What is truly meant by the term "Son of God"?

[Marvin Knox]

Ummm... You do not have it entirely correct.

In the Bible, when you see 'son' lowercase it indicates that it is not God/diety, however when you see 'Son' uppercase it does indicate God/diety.

Now notice above (in blue) what is uppercase? Holy Spirit = Yes, part of the trinity. Most High = Yes, another term for the Father. Son of God = Yes, part of the trinity.

Jesus was called the Son of God because Jesus was both God and man. Because He was still God, He retained His title of the Son of God.

That's the way I see it.

You are simply wrong on so many levels.

Speaking only for myself -I got in the habit long ago of capitalizing any name or pronoun that is referring to deity. For instance when I am referring to God by saying "Him" - I capitalize it.

It's both a sign of respect and my way of indicating that the word is meant to indicate deity. The preceding sentence is an example of not capitalizing the word "word" because I am not talking about the eternal Word. When I talk about the "Word" who has always been with God - it is capitalized.

Some times I manage to miss a capitalization here and there.

I'm hardly alone in doing this. Many writers do the same. And, of course, it is done that way in many translations of the Bible as well.

But these things have nothing to do with what is done in the original Greek or Hebrew.

You are, as I said, wrong. But more importantly to our thread here is the fact that it has nothing to do with why Jesus is called the Son of God.

God speaks most directly to the answer when He has the angel tell Mary that, speaking of the coming act of the Holy Spirit in her womb, "...The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

He says clearly and simply that the reason Jesus is called the Son of God is because He was brought forth by a special act of God in the incarnation of the Word of God.

People can discuss whether other references to the "Son" are speaking of eternity past or simply projecting the one we know as Jesus back into eternity. But I have been limiting my use as much as possible here to the way God clearly explained why He calls Jesus by that title.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

You are simply wrong on so many levels.

Speaking only for myself -I got in the habit long ago of capitalizing any name or pronoun that is referring to deity. For instance when I am referring to God by saying "Him" - I capitalize it.

It's both a sign of respect and my way of indicating that the word is meant to indicate deity. The preceding sentence is an example of not capitalizing the word "word" because I am not talking about the eternal Word. When I talk about the "Word" who has always been with God - it is capitalized.

Some times I manage to miss a capitalization here and there.

I'm hardly alone in doing this. Many writers do the same. And, of course, it is done that way in many translations of the Bible as well.

But these things have nothing to do with what is done in the original Greek or Hebrew.

You are, as I said, wrong. But more importantly to our thread here is the fact that it has nothing to do with why Jesus is called the Son of God.

God speaks most directly to the answer when He has the angel tell Mary that, speaking of the coming act of the Holy Spirit in her womb, "...The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

He says clearly and simply that the reason Jesus is called the Son of God is because He was brought forth by a special act of God in the incarnation of the Word of God.

People can discuss whether other references to the "Son" are speaking of eternity past or simply projecting the one we know as Jesus back into eternity. But I have been limiting my use as much as possible here to the way God clearly explained why He calls Jesus by that title.

No, you are wrong.

And in red, there is no 'incarnation'. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was God and the Word was with God.

Jesus is called the Son of God because he was still God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

No, you are wrong.
And in red, there is no 'incarnation'. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was God and the Word was with God.
Jesus is called the Son of God because he was still God.

Welcome to the thread. It doesn't appear that you have followed along before. But that's OK. You are welcome to chime in even if it doesn't exactly fit.

The original question was along the lines of, "Why does God call Jesus the Son of God?".

God sent Gabriel to Mary and said to her, "...The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Suppose Mary had a momentary lapse and asked Gabriel a moment or two later, "Now tell me again why the baby born to me will be called the Son of God?"

I suspect that Gabriel would have likely simply repeated what he was told by God was the reason why the baby was to be called the Son of God.

The answer to the question was and is clearly this. "The holy one to be born will be called the Son of God because the Holy Spirit will come on you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."

Call me old fashioned. But if the answer was good enough for Gabriel - who was sent from God to explain what was going to happen - then it's good enough for me.

You can share your additional ideas about why Jesus was called the Son of God if you wish. Knock yourself out!

But, my friend, the red is indeed the incarnation. Why Jesus is called the Son of God has to do with the Word being in the beginning with God only as a note related to the one who was to be so incarnated. (Something that I have said repeatedly that I absolutely agree with is the eternal existence of the Word who was incarnated.)

By the way - many others in Scripture are referred to as sons of God (including Lucifer) and it has absolutely nothing to do with their deity.