret tells us he " teaches to his clients" among telling them never to answer simple yes or no questions>>>> #15   "Besides - I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no". Poor clients, I say.


He admits to being told something and then simply passing it on, such as here,  bottom two lines>>#20 Tradesecret. >>>>
"I in most parts are are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received.  S/he didn't say if or not he actaully reads the damn scriptures for himself, but my guess he doesn't.  

 So what about the Israel's and Judah's  son's of god? I cannot put my fingers direct on my own sources, but do not fret. As in todays age of the WWW there are commentators that can be found that confirm my claim. Odd don't you think that tradesecret didn't take the time to check out my claim for him/her self, isn't it,?.......  before calling me a liar, AGAIN! he should know by now that I rarely make a claim I couldn't support.....    and it didn't take me two seconds to find these sources. . 


 The evidence for my claim simply doesn't stop coming. I do wish we had the WWW when I was studying and researching these scriptures. It would have saved me thousands of hours in the library not to mention in travel and money.



God’s Son and Kiss the Son.  Rabbi David Markowitz


"The term son of God appears a number of times in the Torah where it clearly does not refer to a biological relationship. See for example Deuteronomy 14:1: "You [Israel] are sons to the Lord your God," as well as Exodus 4:22, where God tell Moses to tell Pharaoh "My son, My firstborn Israel" (Exodus 4:22). The meaning is that God has a special relationship with His nation, but clearly the bond is emotional and not physical.
The Torah likewise uses this expression for other great individuals. See for example Psalms 89:27-28 in reference to King David, and II Samuel 7:14 in reference to Solomon: “I will be to him as a Father and he will be to Me as a son.”
In this verse, the commentators understand God’s “son” as referring to King David himself (or possibly the future Messiah (Ibn Ezra)), who serves God with the filial devotion of a son honoring his father (Ibn Ezra, Radak), who represents and protects a nation known collectively as God’s son (Rashi, Metzudat David), or who leads the world as an (inheriting) son who controls his father’s property (Malbim)..................."



Professor, Claremont School of Theology

"Biblical authors claim that the kings of Israel and Judah were divinely chosen and that they were expected to abide by the covenant (see, for example, Deut 17:14-17, 1Sam 8-12, 1Kgs 2:3-4). Ps 2 calls the Davidic king a “son” of Yhwh. In a similar way, powerful kings in ancient treaties called their lesser allies “sons.” Thus, Israelites saw their king as a lesser agent of their god, ruling on his behalf (see Hag 2:20-23). Since Yhwh was in charge, he was responsible for protecting the king of Israel from threats by enemies (2Sam 7, Ps 2) and for punishing him and even removing him if he did not fulfill divine expectations (1Sam 13-14, 2Sam 7, 1Kgs 11:29-39). Ps 72 calls upon G-d to grant the king divine justice and righteousness so that he might rule the people properly, and Isa 32:1-2 calls upon the king to rule in righteousness so that his officers will govern with justice (see Isa 9:5-9, Isa 11:1-9).................."






The Jewish King as God. The Bart Ehrman Blog: The History & Literature of Early Christianity . 

"The son of a human is human, just as the son of a dog is a dog and the son of a cat is a cat.  And so what is the son of God?   As it turns out, to the surprise of many casual readers of the Bible, there are passages where the king of Israel, widely called the son of God (e.g. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7), is actually referred to as divine, as god.
The Yale Hebrew Bible scholar John Collins points out that this notion ultimately appears to derive from Egyptian ways of thinking about their king, the Pharaoh, as a divine being.   Even in Egypt, where the king was God, it did not mean that the king was on a par with the great gods, any more than the Roman emperor was thought to be on a par with Jupiter or Mars.  But he was a god.   In Egyptian and Roman circles, there were levels of divinity.  And so too, as we have seen, in Jewish circles.  And so it is that we find highly exalted terms used of the king of Israel, terms that may surprise readers who – based on the kind of thinking that developed in the fourth Christian century — think that there is an unbridgeable chasm between God and humans.  Nonetheless, here it is, in the Bible itself, the king is called both Lord and God" .




#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
You are correct. From Wikipedia, The term "son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way of referring to humans with special relationships with God. In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's "Firstborn son". In Psalms, David is called "son of God", even commanded to proclaim that he is God's "begotten son" on the day he was made king. Solomon is also called "son of God". Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God."
#3
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6

King Solomon:
I Chronicles 22:9-10
Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.
Angels:
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of G-d came to present themselves before the L-rd, and Satan also came among them.
King David:
Psalms 2:7
I [David] will tell of the decree of the L-rd: He said to me, You are My son; today I have begotten you."
Israel:
Exodus 4:22
And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."
Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.
None of the above is a "son of G-d" in the familial sense. Each merely enjoyed a special relationship to G-d, like those called "sons" in the New Testament:
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of G-d.
Luke 3:38
...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of G-d.
Topic's author
#4
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
You are correct. From Wikipedia, The term "son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way of referring to humans with special relationships with God. In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's "Firstborn son". In Psalms, David is called "son of God", even commanded to proclaim that he is God's "begotten son" on the day he was made king. Solomon is also called "son of God". Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God."



 I appreciate your input , FLRW.   The point here is that, as shown above, Christians as a rule, do not read these scriptures for themselves much less scrutinize and question them for themselves.
No.  They are told which page to turn to, the page is read our aloud by the  one taking the class or a church acolyte  and then it is "explained" to them by the teacher.  Then the "clients" "pass on" that which has been   "explained"..  As can be witnessed by the words of the self confessed Tradesecret at #1at post above.

 I have found  over the years that the followers - the sheep of the lords flock -  have been steered only towards the fluffy sayings and so called miracles spoken and performed  by the Christ and are completely steered away from the more problematic verses of the scriptures. To point reasonably highlight a flaw to a Christian is nothing less than anathema. They also have a terrible habit of believing  that for  a person to be able to understand the scriptures, a person must be a theist . How arrogant. 

If there is one thing that religion robs a person of it is the ability to reason for one's self.

 I do at times  wonder, why  "sheep" ? Could it be that the "sheep" are fleeced in more way than one?
Topic's author
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends

King Solomon:
I Chronicles 22:9-10
Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.
Angels:
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of G-d came to present themselves before the L-rd, and Satan also came among them.
King David:
Psalms 2:7
I [David] will tell of the decree of the L-rd: He said to me, You are My son; today I have begotten you."
Israel:
Exodus 4:22
And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."
Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.
None of the above is a "son of G-d" in the familial sense. Each merely enjoyed a special relationship to G-d, like those called "sons" in the New Testament:
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of G-d.
Luke 3:38
...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of G-d.


 Stand by, rosends, to be told that you ;

Have "taken these verses out of context" .

Have "Cherry picked these verses".

That you " Don't understand them as they were written In the original ancient Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew or even Latin script".  Funny how they never mention  Sumerian script, isn't it? The very place where Adam and Abraham, among others, are said to have originated.

And that "you have simply misunderstood what has been written".

And that favourite of all theist , to completely rewrite the scriptures to "prove" you to be wrong and further their own agenda and  to save embarrassment. 

I am sure that there are those that pray for the days of ducking stools and witch burning to return. 
#6
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I can really only discuss the ones written in Hebrew or Aramaic but if anyone wants to discuss the context and meaning in the light of those languages, I'm game.
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,065
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I would suggest that the term "Sons of god", was never meant to be anything other than a metaphor.
Topic's author
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
The absence of Tradesecret on this thread is very noticeable, isn't it?

After all, it was s/he that requested the content of this thread.  S/he must be busy with her "clients".

Is this what I think it is?




is this too
Topic's author
#9
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Even Islam  recognises that the kings of Israel were called  Sons of God.

Answering Islam.  A Christian /  Muslim Dialogue



#10
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Glad to see you have finally come up with a source apart from your own imagination. 

So the idea you are asserting is that the kingly sons of David are ALL called the Son of God. 


Great article but does not come anywhere near trying to make the above claim.  In fact he suggests that all Jews are sons of God. He refers to Psalm 2 in respect of David and perhaps Solomon. Again - this does not come close to proving that all the sons of David, kingly or not are called the son of God.  In fact there is a thought in that article that the Son of God - was referring to coming messiah. 


God’s Son and Kiss the Son.  Rabbi David Markowitz


"The term son of God appears a number of times in the Torah where it clearly does not refer to a biological relationship. See for example Deuteronomy 14:1: "You [Israel] are sons to the Lord your God," as well as Exodus 4:22, where God tell Moses to tell Pharaoh "My son, My firstborn Israel" (Exodus 4:22). The meaning is that God has a special relationship with His nation, but clearly the bond is emotional and not physical.
The Torah likewise uses this expression for other great individuals. See for example Psalms 89:27-28 in reference to King David, and II Samuel 7:14 in reference to Solomon: “I will be to him as a Father and he will be to Me as a son.”
In this verse, the commentators understand God’s “son” as referring to King David himself (or possibly the future Messiah (Ibn Ezra)), who serves God with the filial devotion of a son honoring his father (Ibn Ezra, Radak), who represents and protects a nation known collectively as God’s son (Rashi, Metzudat David), or who leads the world as an (inheriting) son who controls his father’s property (Malbim)..................."

So the Jews are all sons of god. None of this proves that ALL sons of David - in the kingly line are called sons of God. It generally refers to all Israel. It specifically refers to David and to Solomon. One who is biologically the son of David.  None of it goes towards suggesting that every son of David - or king is called the son of God. 



Professor, Claremont School of Theology

"Biblical authors claim that the kings of Israel and Judah were divinely chosen and that they were expected to abide by the covenant (see, for example, Deut 17:14-17, 1Sam 8-12, 1Kgs 2:3-4). Ps 2 calls the Davidic king a “son” of Yhwh. In a similar way, powerful kings in ancient treaties called their lesser allies “sons.” Thus, Israelites saw their king as a lesser agent of their god, ruling on his behalf (see Hag 2:20-23). Since Yhwh was in charge, he was responsible for protecting the king of Israel from threats by enemies (2Sam 7, Ps 2) and for punishing him and even removing him if he did not fulfill divine expectations (1Sam 13-14, 2Sam 7, 1Kgs 11:29-39). Ps 72 calls upon G-d to grant the king divine justice and righteousness so that he might rule the people properly, and Isa 32:1-2 calls upon the king to rule in righteousness so that his officers will govern with justice (see Isa 9:5-9, Isa 11:1-9).................."


Sweeney is an excellent scholar. I like him. I have even enjoyed having a coffee with him.  But this article does not prove that every kingly son of David was also called a son of God which is what your contention was.  David specifically was called in Psalm 2 - a son. But it does not go further than that. Kings of Israel were meant to protect their people and to act in righteousness. This does not equate to calling every kingly son of David down to Jesus - the son of God. 






The Jewish King as God. The Bart Ehrman Blog: The History & Literature of Early Christianity . 

"The son of a human is human, just as the son of a dog is a dog and the son of a cat is a cat.  And so what is the son of God?   As it turns out, to the surprise of many casual readers of the Bible, there are passages where the king of Israel, widely called the son of God (e.g. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7), is actually referred to as divine, as god.
The Yale Hebrew Bible scholar John Collins points out that this notion ultimately appears to derive from Egyptian ways of thinking about their king, the Pharaoh, as a divine being.   Even in Egypt, where the king was God, it did not mean that the king was on a par with the great gods, any more than the Roman emperor was thought to be on a par with Jupiter or Mars.  But he was a god.   In Egyptian and Roman circles, there were levels of divinity.  And so too, as we have seen, in Jewish circles.  And so it is that we find highly exalted terms used of the king of Israel, terms that may surprise readers who – based on the kind of thinking that developed in the fourth Christian century — think that there is an unbridgeable chasm between God and humans.  Nonetheless, here it is, in the Bible itself, the king is called both Lord and God" .

Again Bart is an excellent scholar - although I have not met him. I have several of his books.  His argument although intriguing is not established by his prooftexts - but by his references to scholars - such as John Collins.  In other words it is not a biblical argument - it is derived in part from what other cultures did in that time and then extrapolating it back to Israel.  His 2 Samuel reference and Psalm 2 both specifically refer to David not to his lineage. Nor to the assertion you make which is that all kingly sons of David are called sons of God.  It simply is not true to say that all of Kings of Israel - or even the kingly sons of David are all called sons of God. 

I have never denied that God called his people his children or even his sons. I have never denied that David was called God's son. Gee, even in Christian circles we talk about being the children of God - his sons and daughters - referring not a biological sense but similarly like the Rabbi does above you quote. 

But what you asserted was that when the Gospels call Jesus the Son of God they were simply referring to him being the Son of David because all kingly sons of David were called the Son of God.  This is what you asserted and what I have asked you to prove. You have not done so. Yes, you did provide some sources - thank you - but not the biblical references which you indicated would prove it. 

I could I suppose mount an argument along the author's line above - that kings in general were considered gods of sons of god - not in a divine sense but as the representative of God.  But it is entirely another thing to take that argument and extrapolate it to Jesus - where in at least one Gospel - we are told his father was the Holy Spirit.  And that his relationship to David is covenantal through Joseph. And while I tend to agree that Jesus is related to David through Mary,  it would also appear that her line was biological not the royal line. 

So not only have not you demonstrated your assertion from the bible - you have not been able to extend it to Jesus based on the NT. 
Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 I have never denied that David was called God's son.

 
I and others here have shown that GOD called Kings his son besides Jesus. 


But what you asserted was that when the Gospels call Jesus the Son of God they were simply referring to him being the Son of David because all kingly sons of David were called the Son of God. 

Exactly/ so what the FK are you arguing about? I have shown you the evidence you asked for. Others have shown you evidence that supports what I claimed. 

 And now YOU have done exactly the same. WTF's the matter with you!?  God called others his sons, especially KINGS. That is all I have claimed. And you called me a liar and asked for evidence :  

"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21  Tradesecret

God said of Jesus: This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17

God said of Solomon :  King Solomon:  He shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him. I Chronicles 22:9-10

God said of David:  You are My son; today I have begotten you."Psalms 2:7

And you have the brass balls to call me biblically ignorant!!!!!! Stop trying to wriggle from the biblical FACTS!!!!!! you coward!!!!!!

 The truth is that  YOU  didn't know and  this is  the true fact that you are trying to escape from.  How embarrassing for you.

Now you can go back to your flock and tell them about all the other very much human kings that god also called his son besides Jesus. I should mention it to your elders too.


#12
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I have never denied that David was called God's son.

 
I and others here have shown that GOD called Kings his son besides Jesus. 


But what you asserted was that when the Gospels call Jesus the Son of God they were simply referring to him being the Son of David because all kingly sons of David were called the Son of God. 

Exactly/ so what the FK are you arguing about? I have shown you the evidence you asked for. Others have shown you evidence that supports what I claimed. 

 And now YOU have done exactly the same. WTF's the matter with you!?  God called others his sons, especially KINGS. That is all I have claimed. And you called me a liar and asked for evidence :  

"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21  Tradesecret

God said of Jesus: This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17

God said of Solomon :  King Solomon:  He shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him. I Chronicles 22:9-10

God said of David:  You are My son; today I have begotten you."Psalms 2:7

And you have the brass balls to call me biblically ignorant!!!!!! Stop trying to wriggle from the biblical FACTS!!!!!! you coward!!!!!!

 The truth is that  YOU  didn't know and  this is  the true fact that you are trying to escape from.  How embarrassing for you.

Now you can go back to your flock and tell them about all the other very much human kings that god also called his son besides Jesus. I should mention it to your elders too.

Stevie, you have not proved the point. You could not prove from the bible that Jesus is called the Son of God because he was from the kingly line of David.  As I said - God calling David a son does not prove that all of the David's sons are sons of God. You just make it up.  Still true to form. There is nowhere in the Bible that says all kings in the line of David are called sons of God. NONE! and you can't produce what is not there. 

You are biblically ignorant - although I have never said that before. But it is true. David is a son. Agreed. Solomon is David's son. Agreed.  But now find any other king in the line of Israel called a son - of God. And you won't find one. Why  not?  because that is not what the OT says.  

You have NOT SHOWN that the BIBLE calls ALL the line of David sons of God.  LOL! This is why you are the laughing stock. You are the joke.   

Matthew actually quotes from Genesis. But don't get that in the way from your story.  LOL! 

Calling DAvid a son is not suggesting that all his sons are the Sons of God. That is a shoehorn old man.  And it is extrapolation.  No wonder you took such a long time to respond to my requests - you had nothing.  And I guess that you were hoping that if you start of with such nonsense as you did that I would simply go "oh Stephen you magnficant person." 

And don't go changing the goal posts now. I claimed Jesus was called the Son of Man and the Son of God. From both divinity and from humanity. You mocked this - saying Jesus as the son of David - indeed as all kings of Israel from David's line were called sons of God.  And I at the time, said I had never heard that. I never said I did not know David was called a son. I never said that Solomon's son was not either. I never said anything along those lines.  But you mocked me anyway. You snooty nosed ignoramus. LLOL! @ the lack of biblical evidence to support your lies. 

Whatever kings wants to call themselves is a matter for them. The Egyptians and the Romans and the Babylonians - and the greeks all thought that they were gods. and sons of Gods.  Biblical and Hebrew thought was not the same.  The other cultures claimed they were in fact born of the gods. And made their subjects believe it.  The Hebrews - and David never claimed such a right. I am not convinced they believed in the divine right of kings either.  David certainly never just took his title - he waited.  And he generally never lorded it over his people - yes there were occasions when he did - his adultery and murder comes to mind quite quickly.  The Hebrews understood that there relationship with God was not biological but covenantal. 

Jesus however was different.  And this is where I started my comments initially. It is Jesus we were talking about when you threw out your misinformation about the kings of Israel.  You were wrong then and now it seems you are wrong here. Was Saul called a son of God? Which of the other kings of Israel or Judah were ever called a son of God? None - because God intentionally and specifically used David as a type of messiah foreshadowing the true Messiah.  Hence - your own sources saying - it was David but most likely referring to the future messiah.  

LOL @ you. Thanks for the laugh. 
Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Stevie, you have not proved the point.

 The evidence is all clear above and repeated below.  You cannot handle the stone cold fact that once again you have been show to be as bible ignorant as the Brother so rightly and often accuses you to be.

And it is Stephen, you childish little prig.



God said of Jesus: This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17

God said of Solomon :  King Solomon:  He shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him. I Chronicles 22:9-10

God said of David:  You are My son; today I have begotten you."Psalms 2:7

And you have the brass balls to call me biblically ignorant!!!!!! Stop trying to wriggle from the biblical FACTS!!!!!! you coward!!!!!!

 The truth is that  YOU  didn't know and  this is  the true fact that you are trying to escape from.  How embarrassing for you.

#14
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
It seems to me that the argument would be

1. All members of the nation of the children of Israel are called sons of God
2. Kings of Israel were members of the nation of the children of Israel
3. therefore, all kings are called sons of God, even if the text does not identify each one explicitly as such
Topic's author
#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
It seems to me that the argument would be

1. All members of the nation of the children of Israel are called sons of God
2. Kings of Israel were members of the nation of the children of Israel
3. therefore, all kings are called sons of God, even if the text does not identify each one explicitly as such

 Of course that  would be/is  correct . And the scriptures make it perfectly clear that Israelite kings were specifically singled out to be Sons of God and God their father.

 But our resident biblical and allegedly "qualified" Pastor , Chaplin and criminal Lawyer, the Reverend Tradesecrete, simply refuses to accept what the scriptures themselves have to say on the matter.#20

  She didn't even know how a Pastor should be addressed and she claims to be one !!!!!  " And I am not a reverend" . #29   She doesn't know her arse from her elbow.  


 Just look at all of her fake laughs above. This is how those caught cold attempt to wave away their embarrassment. It is as if they believe that simply writing "LOL " lots of times will somehow relive them of their torturous   repeated failings and their embarrassment will some how dissipate into the ether. 


They do this all of the time. They hate being caught cold and shown to be the fake bible ignorant fools that they are . She didn't even know that this was even mentioned in the bible.  She simply wanted me to lead her to the verses because she didn't even know they was there, in her own scriptures that she claims to have "qualification " in reading , "scrutinizing" and preaching about to her "students".   

 The Brother will be pleased on his return to find out his Nemesis and sparing partner has all those "qualifications" in all matters religious and biblical not to mention legal.

 

#16
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I would take care with the following statement:

"And the scriptures make it perfectly clear that Israelite kings were specifically singled out to be Sons of God and God their father."

There are 2 possible ways that you mean this and both would need an explicit verse to support it -- the first is that by virtue of being kings, anyone who held that role was included in a larger statement about kings as sons, the second is that kings, individually, were each called a son of God.

I would prefer to stick with the larger "Israelites were called sons, kings were Israelites, therefore kings were called sons of Gods."

Other than the specifically named kings (such as David and Solomon) I don't know of a verse that itemizes other kings (either as a collective and unique group, or individually) as sons of God.
#17
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret



Stephen,

It is quite obvious that Tradesecret is not yet comfortable with their gender change, and therefore continues to spew forth continued Bible ignorance.  

In prayer with Jesus last night, He told me that He is getting truly tired of the pseudo-christian Tradesecret, and therefore wants me to point out yet another infraction that he has committed against the faith of Christianity that is shown below.


Tradesecret's Biography where the Gender is MALE 

Tradesecret's Biography where the Gender is now FEMALE

Taking Tradesecrets position in deducing it to its irreducible primary, is the simple FACT that Tradesecret had a “Gender Reassignment Surgery" from a man to a Bible 2nd class woman.  As you remember, if Tradesecrets utterly disgusting and admitted ungodly sexual deviancy in the past wasn’t enough to turn your stomach, then Tradesecet has slapped Jesus in the face once again by obviously changing his sex that Yahweh/Jesus gave him in the first place at birth, from male to female as explicitly shown in the aforementioned links within their contradicting biographies!


“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

How can Tradesecret honor Jesus with his body by changing sexual genders?  Jesus obviously wanted Tradesecret to be a MAN at birth (Proverbs 16:33), and then Tradesecret obviously said to Jesus “F*#K OFF because I am changing my sexual gender from a man to a Bible 2nd class woman.  BLASPHEME!


Listen, we’ve all seen Tradesecrets total Bible ignorance many times before, where the both of us had to Bible Slap Him Silly®️, but with Tradesecret changing his/her gender, which is the ONLY viable conclusion to the facts herein, makes Tradesecret one of the most hypocritical to Jesus' words, and disgusting pseudo-christians DEBATEART has ever seen, bar none!  

Satan is smiling in Tradesecrets behalf.



.



Topic's author
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

How can Tradesecret honor Jesus with his body by changing sexual genders?  Jesus obviously wanted Tradesecret to be a MAN at birth (Proverbs 16:33), and then Tradesecret obviously said to Jesus “F*#K OFF because I am changing my sexual gender from a man to a Bible 2nd class woman.  BLASPHEME!


 I have only just mentioned you above, Brother. #15

It is nice  to see you back.



And she claims to have "qualifications"  too in all things religious and biblical not to mention in things legal. 
 How revered she must feel being a   Pastor  a  Chaplin and criminal Lawyer #20











#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stevie, you have not proved the point.

 The evidence is all clear above and repeated below.  You cannot handle the stone cold fact that once again you have been show to be as bible ignorant as the Brother so rightly and often accuses you to be.

And it is Stephen, you childish little prig.



God said of Jesus: This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17

God said of Solomon :  King Solomon:  He shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him. I Chronicles 22:9-10

God said of David:  You are My son; today I have begotten you."Psalms 2:7

And you have the brass balls to call me biblically ignorant!!!!!! Stop trying to wriggle from the biblical FACTS!!!!!! you coward!!!!!!

 The truth is that  YOU  didn't know and  this is  the true fact that you are trying to escape from.  How embarrassing for you.

I will repeat it since you are cannot see the trees for the wood, Stevie.  I figure you call me names, like Dear, that you are ok with me calling you such terms of endearment. 

Rosend clarified what you said - but she also clearly has not taken it to the same end as you. In fact quite correctly she identified the same issues I did.  

So let me make it clear for you again.  Not every king of Israel from David is a Son of God, not in any sense more than any person or subject of the nation of Israel is a son of god.   We have one, perhaps two kings of Israel who were called Sons of God. But no more - until Jesus.  You have extrapolated, speculated,  but not proved from the bible. You are the one who is trying to wriggle out of this one. Not me.  As I said above, prove me wrong, show me one other king from Israel who is named or called a son of God.  You can't. There is no biblical evidence for it. 

And just to make sure you understand the error you are making. Is there any specific reason why only David and Solomon get a mention or are called this name? Any reason that none of the other kings had a right too - until Jesus came along? And the answer is yes.  God made a covenant with David. He did not make a covenant with any other king of Israel.  And Solomon is the original kingly Son of David. Solomon who was the OT  paradigm of foreshadowing the real messiah.   There is every reason to understand why these two men ALONE in the OT kings of Israel were called the Son of God. And yet no other king was called the son of God for good reason, save and except perhaps through the very generalisation that the children of Israel were all sons of God.  Jesus of course was the next and only one thereafter called the son of God - because he was the true messiah - the one who would die on the cross for the sins of the world.  

If you consider what you have written to be biblical proof then ergo it explains your ignorance of biblical understanding. 
#20
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
You say that not every king is called a son of God "in any sense more than any person or subject of the nation of Israel is a son of god" but why isn't that enough of a sense? If the claim is that every king is a son of God, then as all children of Israel are sons of God, all kings who are of the nation are. As to why David and Solomon are specified to a level beyond that of everyone else, I would suggest that there are two elements here: the first is that these two, as the only 2 over a unified nation for the whole of their reigns, achieve a kingly status heading up a dynasty that will return in the messianic era, and also that these two are considered to be prophets whereas other kings were not and so God makes special note of this in his communicating with them. This does not lower the other kings (in that they were of the nation) or Moses, or any other prophet not called a "son of God" explicitly, or remove the title "sons of Gods" from any other member of the nation.
#21
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret



.
Stephen,

Yes, Jesus is elated that I am back at DEBATEART to go after the lost Bible inept pseudo-christians like Tradesecret, Roderick Spode, PGA2.0. et al.  

You may want to address Tradesecret as a "he/she" because of my revealing and factual post #17 within your thread above, where Tradesecret started out as a man, and obviously had a Gender Reassignment Surgery operation to now become a Hell bound woman because of their gender different biographies.  

The "he/she" Tradesecret is no more a Reverend, Pastor, Chaplin and criminal Lawyer, than he/she is knowledgable relative to Jesus' JUDEO-Christian Bible, which has been shown ad infinitum with our continued Bible Slapping Silly®️this biblical fool.

We must ask Tradesecret in how long their Gender Reassignment surgery was, and if there were any complications along the way, whereas removing at the time Tradesecrets male anatomy, probably took the Hubble Space Craft telescope to find said male anatomy in the first place!  Furthermore, we must ask Tradescret how long it took for her to reorganize themselves in now going into the "woman's bathroom" instead of the superior man's bathroom like they did before.   

I can fully see that Tradesecret didn't get any smarter regarding the scriptures since my departure and return, which not only continues to embarrass them, but also to embarrass Jesus as well, as if Tradesecrets  sex change wasn't enough to disturb Jesus!    "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." (Romans 12:1)  Can you see Jesus accepting Tradesecrets Gender Reassignment body being acceptable to Him in this particular gender situation?  NOT! LOL



.


#22
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
You say that not every king is called a son of God "in any sense more than any person or subject of the nation of Israel is a son of god" but why isn't that enough of a sense? If the claim is that every king is a son of God, then as all children of Israel are sons of God, all kings who are of the nation are. As to why David and Solomon are specified to a level beyond that of everyone else, I would suggest that there are two elements here: the first is that these two, as the only 2 over a unified nation for the whole of their reigns, achieve a kingly status heading up a dynasty that will return in the messianic era, and also that these two are considered to be prophets whereas other kings were not and so God makes special note of this in his communicating with them. This does not lower the other kings (in that they were of the nation) or Moses, or any other prophet not called a "son of God" explicitly, or remove the title "sons of Gods" from any other member of the nation.
That is a good question.  

But you see this topic of Stevie Wonder arose because I said that the NT position for Jesus was that he was son of Man and Son of God.  If Jesus is simply saying he was a child of Israel then it would add nothing to his words and would  not have brought the ire of the pharisees on his neck, where they accused him of blasphemy.  If he was merely calling himself a son of David, which is also what Stevie is suggesting then - the Pharisees would have understood it as such and addressed such  - rather there is no evidence from the NT that the pharisees ever considered Jesus anything more than a person from Nazareth. 

I don't have an issue with all Israelites being called children of God, generally.  But when Jesus was speaking about himself or when the authors were referring to him, they were using it in the specific sense such as Psalm 2 - not in the general sense.  

Stephen wants us to think that when Jesus used that term or when the authors used that term they were using it in the general sense.  Clearly that is a misreading of the texts. There is no evidence to support it. I indicated that I had never heard a biblical argument that all kings of Israel were specifically called the sons of God.  I still have not seen it biblically proved. While I am happy to concede that all Israelites were called children or sons of God in a general sense, and that this included all the kings, and also David, Solomon and Jesus, this is not the same as saying that ALL kings of David's line were called specifically the Sons of God. Not in the Bible at least. And all I have asked is for Stephen to produce the evidence of any of the other kings, and I would be happy to consider there is more to it. Yet, while the evidence is lacking for this specificity within the text - then it is not proved.  
#23
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Fair points. I think the non-theological reading of the literal gospel text could be as innocuous as you say -- Jesus made a claim that placed him among the entirety of the people (sons of God) and nothing more than that. As to why the Pharisees reacted, one might then question the veracity (or exhaustiveness) of the text in recording this exchange. This, though, moves to a question of interpretation and authority. I was just commenting on the decision in the text to use an explicit label for people who are already implicitly labeled.
#24
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery,

I am asking you for myself and the many members of this forum, in was there any complications in your Gender Reassignment Surgery as specifically shown as FACT in my post #17 within this thread?  Yes, the long time membership remembers your sickening and ungodly sexual deviant post as an alleged "Indian," but letting that be on the wayside for now, can you tell us why you slapped Jesus in the face once again by having this Satanic gender reassignment from man to woman? 

“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

How can YOU  honor Jesus with your  body by changing sexual genders?  Jesus obviously wanted you to be a MAN at birth (Proverbs 16:33), and then you obviously told Jesus “F*#K OFF because you changed your  sexual gender from a man to a Bible 2nd class woman.  Huh?

I am giving you a small chance to explain yourself in this ungodly action of yours, okay?  Remember, Jesus is watching you!  (Hebrews 4:13).


YOU MAY BEGIN, THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE TO SAVE YOURSELF FROM FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT:



.
#25
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I am asking you for myself and the many members of this forum, in was there any complications in your Gender Reassignment Surgery as specifically shown as FACT in my post #17 within this thread?  Yes, the long time membership remembers your sickening and ungodly sexual deviant post as an alleged "Indian," but letting that be on the wayside for now, can you tell us why you slapped Jesus in the face once again by having this Satanic gender reassignment from man to woman? 

“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

How can YOU  honor Jesus with your  body by changing sexual genders?  Jesus obviously wanted you to be a MAN at birth (Proverbs 16:33), and then you obviously told Jesus “F*#K OFF because you changed your  sexual gender from a man to a Bible 2nd class woman.  Huh?

I am giving you a small chance to explain yourself in this ungodly action of yours, okay?  Remember, Jesus is watching you!  (Hebrews 4:13).


YOU MAY BEGIN, THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE TO SAVE YOURSELF FROM FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT:
Hello Brother, glad to see you back again. Certainly have missed the color around here without you.  You always bring a better part of humanity with you. 

In regards to your very personal and somewhat non-politically correct invasive and insulting attack on me, I refer to my previous response to this.  

If you recall, which I have no doubt you do, that I said my profile was as accurate as yours and ought to be considered as such.  

#26
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
Hi rosend, thanks again for your thoughts.

As I indicated above - I am not trying to diminish any of the other kings.  But given that Jesus was a specific figure with a specific title - I think that he like the two identified by yourself are unique and as such are distinguished not jut by biblical reference but by title.  

The other kings, may or may not have been known as sons of God. I really don't know. and perhaps in non-canonical literature this might be revealed - but in the biblical literature - it clearly is not seen there.  

Stephen wanted to make a point. I have only asked him to prove it from the bible. He has been unable to do so.   
#27
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Understood, but isn't inclusion by implication a fine biblical proof? I understand that it might not carry the cachet of an explicit verse, but its truth value should be no less (IMHO). The uniqueness of David and Solomon is shown by the rest of the narrative regarding their lives and reigns. David and Solomon had another special position in terms of the building of the temple in Jerusalem and, as said, they were the lone prophets among kings, I believe.

Interestingly, Jer 31 says that all Israel is God's child, and Ephraim is the firstborn whereas Ex 4 says that Israel as a whole is God's firstborn. I'm not going to focus on the apparent contradiction (which isn't really a contradiction) but in the idea that God says that Israel is his firstborn which could, by implication, allow other peoples to be later-born (otherwise the position of "first" is meaningless). This might mean that all people are god's children.


#28
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE #302929438583 FROM HARD FACTS:  "If you recall, which I have no doubt you do, that I said my profile was as accurate as yours and ought to be considered as such."  

Obviously you didn't understand my previous fact that you as a mere pseudo-christian woman now, whereas you were a superior man before, can't accept the presence of a TRUE Christian like myself, whereas I follow ALL of the Bible, and not RUNAWAY from it as you Satanically do ad infinitum, understood?  Therefore, you have to come up with yet another lame "girly" excuse like you did in your insipid quote above to blatantly hide your GENDER REASSIGNMENT SURGERY AND OUTCOME OF SAME!  

With me alone in easily raking you through the fire in showing you not to be anywhere close to being a Christian, and now showing the membership that you had a gender sex change, put the last candle upon the proverbial cake.  Jesus wanted you to be a male at the onset of your birth, and whereas you slapped Him in the face AGAIN by turning yourself into a 2nd class woman that will NOT be going to heaven!

I will continue to bring your gender change to the forefront, therefore, you might as well address it sooner than later because my posts will once again show you to be one of the most Bible ignorant pseudo-christians upon this prestigious forum, get it? Yeah, you do.


IS THERE A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS NOT A RUNAWAY LIKE TRADESECRET?


.



.




#29
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
.
TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE #302929438583 FROM HARD FACTS:  "If you recall, which I have no doubt you do, that I said my profile was as accurate as yours and ought to be considered as such."  

Obviously you didn't understand my previous fact that you as a mere pseudo-christian woman now, whereas you were a superior man before, can't accept the presence of a TRUE Christian like myself, whereas I follow ALL of the Bible, and not RUNAWAY from it as you Satanically do ad infinitum, understood?  Therefore, you have to come up with yet another lame "girly" excuse like you did in your insipid quote above to blatantly hide your GENDER REASSIGNMENT SURGERY AND OUTCOME OF SAME!  

With me alone in easily raking you through the fire in showing you not to be anywhere close to being a Christian, and now showing the membership that you had a gender sex change, put the last candle upon the proverbial cake.  Jesus wanted you to be a male at the onset of your birth, and whereas you slapped Him in the face AGAIN by turning yourself into a 2nd class woman that will NOT be going to heaven!

I will continue to bring your gender change to the forefront, therefore, you might as well address it sooner than later because my posts will once again show you to be one of the most Bible ignorant pseudo-christians upon this prestigious forum, get it? Yeah, you do.


IS THERE A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS NOT A RUNAWAY LIKE TRADESECRET?


Oh Hello again Brother - thanks again for your delightful reply.  Did I misunderstand? Sorry.  I thought you were asking me how I came across as a male before - when I was unaware I had described myself that way - and in fact had not put anything into my profile and now after I put my profile up I identify as a female? Is that not what you asked me? 

In any event - I refer to my previous post.  Where I said that my profile is as accurate as yours.  Thanks Brother.  Hope that answers your question. 
#30
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
The more I think about it, the more I think you ask a really good underlying question: if all are named "sons" why name David and Solomon as sons again?

I posted the question on a website and I will see if I can get any good responses there. If you want to see the conversation (assuming one develops) check here.