The Biblical Meaning of "Son of God"

[Eleanor]

You don't believe Jesus...

A man's son is man, the son of man.
God's Son is God, the Son of God.

Jesus did not think it blasphemy to call himself God's Son/the Son of God.

To believe in Jesus is to believe in the one who sent him (Jn 12:44).
To look at Jesus is to look at the one who sent him (Jn 12:45).
We are to believe in Jesus just as we believe in God (Jn 14:1).
To know Jesus is to know God (Jn 14:7).
Anyone who has seen Jesus has seen the Father (Jn 14:9).
All are to honor Jesus as they honor the Father (Jn 5:23).
ALL the FAaher has is his (Jn 16:5, 17:10).
NO one comes to the Father but through him, for he is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6).
What God is, Jesus is. (Jn 5:18b, 10:33).
He came forth out of God (Jn 8:42), came forth from the Father (Jn 16:27, 17:8,) came forth out of the Father (Jn 16:28).

You do the math.

 

[Eleanor]

YOU deny Christ who said ONLY his Father is God!

And yet you agreed. . .

Take it up with Jesus (post #22).

 

[Odë:hgöd]

In dealing with the deity of Christ, Packer uses John 1, as is often done, but in a simple way that
bypasses the historical and Greek nuances that don't exist in the English language, and through it
identifies that the meaning of Son of God, beyond a shadow of doubt, when applied to Christ is a
declaration of his deity.

I think I have to concur with Mr. Packer because the new testament presents the
Word's flesh (John 1:14) as God's direct descendant, i.e. as the supreme being's
paternal offspring-- in point of fact the supreme being's one and only paternal
offspring. (John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, 1John 4:9)

Jesus' position in the supreme being's family circle is a bit of a problem for anti
trinitarians because if God were to actually reproduce, He would multiply Himself,
viz: God would produce God just as when coyotes reproduce they produce coyotes,
carpenter ants produce carpenter ants, pelicans produce pelicans, and lobsters
produce lobsters, etc.

Jesus' position in the supreme being's family circle becomes even more complex
when it's taken into consideration that his human origin can be easily traced all
the way back to Adam's creation, viz: it can be easily shown that the Word exists
simultaneously as an eternal being and a temporal being together all at one time.
_

 

[Arial]

Jesus' position in the supreme being's family circle becomes even more complex
when it's taken into consideration that his human origin can be easily traced all
the way back to Adam's creation, viz: it can be easily shown that the Word exists
simultaneously as an eternal being and a temporal being together all at one time.

Jesus did not have a human origin. The divine Son took on a human nature. His human nature was temporal. His divine nature remained eternal---not temporal. "The Word became flesh...". They existed according to the two natures at the same time, only after the incarnation. If that is what you mean, then I agree. But I am not sure that is what you are saying.

More accurately, in order to keep the two natures distinct in one being, never mixed, would substitute "being" with "nature", which is why I did that.

 

[Questions]

Jesus did not have a human origin. The divine Son took on a human nature. His human nature was temporal. His divine nature remained eternal---not temporal. "The Word became flesh...". They existed according to the two natures at the same time, only after the incarnation. If that is what you mean, then I agree. But I am not sure that is what you are saying.

More accurately, in order to keep the two natures distinct in one being, never mixed, would substitute "being" with "nature", which is why I did that.

AGAIN, try finding THAT in the Bible.
{edit}

 

[Arial]

AGAIN, try finding THAT in the Bible.
Are you part of the Catholic cult?

It is right there in my post. John 1:14. The entire proof is in John 1: 1-18. Packer does a fine exegetical rendering in the OP. Read it and then give your own exegetical (illustrative, interpretive, analytical are synonyms of exegetical).

This will be your last chance to post according to the rules.

 

[Questions]

It is right there in my post. John 1:14. The entire proof is in John 1: 1-18. Packer does a fine exegetical rendering in the OP. Read it and then give your own exegetical (illustrative, interpretive, analytical are synonyms of exegetical).

This will be your last chance to post according to the rules.

You ready for my "exegetical" or gonna ban me for not believing in your 3 Gods?

 

[Eleanor]

AGAIN, try finding THAT in the Bible.
{edit}

Try reading Jn 1:1, 14.

 

[Arial]

You ready for my "exegetical" or gonna ban me for not believing in your 3 Gods?

I have been ready 28 posts ago. So lets have it. I have to go make my potatoes salad for tomorrow's family gathering. I will be looking forward to seeing it when I return.

 

[Questions]

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (divine) .

Either One God was with ANOTHER God, or someone LIKE God was with Him!
Col 1:15- He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.

 

[Arial]

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (divine) .

Either One God was with ANOTHER God, or someone LIKE God was with Him!
Col 1:15- He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.

That is not even remotely an exegesis. It is an unsupported opinion. And in case you think I didn't mean it when I said if you posted anymore of those propaganda photos that had previously been taken down you would be gone, well, you were mistaken.

 

[Eleanor]

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (divine) .

Either One God was with ANOTHER God, or someone LIKE God was with Him!

Or. . .God is Trinity. . .three persons in one God.

Col 1:15- He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.

Yes, the invisible God in material form, something we can see. . .it coldn't be stated any more clearly.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Jesus did not have a human origin. The divine Son took on a human nature. His human
nature was temporal. His divine nature remained eternal---not temporal. "The Word became
flesh...". They existed according to the two natures at the same time, only after the
incarnation. If that is what you mean, then I agree. But I am not sure that is what you are saying.

More accurately, in order to keep the two natures distinct in one being, never mixed, would
substitute "being" with "nature", which is why I did that.

I am convinced in my own mind that the Word came down from Heaven into
this world of ours 100% fully human in body, soul, and spirit; and that when
doing so, lost none of his characteristics as a divine being.
_

 

[Eleanor]

I am convinced that the Word came down from Heaven into this world of ours
100% fully human in body, soul, and spirit.
_

And 100% God. . .a man with two natures, 100% human and 100% divine, in one person, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:1, 14),

just as we have a God with three persons in one divine nature.

 

[Arial]

I am convinced in my own mind that the Word came down from Heaven into
this world of ours 100% fully human in body, soul, and spirit; and that when
doing so, lost none of his characteristics as a divine being.
_

Do you think he had two natures in one person? Or do you think that the two natures became one nature?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Do you think he had two natures in one person?

I am convinced in my own mind that the Word exists as an eternal being and as a
temporal being simultaneously, i.e. two distinctly unalike persons at the same time.

Or do you think that the two [persons] became one [person]?

No, absolutely not.
_

 

[Arial]

I am convinced in my own mind that the Word exists as an eternal being and as a
temporal being simultaneously, i.e. two distinctly unalike persons at the same time.

It was a "Yes" of "No" question and this doesn't answer it. This was the question.

Do you think he had two natures in one person? Or do you think that the two natures became one nature?

Then you quoted my second question and changed it after you quoted it. This was the question:

Or do you think that the two natures became one nature?

You changed it to "Or do you think the two persons became one person?" and answered:

No, absolutely not.

I don't know where you get the idea that is is proper to change a question someone asks, and that you don't want to answer, into one you do want to answer. Or one that is to difficult to answer into one that you have an answer for. Especially when in order to do so you must alter the words of another and present it as their words.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
@ Aria

I think we are getting too far afield.

However, before leaving this topic, I'd like to reiterate that I concur with J.I.
Packer's conclusion that Christ's title "Son of God" means that he is God incarnate.
Therefore confessing that Jesus is the Son of God is confessing his deity. (Post #23)
_

 

[David Lamb]

You ready for my "exegetical" or gonna ban me for not believing in your 3 Gods?

Are you saying that people who believe in the deity of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, believe in three separate Gods? I assure you that they don't.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
For lack of a better way to put it, the Bible's supreme being is presented in text as
a composite unity, viz: He has interacted with mankind wearing a variety of hats,
and I dare say none of those hats is more complex than the Word's incarnation.

It doesn't take long for most Bible readers to realize that much of the information
we're given relevant to the Word's incarnation doesn't add up, i.e. it doesn't
harmonize; and I suspect that's because we're looking at an incarnation that is both
human and divine, viz: an incarnation who is temporal and eternal simultaneously.
In point of fact, Jesus often antagonized his opponents by sometimes speaking of
himself as deity and at other times speaking of himself as human.

NOTE: According to Luke 1:31-33, the Word's incarnation has two paternal fathers,
the one divine and the other human, so that Jesus could speak of himself as deity
and he could speak of himself as mankind. I think quite a few Bible readers much
prefer him one way or the other, rather than both simultaneously. As someone fully
God and fully Man--a.k.a. the Son of God and the Son of Man --the Word's
incarnation can be a mite confusing at times.
_