katzpur;
I also, have considered what it means that Jesus was THE son of God given the context that all may be or become "sons of God" (I assume "daughters of God" is to be understood as well...). The concept of what it is to be a "father" or a "son" seems to be tied up in symbolism that is deeper than we normally "delve into".
We americans say for example, that George Washington is "The Father of our country", or that Alexander Graham Bell is "The Father of the telephone". I think such descriptions attempt to describe the relationship one has in organizing or bringing into existence a completed "thing" such as a country or a telephone. I think to apply this same logic and usage of the term "father" to God the Father's relationship to the Son is only partly adequate.
It may be correct to speculate that God the Father is the Father of the son in that he organizes the native intelligence, character, and personality of his "son" into being and thus is his "father" in this way. It may be also that the intelligence and personality of the individual known as the "son of God" chose to follow the character of the Lord God and thus we can describe the Lord God as his Father (in a similar fashion that those who choose evil are described as having Satan as "their father").
I think one could speculate that the individual intelligence, character and personality of the son was (in eons past), so remarkably wonderful in all it's moral and intelligent aspects that the Lord God "chose" him as his "son" in a type of "adoption" as "the" son (which may simply be the best way to describe their relationship.. I don't know).
Such speculations become more interesting (though perhaps not more clear) when considering what these questions might have meant in the earliest christianities. For example, In John 1:18, what did it mean when, after saying that "no man has ever seen God" the greek text then reads "the only begotten God ("μονογενησ θεοσ") who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known"
This text is obviously in reference to the Son of God (Jesus) as "the only begotten God". What did this description of an "only begotten God" mean to these earliest christians who wrote the texts? (modern christians are not used to a concept of a God being "begotten")
Was the son somehow a God who became a "son", or was he a "son" who was "begotten" or adopted and became a "god"?
Did both things happen at once?
Such specific speculations seem very difficult to answer perhaps because the earliest christians also did not know; or, if they knew, they did not describe in detail the earliest christian beliefs on this question.
I do think it is an interesting question to which we lack sufficient specific detailed data. (or at least I lack the data to answer it).
See you Katzpur
Clear
eifudrvi
I also, have considered what it means that Jesus was THE son of God given the context that all may be or become "sons of God" (I assume "daughters of God" is to be understood as well...). The concept of what it is to be a "father" or a "son" seems to be tied up in symbolism that is deeper than we normally "delve into".
We americans say for example, that George Washington is "The Father of our country", or that Alexander Graham Bell is "The Father of the telephone". I think such descriptions attempt to describe the relationship one has in organizing or bringing into existence a completed "thing" such as a country or a telephone. I think to apply this same logic and usage of the term "father" to God the Father's relationship to the Son is only partly adequate.
It may be correct to speculate that God the Father is the Father of the son in that he organizes the native intelligence, character, and personality of his "son" into being and thus is his "father" in this way. It may be also that the intelligence and personality of the individual known as the "son of God" chose to follow the character of the Lord God and thus we can describe the Lord God as his Father (in a similar fashion that those who choose evil are described as having Satan as "their father").
I think one could speculate that the individual intelligence, character and personality of the son was (in eons past), so remarkably wonderful in all it's moral and intelligent aspects that the Lord God "chose" him as his "son" in a type of "adoption" as "the" son (which may simply be the best way to describe their relationship.. I don't know).
Such speculations become more interesting (though perhaps not more clear) when considering what these questions might have meant in the earliest christianities. For example, In John 1:18, what did it mean when, after saying that "no man has ever seen God" the greek text then reads "the only begotten God ("μονογενησ θεοσ") who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known"
This text is obviously in reference to the Son of God (Jesus) as "the only begotten God". What did this description of an "only begotten God" mean to these earliest christians who wrote the texts? (modern christians are not used to a concept of a God being "begotten")
Was the son somehow a God who became a "son", or was he a "son" who was "begotten" or adopted and became a "god"?
Did both things happen at once?
Such specific speculations seem very difficult to answer perhaps because the earliest christians also did not know; or, if they knew, they did not describe in detail the earliest christian beliefs on this question.
I do think it is an interesting question to which we lack sufficient specific detailed data. (or at least I lack the data to answer it).
See you Katzpur
Clear
eifudrvi
Last edited: