jesus as the "SON of god?"

[aadil77]

god doesn't haven no son nor needs one, don't know whats wrong people for belittling god to a human with the need for children

 

[Supreme]

god doesn't haven no son nor needs one, don't know whats wrong people for belittling god to a human with the need for children

God doesn't need creation. He doesn't need humanity. He doesn't need a religion for people to worship Him. He doesn't need non believers. He doesn't need people praying to Him, remembering Him, reading about Him. God doesn't need anything. I don't bother to question what God needs; God clearly does not need anything. Indeed, the very essence of questioning what God needs is foolish and actually a waste of time. What is better is thinking about what God has already established; He doesn't need anything, He doesn't need humanity or books about Him or a Son, but He clearly want these things. (well, in Christianity, anyway.)

 

[marwen]

Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons. How can God simultaneously exist as both singular and plural? It is a logical impossibility if God were restricted to the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time of our physical universe. However, the attributes of God, given by the Bible, provide a reasonable explanation of how this paradox can be resolved.

You mean it's just one God who have three forms (if I can say that) ?

 

[Grace Seeker]

You mean it's just one God who have three forms (if I can say that) ?

Yes and no. Certainly you are correct in saying that it is just one God. The part that has me hedging my answer is because you said "who have three forms". If you mean three different manifestations, then actually no. If you mean who is three different substances, then an even bigger NO! But if you mean who is three different personas (and here I hestitate to use the English term "person" because most English speakers think of that as three different individuals, which we most certainly do not mean), then YES.

 

[aadil77]

God doesn't need creation. He doesn't need humanity. He doesn't need a religion for people to worship Him. He doesn't need non believers. He doesn't need people praying to Him, remembering Him, reading about Him. God doesn't need anything. I don't bother to question what God needs; God clearly does not need anything. Indeed, the very essence of questioning what God needs is foolish and actually a waste of time. What is better is thinking about what God has already established; He doesn't need anything, He doesn't need humanity or books about Him or a Son, but He clearly want these things. (well, in Christianity, anyway.)

True, god is free of needs, but what we need to understand is the qualities of god, Allah, he is one, alone, self sufficient and free of partners, from these qualities you can work out that he would not take up a son as it would be against His Majesticness

 

[Grace Seeker]

True, god is free of needs, but what we need to understand is the qualities of god, Allah, he is one, alone, self sufficient and free of partners...

Surprise, I actually agree with you (or at least as far as I quoted I do). But, to say that Jesus is God the Son is not -- to the Christian way of thinking -- to say that God has partners nor even that God has taken up a Son.

Now, that's the short form, something I'm seldom gifted with. You can only guess if you ask me to expand on what we do mean how many pages it might take to do that.

 

[marwen]

Yes and no. Certainly you are correct in saying that it is just one God. The part that has me hedging my answer is because you said "who have three forms". If you mean three different manifestations, then actually no. If you mean who is three different substances, then an even bigger NO! But if you mean who is three different personas (and here I hestitate to use the English term "person" because most English speakers think of that as three different individuals, which we most certainly do not mean), then YES.

Thanks Grace Seeker for you response. Ok I'm not sure I totally understood that, but I'm certain you know what you're saying, I'm just having difficulties to understand this christian conception of God, which,I think, is for you much easier to aprehend.

let me try to understand the third (the right) explanation you made :

...But if you mean who is three different personas (and here I hestitate to use the English term "person" because most English speakers think of that as three different individuals, which we most certainly do not mean), then YES.

The term personas means : roles if I understood correctly the latin definition. I think it's a term used also in theater to refer the different roles played by one actor. So do you mean the three "forms" (The Father, The Son, The Holy spirit) are three different roles/aspects of one God. Sorry to bother you again. There is some notions that are evidences for christian brothers but not really clear enough for me.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The term personas means : roles if I understood correctly the latin definition. I think it's a term used also in theater to refer the different roles played by one actor. So do you mean the three "forms" (The Father, The Son, The Holy spirit) are three different roles/aspects of one God. Sorry to bother you again. There is some notions that are evidences for christian brothers but not really clear enough for me.

That's pretty close. And in truth, if you are that close, that is closer than 98% of Christian laity would understand (I'm afraid most lay Christians are probably modalistic in their thinking). If you want to get closer, go behind the Latin drama terms to think of Greek plays -- how one actor might present different personas to the audience by simply changing the mask that he held up. He isn't necessarily changing the character he is playing, but the way in which the character interacts with the audience. Since you seem to be a bit of a linguist, you might like to consider that the Greek terms used in the original description of what those who first articulated the concept of "God in three persons" held that the three personas were homoousios -- homo]/i] meaning "same" and ousios meaning "substance" -- so that it was saying that while the personas of Father, Son, and Spirit were distinct from each other, that they were still of just one substance. And I don't mean of similar substance meaning like one another (which would indeed mean three different gods), but of the one same substance (by which they meant to categorically state there really was just one God) even if that was confusing and illogical to human ways of thinking.

The other caution I always like to ask of deeper thinkers who are looking for understanding (as you appear to be) versus those who just like to find ammo for future arguments, is to remember that the discussion of the three-in-one God was not meant to define who or what God is, but to be descriptive of what they already understood to be true with regard to how they saw God manifesting himself in the scriptures.

 

[Ramadhan]

If you want to get closer, go behind the Latin drama terms to think of Greek plays -- how one actor might present different personas to the audience by simply changing the mask that he held up. He isn't necessarily changing the character he is playing, but the way in which the character interacts with the audience. Since you seem to be a bit of a linguist, you might like to consider that the Greek terms used in the original description of what those who first articulated the concept of "God in three persons" held that the three personas were homoousios -- homo]/i] meaning "same" and ousios meaning "substance" -- so that it was saying that while the personas of Father, Son, and Spirit were distinct from each other, that they were still of just one substance. And I don't mean of similar substance meaning like one another (which would indeed mean three different gods), but of the one same substance (by which they meant to categorically state there really was just one God) even if that was confusing and illogical to human ways of thinking.

sounds to me the idea of a 3-in-1 god is taken from Greek mythology/tragedy drama.
Maybe it was indeed created to appeal to the latin masses

 

[Ramadhan]

With the greatest of respect Jesus is indded the only begotton Son of God and not as some belive through a sexual act. God can and does do anything and can do anything, God is awsome and amazing and created all that is in this universe and beyound God is the Supreme supernatural being and therefore capable of anything! In the beginning when man takes the forbidden fruit note how he God says 2 behold he has become like US! Not like ME! What does this imply? Here are further scriptural references that point to a majestic almighty powerful Trinity ( no the third is not the human mary as some think but God's Glorious Holy spirit): Consider these OT and NT SCRIPTURES:


..truncated...

"Son of God" is a figure of speech which have been proven to be the name given to a human being or a spirit worshiping God ( many other Prophets were labeled as for example:

(Psalms 2:7) David is the begotten Son of God.

Many others in the Bible are called God's son:
Jacob God's firstborn son (Exodus 4:22)
Solomon is God's son (2 Samuel 7:13-14)
Ephraim is God's firstborn son (Jeremiah 31:9)
Adam is the son of God (Luke 3:38)

Other Prophets were Labeled as Messiah for example {1 Samuel 15:17} Which in Hebrew means Anointed/Chosen/Prophet;

Solomon (1 Kings 1:39)
David (1 Samuel 16:13)
Jewish priests (Leviticus 4)

Yea but Jesus (as) performed miracles! Well other Prophets Preformed similar Miracles as Jesus ;

Ezekiel raised many from the dead (Ezekiel 37:1-9)
Joshua stopped the sun and moon for one whole day (Joshua 10:12-13)
Elisha raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: (2 Kings 4:35, 13:21, 5:14, 4:44, and 6:11)
Elijah raised the dead (1 Kings 17:22 and 14.)

Ok, but Jesus was part of the Trinity since he was one with the Holy Ghost ! But other Prophets were filled with the Holy Ghost:

Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67)

Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:41)
Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 4:8)

Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 13:9)
But althrough the Bible Jesus (as) was called LORD. Many other Prophets were called Lord for example;

Abraham (Genesis 18:12)
Esau (Genesis 32:4)
Joseph (Genesis 44:20)
David (1 Samuel 25:24)
Anymore? Today if you see a man washing his face, arms, legs, earls, mouth, hair and elbows before goin to pray, you would say this is a Muslim. Well guess what? Jesus taught to rinse before Praying as Muslims do {John 13:10}

But now if you would see a man bowed down head on the floor praying for God, you would say, "look at that Muslim!"... Jesus bowed down in Submission on the Ground to God as Muslims do:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt"

{Matthew 26:39}

Moses(as):"And Moses bowed to the ground and worshiped" (Exodus 34:8)

Moses(as) & Aaron (as):"Then Moses and Aaron went away from the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting and fell on their faces..." (Numbers 20:6)

Abraham (as):"then Abram fell on his face" (Genesis 17:3)

Abraham's servant: "When Abraham's servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the ground before the Lord" (Genesis 24:52)

Joshua(as):"And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped." (Joshua 5:14)

Ezra and the people: "Then they bowed their heads and worshiped the lord with their faces to the ground." (Nehemiah 8:6)

 

[Supreme]

sounds to me the idea of a 3-in-1 god is taken from Greek mythology/tragedy drama.
Maybe it was indeed created to appeal to the latin masses

Perhaps, but the idea that God conveyed Himself the way He did simply to appease humanity is quite an alien concept in Christianity.

 

[freethinking]

We who believe are all God's children and therefore God is our Father but only Jeus existed before this universe was created and came to earth to do his Fathers will to save us all as the lamb of God by going like a lamb to sacrifice his human life to cleanse our sins by the grace of His Blood.
Contrast this with Abrahms willingness to sacrifice his son and when God saw Abrahms heart he stopped him but did give his son.
Our Lord is truely Awesome.
No man at such a young age (33 when he was crucified with only a 3 year ministry in the most unfavourable environment), has had such a lasting and profound impact as our Saviour for over two thousand years.

I also believe the Holy spirit is God the Ftahers holy spirit but the Holy Spirit does come to us whenever we ask the Father in Jesus name and is also known throughout the Bible as the comforter, wisdom provider of peace and guidance but it is God's holy spirit and the deliverer of messages from God through the angels and also directly to us. The Trinity is a mystery for us in this universe, which I belive when we are raised to heaven we will understand better in the next eternity and beyond.

Consider also that the last book of the Bible is "The REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST" In which it is stated we shall take our place in heaven with God and JESUS WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER

Glory be to God

 

[Ramadhan]

Perhaps, but the idea that God conveyed Himself the way He did simply to appease humanity is quite an alien concept in Christianity.

the fact remains that the concept of 3-in-1 god had much higher appeal to the latin masses who were used to the greek and roman gods than the idea of One Absolute God.
So have you ever thought that early christian leaders "tweaked" Jesus pbuh teachings to make christianity more popular, which culminated in the Nicea Council in the 4rd century?
The idea of christian leaders tweaking Jesus pbuh teachings shouldnt sound so alien to current christians. Even now, churches leaders keep changing christianity, for example, give blessings to homosexual acts and/or relationships, etc.

 

[Supreme]

the fact remains that the concept of 3-in-1 god had much higher appeal to the latin masses who were used to the greek and roman gods than the idea of One Absolute God.
So have you ever thought that early christian leaders "tweaked" Jesus pbuh teachings to make christianity more popular, which culminated in the Nicea Council in the 4rd century?

Not really. Christianity was already a fast growing religion before it started to appeal to the 'Latin masses'- and rather than change the teachings of Christianity to make it more popular, the emperors simply enforced it on the Empire, as evidenced by Emperor Theodosius outlawing paganism. It makes sense, really. Why bother to change the teachings of a religion when you have the power to force people to convert anyway? There simply is no point.

 

[Grace Seeker]

"Son of God" is a figure of speech which have been proven to be the name given to a human being or a spirit worshiping God ( many other Prophets were labeled as for example:

Indeed. All the more reason to be careful to see what is meant by the figure and how it is being used by the writer. In the case of the author of the Gospel of John, we note that he uses the term μονογενη (monogene) or μονογενους (monogenous) as an adjective to better describe the figure. Such a term is used a grand total of 9 times in scripture.

Luke uses it three times , and does so in the normal way to speak of a person's only child. But the majority of occassions are in Johannian writings (5 times). It is also used one in Hebrews, where it is definitely used in a different, and I believe telling, way.

John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only (μονογενους) who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (NIV)
John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (μονογενη), who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (NIV )
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only (μονογενη) Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (NIV)
John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only (μονογενους) Son." (NIV)
1 John 4:9 "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only (μονογενη) Son into the world that we might live through him." (NIV)
Hebrews 11:17 "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 (μονογενη) son." (NIV)

The reason that I believe Hebrews is telling is because it reports Isaac as the μονογενη of Abraham. Now, when recall Abraham's story, we know that Abraham had more than one son. He had two well-known sons: Isaac and Ishmael. And if the author of Hebrews had also been aware of 1 Chronicles 1:32, then he would have known about more sons: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (by Abraham's concubine Keturah and Sheba and Dedan (by Jokshan). So, most certainly Isaac was not Abraham's "one and only" son nor, as the KJV phrases it) his only begotten son. I want to suggest that Isaac was however the one and only son of the promise that God made with Abraham when he promised him that he would have a son through his wife Sarah. Isaac was unique in that way. And I think that the terms μονογενη (monogene) and μονογενους (monogenous) are best understood not as referring to some biological truth, but as an adjective describing uniqueness.

And thus, while it may be true that say that God has many sons (and many daughters for that matter), Jesus is unique among them. Jesus is unique in that God sent him "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Jesus is unique because "that we might live through him" (1 John 4:9). Jesus is unique because he is the μονογενους "who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

Jesus is unique because there is none like him. These things are true of no one else on earth. There is none like Jesus for Jesus is "the Word [who] became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14). In his Revelation (19:13) John tells us that Jesus' name is "the Word of God". And regarding this word, previously mentioned in the John 1 pericope, we have already learned "the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2). That would indeed make Jesus unique for of no one else does scripture affirmed that he was God. And yet this passage does so twice. For it not only does so in John 1:1, but again -- this Word not only comes in the flesh, but John testifies that he has seen his glory, and it is the glory of the "One and Only" (John 1:14) and then we are told the identify of that "One and Only" a second time, it is "God the One and Only" (John 1:18). God, "who is at the Father's side" (John 1:18), has made him (the Word) known.

 

[Grace Seeker]

So have you ever thought that early christian leaders "tweaked" Jesus pbuh teachings to make christianity more popular, which culminated in the Nicea Council in the 4rd century?

Actually, I do believe that there was some "tweaking" going on. But not to appeal to the Gentile world, rather to be sure that it was soundly anchored in the Hebrew scriptures. Reading Paul, the evidence suggests that Paul clearly wanted to articulate Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. And he wanted to show the Gentile world that they needed this Messiah, that they didn't even know anything about, because salvation was of the Jews -- Jesus words (John 4:22) and Paul's modus operandi (Romans 1:16).

 

[جوري]

the fact remains that the concept of 3-in-1 god had much higher appeal to the latin masses who were used to the greek and roman gods than the idea of One Absolute God.
.

Not only that but folks of old wanted a god that they can see it captured their provincial minds better and better still I'd say ..naturally they didn't think that in the future that concept will be completely ludicrous, the same way when they re-wrote the bible and didn't know how to repopulate a ****ed town so they fixed so that the only righteous man ended up sleeping with his two daughters..
the only way for any of it to remain viable is only through the concept of antiquity and nothing else, even if their forefathers weren't any wiser than they are, in fact even less so!