In what sense is Jesus (as) God's "Son"?

[The Khan]

Futile huh? Why don't you humor me and state your claims and we'll see what is futile.

I'll soon create a thread including a huge compilation of similarities between Christianity and Pagan faiths.

Like I said earlier, Christianity is not influenced by a single Pagan faith. It has been influenced by most pagan faiths practiced in Rome prior to Theodisius's ban on all non-Christian faiths.

 

[barney]

A simili would be Thor and Zeus. Did Thor copy Zeus?
They both lived in clouds and fired rightious smitey thunderbolts. same superpower-same God? Nope.

They were seperated by large tracts of land between worshippers and frankly Lightning, till it was explained was the most obvious manifestation of an angry god until electricity was discovered, and explained. It's natural and normal for the ignorant ancients to apply Zeus to their smoking house, or to Yahweh to Sodom or gommoragh.

With the Jesus myths, it seems clearer cut. Water into wine? Well thats a freaking good trick. Evryone would like to do that, and so some utterly smashed outoftheirface ancient attributed this lovely power to their god, and being a popular miracle it stuck to other gods.
"I worship Dionysus...he's fab. He turns water into wine"
"well mine's better! She is the living embodyment of the hottest chick possible"
"Mine does water into wine....and its the best wine ever tasted"
"Lets fight over it...meet you next week with your army"
"Sorry all booked up next week sacrificing..."

 

[The Khan]

Rofl!!! XD

 

[Keltoi]

A simili would be Thor and Zeus. Did Thor copy Zeus?
They both lived in clouds and fired rightious smitey thunderbolts. same superpower-same God? Nope.

They were seperated by large tracts of land between worshippers and frankly Lightning, till it was explained was the most obvious manifestation of an angry god until electricity was discovered, and explained. It's natural and normal for the ignorant ancients to apply Zeus to their smoking house, or to Yahweh to Sodom or gommoragh.

With the Jesus myths, it seems clearer cut. Water into wine? Well thats a freaking good trick. Evryone would like to do that, and so some utterly smashed outoftheirface ancient attributed this lovely power to their god, and being a popular miracle it stuck to other gods.
"I worship Dionysus...he's fab. He turns water into wine"
"well mine's better! She is the living embodyment of the hottest chick possible"
"Mine does water into wine....and its the best wine ever tasted"
"Lets fight over it...meet you next week with your army"
"Sorry all booked up next week sacrificing..."

In other words, there isn't any concrete example of Christianity "copying" some pagan mythology, so we will just pick and choose solitary examples that seem similar and make a sweeping generalization of cross-religious borrowing? That is basically what you are suggesting. You even contradict your own point when you made the comparison between Zeuss and Thor and then state that "turning water into wine" is a "clear cut" example.

 

[Keltoi]

I'll soon create a thread including a huge compilation of similarities between Christianity and Pagan faiths.

Like I said earlier, Christianity is not influenced by a single Pagan faith. It has been influenced by most pagan faiths practiced in Rome prior to Theodisius's ban on all non-Christian faiths.

Yes, you state that. Let's see what you have to back up that sweeping statement.

 

[Hamayun]

I think it is pretty clear cut. All you have to do is read...

Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. -(ACTS 2:22).

“And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God…-(REVELATION 19:10)

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.-(JOHN 12:49).

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.-(JOHN 5:30-31).

…for my Father is greater than I.-(JOHN 14:28).

And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.-(JOHN 17:3)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his Lord; neither he that is sent greater than He that sent him.-(JOHN 13:16)

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her (Mary Magdalene)… I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.-(JOHN 20:17)

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.-(MARK 13:32)

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God.-(JOHN 8:40).

 

[barney]

In other words, there isn't any concrete example of Christianity "copying" some pagan mythology, so we will just pick and choose solitary examples that seem similar and make a sweeping generalization of cross-religious borrowing? That is basically what you are suggesting. You even contradict your own point when you made the comparison between Zeuss and Thor and then state that "turning water into wine" is a "clear cut" example.

Nope Kelt, there is no radiocarbon dated text that says, "Hey guys, this is all a bit of a laugh, dont take it too seriously or worship it in 3000 years, and for blimmys sake dont kill or hurt each other over it...its all for giggles: Signed J.C of N, son of YW"

That text sadly dosnt exist.

We are simply left with cartload after cartload of "circumstantial" evidence.
The certified icelandic lunatic with the axe laughing over the dead guy whilst covered in DNA screaming "I did it! I hacked him down and I'm happy I did it,and he deserved it!!!!!! " but being let off by the court because perhaps he was chopping trees down in the vicinity and was enthusing about his days work as a lumberjack sideline.
Or the French ambassador who suggested that the fleet of Iraqi trucks assembling in the desert 40 miles in the wilderness exodusing from a known ex chemical weapons factory 2 hours prior to a UNSCOM inspection were "Going on a truckers picnic". (the last anacdote is true)

I admire Sis Skye's signature. For the beleiver: No proof is neccessery.

It is simply a case of how many hoops you have to jump. I often wonder at the leap of faith people make. There are many very intelligent, gentle,doctorate holding christians, who will spring happily over animal sacrifice, infanticide, homophobia and rape sized hoops in order to prove their thousands of years old text divinely connected. Thats the facination for me.

 

[Keltoi]

Nope Kelt, there is no radiocarbon dated text that says, "Hey guys, this is all a bit of a laugh, dont take it too seriously or worship it in 3000 years, and for blimmys sake dont kill or hurt each other over it...its all for giggles: Signed J.C of N, son of YW"

That text sadly dosnt exist.

We are simply left with cartload after cartload of "circumstantial" evidence.
The certified icelandic lunatic with the axe laughing over the dead guy whilst covered in DNA screaming "I did it! I hacked him down and I'm happy I did it,and he deserved it!!!!!! " but being let off by the court because perhaps he was chopping trees down in the vicinity and was enthusing about his days work as a lumberjack sideline.
Or the French ambassador who suggested that the fleet of Iraqi trucks assembling in the desert 40 miles in the wilderness exodusing from a known ex chemical weapons factory 2 hours prior to a UNSCOM inspection were "Going on a truckers picnic". (the last anacdote is true)

I admire Sis Skye's signature. For the beleiver: No proof is neccessery.

It is simply a case of how many hoops you have to jump. I often wonder at the leap of faith people make. There are many very intelligent, gentle,doctorate holding christians, who will spring happily over animal sacrifice, infanticide, homophobia and rape sized hoops in order to prove their thousands of years old text divinely connected. Thats the facination for me.

So it is only Christians you believe have this "fault?"

For Christians, we have plenty of proof that our thousand year old text is divinely connected. The issue with religion is that it is a spiritual pursuit. Not a physical one. The world is the world, and God is God.

The fascination for me is that so many athiests will jump through gigantic hoops of deception in an attempt to convince people that Christianity is false. By athiests I'm not referring to you personally.

 

[The Khan]

For Christians, we have plenty of proof that our thousand year old text is divinely connected. The issue with religion is that it is a spiritual pursuit. Not a physical one. The world is the world, and God is God.
.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Jeremiah 8:8
How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

 

[MustafaMc]

In what way are the last 3 pages of this thread relevant to the topic at hand?

I would really like some to gain some understanding, particularly from our Christian members.

 

[Keltoi]

In what way are the last 3 pages of this thread relevant to the topic at hand?

I would really like some to gain some understanding, particularly from our Christian members.

Well, to return to the topic, I'm not sure I have more to add to what I already posted unless you have a more specific approach to the topic. We have established that the Christian understanding of the word "Son" has no relation to God actually producing an offspring. What is meant by the term "only begotten Son" seems to be the most often asked question in regards to this doctrine. The Greek word in play here means "one of a kind" or "unique".

The reason we have this phrase "only begotten" is because of the bad translation contained in the King James Bible. We know this is a bad translation because the word monogenes is also used in another verse:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only [monogenes] son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
—Hebrews 11:17-19 (NIV)

We all know that Isaac had more than one son, so obviously the word has a different meaning than simply a biological connection.

Knowing this, it hopefully sheds a helpful light on what is meant by the term "begotten". It means unique.

 

[The Khan]

First, when circumstantial evidence is put forth on the similarities between Christianity and Paganism, you say that it's a mere coincidence.

Second, when you say that your text is divinely connected, and I point out that your own text says otherwise, your're silent.

Third, you finally agree with us that Jesus is not divine, not the same substance as God, and that he was a unique prophet.

And...of course, you pointed out the usual translation errors. I can't wait for the dead sea scrolls to digitalised.

Reminds me of this aspie on wrongplanet who claimed that Islam allows mass slaughter, and I proved otherwise and pointed out countless verses in the bible alleging murder, rape (including that of 3 year old girls), sodomy, incest, x-rated pornography, etc, silence is yet again followed.

I see no point in arguing anymore.

 

[Hamayun]

Can a Christian Brother please reply to my above post regarding Jesus being the son of God. The quotes are very significant to this debate.

 

[Keltoi]

First, when circumstantial evidence is put forth on the similarities between Christianity and Paganism, you say that it's a mere coincidence.

Firstly, I haven't seen any theological similarities at all, so I didn't see a coincidence there.

Second, when you say that your text is divinely connected, and I point out that your own text says otherwise, your're silent.

Secondly, I was attempting to respect Mustafa's wishes that the thread return to the topic.

Third, you finally agree with us that Jesus is not divine, not the same substance as God, and that he was a unique prophet.

Thirdly, I don't remember saying that at all.

And...of course, you pointed out the usual translation errors. I can't wait for the dead sea scrolls to digitalised.

Okay

Reminds me of this aspie on wrongplanet who claimed that Islam allows mass slaughter, and I proved otherwise and pointed out countless verses in the bible alleging murder, rape (including that of 3 year old girls), sodomy, incest, x-rated pornography, etc, silence is yet again followed.

Awww....so your agenda sees the light of day.

I see no point in arguing anymore.

After the paragraph above, neither do I.

 

[The Khan]

Ok.

 

[MustafaMc]

Well, to return to the topic, I'm not sure I have more to add to what I already posted unless you have a more specific approach to the topic. We have established that the Christian understanding of the word "Son" has no relation to God actually producing an offspring.

From your earlier post, "Just as the term "son of man" is used to refer to human beings, the term "Son of God" is used to express Christ's divine origin." So I understand that the word "son" is used in the third figurative, not literal sense of the word as in "a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race)". What verses prove the Divine origin of Jesus?

What is meant by the term "only begotten Son" seems to be the most often asked question in regards to this doctrine. The Greek word in play here means "one of a kind" or "unique".

The reason we have this phrase "only begotten" is because of the bad translation contained in the King James Bible. We know this is a bad translation because the word monogenes is also used in another verse:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only [monogenes] son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
—Hebrews 11:17-19 (NIV)

We all know that Isaac had more than one son, so obviously the word has a different meaning than simply a biological connection.

Knowing this, it hopefully sheds a helpful light on what is meant by the term "begotten". It means unique.

Actually, I think you meant Abraham had more than one son, but if you consider the Qur'an as true, then the verse would be correct if one substituted Ishmael for Isaac in the Bible verse. Then one would not have to twist word meanings around.

So are you saying that the phrase "only begotten Son" should better be interpretted "a unique man who was derived from My (God's) Essence"?

 

[Keltoi]

Can a Christian Brother please reply to my above post regarding Jesus being the son of God. The quotes are very significant to this debate.

Well, those verses, like all verses, require context. This issue has been explored many, many times on this forum. Probably most often in the Questions For Christians thread.

However, you are a new member so I'll attempt a coherent explanation.

Christ always made a distinction between the Son and the Father. That is because of Christ's human nature. I can visualize how many non-Christians view the concept of God in the body of Jesus Christ. I'm sure you envision the Almight God trapped in the body of a human being. That isn't how Christians envision it. It is a matter of origin and substance.

As was talked about earlier in this thread, the term "begotten" or monogenes is referring to something that is unique. What was it that made Christ unique? He was born without sin and lived a life free of sin. That was due to His divine nature. His weaknesses, meaning hunger, thirst, pain, fear, etc, were due to his human nature. That human nature meant that Christ needed to pray like the rest of us. He didn't have a cell phone connection to the Father, to use an analogy.

Having established that, what about these verses:

John 1:1-3 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 8:58 - When questioned about how He could be old enough to have seen Abraham, Jesus said, "...before Abraham was, I AM."
John 10:30-"I and the Father are one.”
John 8:18“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am..., you will indeed die in your sins”

So as Christians we see evidence of Christ's duel nature. Both divine and human. That is the context of all verses. The verses you pointed out combined with the ones I pointed out.

 

[The Khan]

Isn't the dual nature concept a Nestorian view which has been deemed heretical by Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most Protestants?

 

[Keltoi]

From your earlier post, "Just as the term "son of man" is used to refer to human beings, the term "Son of God" is used to express Christ's divine origin." So I understand that the word "son" is used in the third figurative, not literal sense of the word as in "a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race)". What verses prove the Divine origin of Jesus?

Yes, it could not be used as the human literal understanding of the word "son". That would be blasphemous to consider. As for verses proving the divine origin of Jesus, I posted a few of them in an earlier post.

Actually, I think you meant Abraham had more than one son, but if you consider the Qur'an as true, then the verse would be correct if one substituted Ishmael for Isaac in the Bible verse. Then one would not have to twist word meanings around.

Sorry, yes I was referring to Abraham. Yes, I suppose you could take that stance with the Qu'ranic understanding, but that isn't the Christian one.

So are you saying that the phrase "only begotten Son" should better be interpretted "a unique man who was derived from My (God's) Essence"?

Hmm...I'm going to say no. The relationship was more than that. We believe Christ to be God incarnate in the flesh. The word "Son" is used to express that special relationship. Which is actually more fitting as long as one understands its usage in the context of the Bible as a whole. Using the word son to mean some biological "father and son" relationship would be incorrect.

It would probably be helpful to consider what Christ's task was while on Earth. A perfect and eternal atonement for sin. That perfection of nature was due to God, the weakness of the flesh was due to humanity. Christ had both. That is the distinction between Father and Son.

 

[Keltoi]

Isn't the dual nature concept a Nestorian view which has been deemed heretical by Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most Protestants?

No, the Nestorian view was that Christ's divinity and humanity were not unified. In other words, he divided Christ into two Persons, divine and human. In his own words, he did not see a communicatio idiomatum , meaning "communication of attributes." In other words, God staring through human eyes. That isn't what traditional Christianity believes. We believe in total unity of Christ's two natures.