Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Ok. was/is Jesus a LITERAL Son of God?

ironsmile360
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 8:42:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
in 300 AD. a group of men came to Nicea to discuss this among other questions of the time. The result formed the basis of what we understand Christianity is about today. Give it serious thought, because if you answer "Yes", then you could be considered a polytheistic heretic....If you say "No", then you might be committing blasphemy.

Please explain logically & stay on topic!
Ironsmile360
RHEMA.97
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 9:12:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To say Jesus is literally the Son of God suggests that God created him some way.

Although some agree that Jesus was God the Father first creation (Jehovah witnesses) others say Jesus was not created (therefore he is timeless without an age).

Also Trinity also states that Jesus is ageless just as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Trinity says that they are 1 and the same each with different roles and aspects.

I believe in the trinity therefore I wouldnt say he is LITERALLY the Son of God . Although I would consider 'THE SON OF GOD' as a title rather than take it literal.

There are also various other titles which arent to be taken literally such as :
CHILD OF GOD.
CHILD OF THE DEVIL.
CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE
DAUGHTERS OF BEELZEBUB .

and lots more.
RHEMA.97
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 9:13:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To say Jesus is literally the Son of God suggests that God created him some way.Although some agree that Jesus was God the Father first creation (Jehovah witnesses) others say Jesus was not created (therefore he is timeless without an age).
Also Trinity also states that Jesus is ageless just as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Trinity says that they are 1 and the same each with different roles and aspects.
I believe in the trinity therefore I wouldnt say he is LITERALLY the Son of God . Although I would consider 'THE SON OF GOD' as a title rather than take it literal.

There are also various other titles which arent to be taken literally such as :
CHILD OF GOD.
CHILD OF THE DEVIL.
CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE
DAUGHTERS OF BEELZEBUB .

and lots more.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 10:17:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 8:42:40 PM, ironsmile360 wrote:
in 300 AD. a group of men came to Nicea to discuss this among other questions of the time. The result formed the basis of what we understand Christianity is about today. Give it serious thought, because if you answer "Yes", then you could be considered a polytheistic heretic....If you say "No", then you might be committing blasphemy.

Please explain logically & stay on topic!

Yes. There are not three Gods though. In fact, there is one God, but three persons in one God. Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father all exist as one God.
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 11:32:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
According to the New Testament, he is. Though there are verses which might imply a metaphorical relationship, there are others that show clearly that he is the literal son of God.

Off the top of my head, I think this is in John, when Jesus was accused by the Pharisees for not obeying Moses' law:
"[...]for before Moses was, I AM."

Implying that Jesus himself is God.

Also, according to OT prophecies that are attributed to be about Jesus (and Jesus said the prophecies are about Him, and they fit given the events that transpired), He is also referenced as God. For example, when the prophet Isaiah mentions the messiah who is to come, he calls Him "Great Counselor, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Almighty God".

In conclusion, if you assume that the Bible is true, then it is heretical to say that he was not the literal son of God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:05:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So how did it go down?

Doggy?
Missionary?
Cowgirl?
Did the earth move?
Did he still respect her in the morning?
What sort of smoke did they have afterwards.
Did he cuddle her afterwards?
Or just roll over and go to sleep?
Did he ring her?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:15:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:05:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
So how did it go down?

Doggy?
Missionary?
Cowgirl?
Did the earth move?
Did he still respect her in the morning?
What sort of smoke did they have afterwards.
Did he cuddle her afterwards?
Or just roll over and go to sleep?
Did he ring her?

Only if he liked it....
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:41:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:15:58 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/17/2014 12:05:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
So how did it go down?

Doggy?
Missionary?
Cowgirl?
Did the earth move?
Did he still respect her in the morning?
What sort of smoke did they have afterwards.
Did he cuddle her afterwards?
Or just roll over and go to sleep?
Did he ring her?

Only if he liked it....

Hey I watched that with the sound off. Funnnneeeeee as.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 5:38:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:05:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
So how did it go down?

Doggy?
Missionary?
Cowgirl?
Did the earth move?
Did he still respect her in the morning?
What sort of smoke did they have afterwards.
Did he cuddle her afterwards?
Or just roll over and go to sleep?
Did he ring her?

https://www.youtube.com....
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:00:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
God having a son... how come God with all power,knowledge and things beyond our imagination accually have a son? arttibuting such things to God is inappropriate. its about low functions of sex and its absurd God having a son. any sense?
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:05:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
and Jesus and his companions were jews, so we need to look in jewish context. son of god means "pious person" in jewish culture so in this aspect is easy to understand why he is "son of god" and not literaly!
Never fart near dog
Anatta
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:12:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 8:42:40 PM, ironsmile360 wrote:
in 300 AD. a group of men came to Nicea to discuss this among other questions of the time. The result formed the basis of what we understand Christianity is about today. Give it serious thought, because if you answer "Yes", then you could be considered a polytheistic heretic....If you say "No", then you might be committing blasphemy.

Please explain logically & stay on topic!

The question isn't fair, what is 'Literal Son'?
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 9:05:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 8:42:40 PM, ironsmile360 wrote:
in 300 AD. a group of men came to Nicea to discuss this among other questions of the time. The result formed the basis of what we understand Christianity is about today. Give it serious thought, because if you answer "Yes", then you could be considered a polytheistic heretic....If you say "No", then you might be committing blasphemy.

Please explain logically & stay on topic!

First, it's important to understand that in that time and place, to be the 'son of' someone meant that you were taken to be the binding proxy for them. People lived in family clans back then. And the sons of the clan patriarch were also the patriarch's proxies out in the world. Any agreement made with a son, was an agreement made with the father even if the father was not present. The son's word was taken to be the father's word. The son's promise was taken to be the father's promise. And so on.

So that when Jesus was being referred to as the "son of God", what that meant in his time was that he was being referred to as God's proxy. His promises were God's promises. His teaching was God's teaching. And his 'miraculous deeds' were God's miraculous deeds. So that the claim was not intended to mean that Jesus was the genetic offspring of God. It was intended to mean that he was the binding proxy, the spokesman, for God, his "father", in the world.

Jesus did not refer to himself as the "son of God", however. He referred to himself as the "son of man". Which put a somewhat different spin on this idea of being a proxy. Because he was inferring that he was our proxy, before God. This is where the idea of his taking on the sins of all mankind comes from. And the idea that he was our blood sacrifice to God, for those sins. (That was the Jewish religion's way of being "redeemed": through blood sacrifice.)

So your question itself is a bit ill-informed. A "literal" son of, in those days, was not so literal as to imply only a genetic offspring. In fact, what it really meant was to be a binding proxy.
ironsmile360
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 10:55:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 9:05:10 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/16/2014 8:42:40 PM, ironsmile360 wrote:
in 300 AD. a group of men came to Nicea to discuss this among other questions of the time. The result formed the basis of what we understand Christianity is about today. Give it serious thought, because if you answer "Yes", then you could be considered a polytheistic heretic....If you say "No", then you might be committing blasphemy.

Please explain logically & stay on topic!

First, it's important to understand that in that time and place, to be the 'son of' someone meant that you were taken to be the binding proxy for them. People lived in family clans back then. And the sons of the clan patriarch were also the patriarch's proxies out in the world. Any agreement made with a son, was an agreement made with the father even if the father was not present. The son's word was taken to be the father's word. The son's promise was taken to be the father's promise. And so on.

So that when Jesus was being referred to as the "son of God", what that meant in his time was that he was being referred to as God's proxy. His promises were God's promises. His teaching was God's teaching. And his 'miraculous deeds' were God's miraculous deeds. So that the claim was not intended to mean that Jesus was the genetic offspring of God. It was intended to mean that he was the binding proxy, the spokesman, for God, his "father", in the world.

Jesus did not refer to himself as the "son of God", however. He referred to himself as the "son of man". Which put a somewhat different spin on this idea of being a proxy. Because he was inferring that he was our proxy, before God. This is where the idea of his taking on the sins of all mankind comes from. And the idea that he was our blood sacrifice to God, for those sins. (That was the Jewish religion's way of being "redeemed": through blood sacrifice.)

So your question itself is a bit ill-informed. A "literal" son of, in those days, was not so literal as to imply only a genetic offspring. In fact, what it really meant was to be a binding proxy.

FINALLY... Somebody who understands! If you have a Bible look up the book of Job, chapter#1 or Google the passage. Muslims you can do likewise. Angels are mentioned as "the Sons of God", they represent Him as agents of His will or, better still, Messengers. Jesus; however, is special/unique to the term Son of God. NOT AN ANGEL or an ordinary messenger/prophet, but a special & unique representative of God (Greek= monogenes/huios). Not created, because Jesus always existed, and will exist without end- just as God is. Where other prophets had/do/will have flaws & a sin nature- Jesus DID NOT (not my thought, I reference The New Testament Book of Hebrews, chapter 11 to 12:2).
Ironsmile360
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 3:12:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 8:42:40 PM, ironsmile360 wrote:
in 300 AD. a group of men came to Nicea to discuss this among other questions of the time. The result formed the basis of what we understand Christianity is about today. Give it serious thought, because if you answer "Yes", then you could be considered a polytheistic heretic....If you say "No", then you might be committing blasphemy.

According to the Bible Jesus is born of Spirit that is why he is called Son of God.

The angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35

It is also good to know that disciples of Jesus are born of God. and you can know who is born of God by this:

Little children, let no one lead you astray. He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

And here are few scriptures that tells how people should be born of Spirit.

Jesus answered him, "Most assuredly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can't see the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can't enter into the Kingdom of God! That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don't marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'
John 3:3-7

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13