What does "Son of God" mean?

[Breathe]

What do you take Jesus meaning 'Son of God' to mean?
Why?

Personally, I believe 'son of God' means 'prophet', because I believe 'son' is used in a metaphorical sense, as though 'sons of the household' means servants of the house, so why not servant of God to mean prophet (or holy man, religious man, etc)?

Anyway, that's enough about what I think on the matter. Can you explain how you believe Jesus was the 'Son' of God? Literally, metaphorically? How?


Thanks all!
Odion

 

[Lucian]

I believe Son of God can mean many things. It doesn't necessarily indicate divinity as some may think (this comes from one who does believe in the divinity of Christ). Sometimes it refers to angels, sometimes to kings, or, as you said, holy men. Biblically, we as followers of the Most High through his Christ are also Sons of God. If one is a Son of God then they are by necessity a servant of the Most High.

 

[Dunemeister]

Son of God DOES NOT imply or presuppose divinity.

 

[Breathe]

Son of God DOES NOT imply or presuppose divinity.

Care to explain what you believe it to mean? I'm interested in other people's perceptions as to it.

 

[Dunemeister]

Care to explain what you believe it to mean? I'm interested in other people's perceptions as to it.

This isn't about perspective or perception. It's entirely about the way the phrase is used. In Jewish history, the title "Son of God" had been used of King David, high officials and judges, the people of Israel considered as a whole, and of Messianic figures, both historical and potential. It therefore had multiple meanings, depending on context.

In Jewish speculation, the term was frequently applied to the Messiah. In Greek-speaking areas, the definite article "ho" was used in conjunction with "Christos" to denote the Messiah, whether promised in scripture or actualized in whatever historical Messianic leader who was around. It was in that sense that the early Christians insisted that Jesus was (is) the son of God as opposed to a son of God.

 

[Breathe]

This isn't about perspective or perception.

It is when you have a broad range of views on here: LDS, Trinitarian, non-Trin, people who hold Jesus to be divine, people who don't... a Trinitarian may believe that "son of God" in reference to Jesus means something else to what you believe it to be, so it's pretty bold a claim to say "it's not that, but it's this!", which is why I've asked what you believe it to be.

In Jewish speculation, the term was frequently applied to the Messiah. In Greek-speaking areas, the definite article "ho" was used in conjunction with "Christos" to denote the Messiah, whether promised in scripture or actualized in whatever historical Messianic leader who was around. It was in that sense that the early Christians insisted that Jesus was (is) the son of God as opposed to a son of God.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Dunemeister]

It is when you have a broad range of views on here: LDS, Trinitarian, non-Trin, people who hold Jesus to be divine, people who don't... a Trinitarian may believe that "son of God" in reference to Jesus means something else to what you believe it to be, so it's pretty bold a claim to say "it's not that, but it's this!", which is why I've asked what you believe it to be.

My point in saying that it's not about "perspective" or "perception" is that our opinions don't determine what the words mean. It means what it means based on how it's used in the relevant literature. So people (including me) might have wrong beliefs about the phrase, but if there are varying beliefs, it's because of a lack of experience with the relevant materials. The problem is when people start putting idiosyncratic spins on a word.

So I suppose my cautionary statement is a warning about simply taking a poll about what everyone believes about the phrase and then simply assuming that all views are equally valid. They're not. They need to be tested against what the source material says. And I suppose it's also a caution against assuming we can survey the available opinions and then choose the one that "sits best" with us.

Now of course, you're probably not doing either of these things, but it happens so often that I guess I automatically react this way when there's the appearance of it going on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A rather good discussion of the phrase "Son of God" can be found in The Changing Faces of Jesus by Geza Vermes.

 

[Breathe]

@Dunemeister
You're right on this. However, I tend to be on the tolerant side and let people, even if I think they may be wrong, have their opinion as well. I don't think all views are equally valid, but I think all views should be equally respected, so I can learn more about the differing views, and why they believe such a thing.

As for myself, your view is also part of mine. Except with my added belief that it also means prophet. I'm not even Christian, but when I was (shortly before I lost my faith), I believed that it came to mean prophet. I dunno how it came to presuppose divinity, though. I personally can't see that from the phrase! If you'd like to start a thread on how that came to happen or something, I'd be interested.


@ Everyone else: Thank you for your comments! It's interesting to read about them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., I tend to be on the tolerant side and let people, even if I think they may be wrong, have their opinion as well. I don't think all views are equally valid, but I think all views should be equally respected, so I can learn more about the differing views, and why they believe such a thing.

In my opinion this would make substantially more sense were you to replace the word "respect" with the word "allow." On the one hand, some beliefs are clearly unworthy of respect and, on the other, there is absolutely nothing (short of laziness) that prevents one from learning more about a belief that one does not respect.

I'm not even Christian, but when I was (shortly before I lost my faith), I believed that it came to mean prophet.

That's fine, Odion, but, as you suggested above, not all beliefs are created equal, and some beliefs simply do not rise to the level of informed opinion.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

The flesh of God.

 

[Kyle Franklin]

What do you take Jesus meaning 'Son of God' to mean?
Why?

Personally, I believe 'son of God' means 'prophet', because I believe 'son' is used in a metaphorical sense, as though 'sons of the household' means servants of the house, so why not servant of God to mean prophet (or holy man, religious man, etc)?

Anyway, that's enough about what I think on the matter. Can you explain how you believe Jesus was the 'Son' of God? Literally, metaphorically? How?


Thanks all!
Odion

The Lord Jesus, God's Son and God's Messiah.

Mark 1:1 (New Century Version)

[1] This is the beginning of the Good News about Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

---

John 1:41 (21st Century King James Version)

[41] He first found his own brother Simon and said unto him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is, being interpreted, "the Christ").

Now, there are misconceptions that the term 'son of God' is equal to 'God the son.' Is this true? No, it's not. Jesus Christ is not God the Son and there's no such thing as God the Son. In the whole Bible, you will never find the term 'God the Son.' If you ever find one in a specific translation of the Bible, then, it's a wrong translation. Just like Acts 20:28 in most translations of the Bible. It's not God who is crucified but Jesus Christ. So, how come it's "Church of God?" The correct term that must be used in Acts 20:28 is "Church of Christ" and not "Church of God" even though the Church of Christ is God's Church/community.

 

[JayJayDee]

What do you take Jesus meaning 'Son of God' to mean?
Why?

Personally, I believe 'son of God' means 'prophet', because I believe 'son' is used in a metaphorical sense, as though 'sons of the household' means servants of the house, so why not servant of God to mean prophet (or holy man, religious man, etc)?

Anyway, that's enough about what I think on the matter. Can you explain how you believe Jesus was the 'Son' of God? Literally, metaphorically? How?


Thanks all!
Odion

To me a son is simply the offspring of a parent. In the case of Jesus, he is the 'offspring' of his Father (in a metaphoric sense,) his life being generated by his Creator.
In time other spirit beings were brought into existence. These too were called "sons of God".

Adam is also called a "son" of God, he too was a direct creation. He was not generated from a woman's pregnancy like all his own sons and daughters were. (Luke 4:38) Eve's body was constructed using Adam's DNA.

The Father is the source of all life. He transmitted life to other beings, through his son, both of spirit and of flesh. (Prov 8:22, 30)

In Jesus' case he was 'generated' in both senses. He has existed as both a spirit being and a human of flesh.

As a spirit being he has the distinction of being called "only begotten". How does he come to have such a unique designation?

He is the first of God's creative ventures. The very first and only being that his Father brought into existence personally. This was before the creation of all else....just Father and son alone in whatever space spirit beings inhabit. For unknown times, this son became the loyal student and only companion of his Father, who was also his God.

At some point God brought all the raw materials of creation into existence and assigned his son to fabricate or fashion these, firstly into a family of spirit sons in the heavenly realm, (each individually created.) These were observers when the material creation was brought into existence. (Col 1:15, 16; Job 38:4-7)

With the creation of the material universe came the famous line in Gen 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness".

The "US" in this sentence was Father and son.
All things were created by the Father through the agency of his 'first-born' son.

So Jesus is the son of God in a very unique way. There is no one like him and never will be.

 

[Shermana]

In Job, the "Sons of God" are usually considered to be "Angels", and this is how the reading likely was meant for Deuteronomy 32:8 at least according to the Septuagint version, (I think the Masoretic is incorrect/edited in this instance).

Combined with the idea that "gods" are also called Angels, and in the Non-Trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is called "a god" in the anarthrous, I think it's fair to conclude that what was meant was that Jesus was the incarnation of an Angel, and perhaps THE angel, articulated, as in the highest of the Angels, coinciding with the idea of being the incarnation of "Wisdom" (Logos) personified, the "Firstborn of Creation", of whom was the Vehicle of which all creation was made THROUGH (not by as in originated but by as in the vessel/means), as the above post says:

All things were created by the Father through the agency of his 'first-born' son.

 

[heksesang]

To me a son is simply the offspring of a parent. In the case of Jesus, he is the 'offspring' of his Father (in a metaphoric sense,) his life being generated by his Creator.
In time other spirit beings were brought into existence. These too were called "sons of God".

Adam is also called a "son" of God, he too was a direct creation. He was not generated from a woman's pregnancy like all his own sons and daughters were. (Luke 4:38) Eve's body was constructed using Adam's DNA.

This requires that humans were created "directly." I have always read the Genesis story as metaphorical story, describing the wider picture in a more individual perspective for easier understanding, and for me it's just as possible that humans were created through evolution. In which case "Adam" wouldn't have been created any more "directly" than any other of us.

And in any case, God called Solomon his son. Solomon certainly had DNA from two human parents.

The way I see it, those who follow and serve God are sons of God. Be it humans, angels or whatever else might exist. However, Jesus called himself "the Son of God" or "the Son of Man." I believe this is because Jesus was truly an image of God - he was a human (i.e. Son of Man) and he was like God in spirit (i.e. Son of God).

 

[chinu]

What do you take Jesus meaning 'Son of God' to mean?
Why?

Personally, I believe 'son of God' means 'prophet', because I believe 'son' is used in a metaphorical sense, as though 'sons of the household' means servants of the house, so why not servant of God to mean prophet (or holy man, religious man, etc)?

Anyway, that's enough about what I think on the matter. Can you explain how you believe Jesus was the 'Son' of God? Literally, metaphorically? How?


Thanks all!
Odion

Who is most loveable among all.

 

[dan b]

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish but inherit everlansting life." Jn. 3;16


Is there anything in this verse that pretains to the discussion of this thread?

 

[Kolibri]

This requires that humans were created "directly." I have always read the Genesis story as metaphorical story, describing the wider picture in a more individual perspective for easier understanding, and for me it's just as possible that humans were created through evolution. In which case "Adam" wouldn't have been created any more "directly" than any other of us.

And in any case, God called Solomon his son. Solomon certainly had DNA from two human parents.

The way I see it, those who follow and serve God are sons of God. Be it humans, angels or whatever else might exist. However, Jesus called himself "the Son of God" or "the Son of Man." I believe this is because Jesus was truly an image of God - he was a human (i.e. Son of Man) and he was like God in spirit (i.e. Son of God).

I was thinking this too about the word "the" in the Greek. Jesus was the principal Son of God, instead of just any son.

However, in the case of the Sons of Adam (De 32:8) we recall that when Adam was condemned to death as a willful sinner and was evicted from the Garden of Eden. He was, in effect, disowned by God and lost his filial relationship with his heavenly Father. (Ge 3:17-24) Since all humans were born of one rejected by God, Adam’s descendants could not claim the relationship of being a son of God simply on the basis of birth. This is demonstrated by the apostle John’s words at John 1:12, 13. He shows that those who received Christ Jesus, exercising faith in his name, were given “authority to become God’s children, . . . [being] born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God.” Sonship in relation to God, therefore, is not viewed as something automatically received by all of Adam’s descendants at birth. We can conclude that since Adam’s fall into sin, it has required some special recognition by God for men to be designated as his “sons.”

As the Israelite nation was in a covenant relationship with Jehovah, they could rightly be called "sons". They had "sonship" status by virtue of being a nation directly created by God and dedicated to him by means of entering into a legal contract with him at Mount Sinai.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Perhaps like my first name it means simply ...
One who has the creator for a Father

 

[Bree]

What do you take Jesus meaning 'Son of God' to mean?
Why?

Personally, I believe 'son of God' means 'prophet', because I believe 'son' is used in a metaphorical sense, as though 'sons of the household' means servants of the house, so why not servant of God to mean prophet (or holy man, religious man, etc)?

Anyway, that's enough about what I think on the matter. Can you explain how you believe Jesus was the 'Son' of God? Literally, metaphorically? How?


Thanks all!
Odion

This must have been a question pondered by the early christians too because it prompted Paul to write the Letter of hebrews where he explains what it means that Jesus is the Son of God.

Hebrews 1:1
Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways.+ 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son,+ whom he appointed heir of all things,+ and through whom he made the systems of things.*+ 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory+ and the exact representation of his very being,+ and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins,+ he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.+ 4 So he has become better than the angels+ to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.+

5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”?+ And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”?+ 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn+ into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”*

7 Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers*+ a flame of fire.”+ 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne+ forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.* 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you+ with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”+ 10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.”+

13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”?+ 14 Are they not all spirits for holy service,*+ sent out to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

So the term 'Son of God' when referring to Jesus is really emphasizing his close bond and special relationship above all others that he has with his Father Jehovah.
He is the 'firstborn' because he was Gods first created being and he is 'the Son of God' because of his superior and special relationship....just as the special relationship a man feels toward his own child as opposed to other children who are not his own.