What does the Son of God mean?

DamianWarS said:

What it doesn't mean is God had sex with Mary who gave birth to a demi-god like person. So what is the relationship that is being expressed in this epithet that is unique to Jesus without being heretical?

Click to expand...

Your question, if persued, will lead you to one of the great dividing lines between churchy understanding of messianic titles and seminary scholarly understandings (both conservative and liberal). In the Palestine of Jesus' day, "son of man" is actually a higher messianic title than "Son of God." "Son of God" refers to a merely human Messianic figure descended from David, as referred to in 2 Samuel 7:14. "Son of Man" can have 3 meanings in our Gospels, depending on the context: it can simply mean "man" or it can mean "I" in Aramaic idiom. As a title it refers to a preexistent heavenly Judge based on Daniel 7:13-14. To determine when it is used as a messianic title, ask yourself if it is being applied to Jesus' role as Judge or whether symbolic clouds are mentioned in the saying (an echo of Daniel 7:13-14. In Hellenistic regions, the 2 terms mean what most modern Christians wrongly assume it always means: "Son of God" meaning "a divine being" and "son of man" meaning a human. Very thick academic books are written to clarify the nuances of these 2 titles.

DamianWarS said:

What it doesn't mean is God had sex with Mary who gave birth to a demi-god like person. So what is the relationship that is being expressed in this epithet that is unique to Jesus without being heretical?

Click to expand...

Fully man and fully God.

ViaCrucis said:

The Son is begotten of the Father before all ages. When we call Jesus the Son of God we are saying that He is the One mentioned in John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Jesus did not become the Son; Jesus is the Son. Has always been the Son. The Son never became the Son.

The Son did, however, became a human being, by His conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Father never became Father--but has always been Father because He has always had a Son.
The Son never became Son, but has always been the Son because He has always been the One begotten of the Father.

As the Nicene Creed says, "[We believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

While I agree with that confession. I don’t really see in it nor can I recall any OT verses outside of prophecy that call Jesus the Son of God until the incarnation. Personally I think it is more proper to call him Jehovah the Word of God who became the only begotten Son Of God when he left the physical attributes he had as God behind in heaven and became a man.

Daniel Martinovich said:

While I agree with that confession. I don’t really see in it nor can I recall any OT verses outside of prophecy that call Jesus the Son of God until the incarnation. Personally I think it is more proper to call him Jehovah the Word of God who became the only begotten Son Of God when he left the physical attributes he had as God behind in heaven and became a man.

Click to expand...

Except that He didn't become the Son of God in the Incarnation. He is the Son of God from all eternity. That the Old Testament doesn't say this is moot, the New Testament clearly calls Him the Son, and that His Father--from all eternity--is God the Father. John 1:18.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Except that He didn't become the Son of God in the Incarnation. He is the Son of God from all eternity. That the Old Testament doesn't say this is moot, the New Testament clearly calls Him the Son, and that His Father--from all eternity--is God the Father. John 1:18.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Just so you understand what I am saying. I am saying that Jesus eternally pre-existed the incarnation as Jehovah the Word of God, one person of the trinity. That being said. I would be open to the idea that he pre-existed as the Son of God if the scripture definitively says that. I just can't think of any that say that right now within the context of the entire Bible. Perhaps you might point a few out to me.

Daniel Martinovich said:

Just so you understand what I am saying. I am saying that Jesus eternally pre-existed the incarnation as Jehovah the Word of God, one person of the trinity. That being said. I would be open to the idea that he pre-existed as the Son of God if the scripture definitively says that. I just can't think of any that say that right now within the context of the entire Bible. Perhaps you might point a few out to me.

Click to expand...

When did the Father become the Father? If you can answer this question, then you have your answer about the Son.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Except that He didn't become the Son of God in the Incarnation. He is the Son of God from all eternity. That the Old Testament doesn't say this is moot, the New Testament clearly calls Him the Son, and that His Father--from all eternity--is God the Father. John 1:18.

Click to expand...

Daniel Martinovich said:

I am saying that Jesus eternally pre-existed the incarnation as Jehovah the Word of God, one person of the trinity. That being said. I would be open to the idea that he pre-existed as the Son of God if the scripture definitively says that. I just can't think of any that say that right now within the context of the entire Bible. Perhaps you might point a few out to me.

Click to expand...

So you ask for scripture and you get an argument.

ViaCrucis said:

When did the Father become the Father? If you can answer this question, then you have your answer about the Son.

Click to expand...

Let me quote scripture, since no one else has quoted the relevant text. I guess because they can't make it fit what they say.

Psalm 2:7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.

So scripture is clear that the name Son was given by God on a certain day, which means after creation. While the Word is eternal, the name Son had a start and other text teach it has an end. The Son of God is a name we use just in this age. The next age, he will be known by another name. Same with the Father.

ViaCrucis said:

When did the Father become the Father? If you can answer this question, then you have your answer about the Son.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I am getting the impression that you think I am somehow trying to employ some kind of trickery to say Jesus is a created being. I assure you I am not. How on earth can I call him Jehovah the Word of God one of the three persons of the trinity if at the same time I am trying to trick people and say he was created? I mean, his human body was created but not he who lived inside of it. I think the real issue is that I am saying something new to you, something you have never heard before and you are trying to categorize it into something you think you know all about already. Will not work with me. I am not discernible like that to most other Christians.
The Bible says of the Word (Jesus) that he is the creator of all things. In that sense we could call him father too. But we do not because Jehovah is one but manifests himself in three different and distinct persons. How does he do that ? Heck if I know. I just know the Bible from cover to cover declares it and God bears witness of that. However I am just saying when God left heaven and left his physical attributes behind and became a man. That is when I think he became the only begotten Son of God and God in heaven become his Father, not beforehand. The Son did not become the
Son until he became a man and the Father did not become his Father until Jehovah the Word became a man.

Let me ask you this? How does Jehovah the Word who pre-existed for eternity with Jehovah the Almighty and Jehovah the Spirit "receive" the promised Jehovah the Spirit without measure and give Jehovah the Holy Spirit in measure to his followers unless he first became a man, the descendant of Abraham and David, the messiah?
Acts 2:
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

AnticipateHisComing said:

So you ask for scripture and you get an argument.

Let me quote scripture, since no one else has quoted the relevant text. I guess because they can't make it fit what they say.

Psalm 2:7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.

So scripture is clear that the name Son was given by God on a certain day, which means after creation. While the Word is eternal, the name Son had a start and other text teach it has an end. The Son of God is a name we use just in this age. The next age, he will be known by another name. Same with the Father.

Click to expand...

That is what I meant via the prophetic scriptures. He was being called the Son of God prophetically as in the future but not as in all eternity passed.

Daniel Martinovich said:

I am getting the impression that you think I am somehow trying to employ some kind of trickery to say Jesus is a created being. I assure you I am not. How on earth can I call him Jehovah the Word of God one of the three persons of the trinity if at the same time I am trying to trick people and say he was created? I mean, his human body was created but not he who lived inside of it. I think the real issue is that I am saying something new to you, something you have never heard before and you are trying to categorize it into something you think you know all about already. Will not work with me. I am not discernible like that to most other Christians.
The Bible says of the Word (Jesus) that he is the creator of all things. In that sense we could call him father too. But we do not because Jehovah is one but manifests himself in three different and distinct persons. How does he do that ? Heck if I know. I just know the Bible from cover to cover declares it and God bears witness of that. However I am just saying when God left heaven and left his physical attributes behind and became a man. That is when I think he became the only begotten Son of God and God in heaven become his Father, not beforehand. The Son did not become the
Son until he became a man and the Father did not become his Father until Jehovah the Word became a man.

Let me ask you this? How does Jehovah the Word who pre-existed for eternity with Jehovah the Almighty and Jehovah the Spirit "receive" the promised Jehovah the Spirit without measure and give Jehovah the Holy Spirit in measure to his followers unless he first became a man, the descendant of Abraham and David, the messiah?
Acts 2:
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Click to expand...

I don't think you are trying to employ trickery. I was being very sincere in my last post.

If we answer the question "When did the Father become the Father?" then we have our answer about the Sonship of Jesus Christ. If the Father is eternally Father, then He is eternally the Father of His Son--and that makes Jesus the eternal Son of the Father.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I don't think you are trying to employ trickery. I was being very sincere in my last post.

If we answer the question "When did the Father become the Father?" then we have our answer about the Sonship of Jesus Christ. If the Father is eternally Father, then He is eternally the Father of His Son--and that makes Jesus the eternal Son of the Father.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

To me that does not sound right because a son is the creation of a father. Nor does the OT ever refer to them in that way. As father and son. As far as I can remember anyway.

Daniel Martinovich said:

To me that does not sound right because a son is the creation of a father.

Click to expand...

We're talking about God, that immediately means we are talking about something much bigger and deeper than what we observe among creatures. This is why the Nicene Creed explicitly uses the phrase, "begotten, not made"; because Arius assumed much like you do here, that a son is the creation of a father, and that would mean the Son is a creature. Which is precisely why we are speaking of the eternal generation of the Son, the eternity of the Son, etc.

Nor does the OT ever refer to them in that way. As father and son. As far as I can remember anyway.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of things the Old Testament doesn't say.

-CryptoLutheran

After everything I said. Did you just accuse me of saying Jesus is created?

Daniel Martinovich said:

To me that does not sound right because a son is the creation of a father.

Click to expand...

That applies to human reproduction, not divine relationships. The eternal Father-Son relationship is divine.

Nor does the OT ever refer to them in that way. As father and son. As far as I can remember anyway.

Click to expand...

Actually there are several OT Scriptures which present the Father-Son relationship within the Godhead.

PSALM 45
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom isa right sceptre.

7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

HEBREWS 1
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Micah888 said:

That applies to human reproduction, not divine relationships. The eternal Father-Son relationship is divine.

Actually there are several OT Scriptures which present the Father-Son relationship within the Godhead.

PSALM 45
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom isa right sceptre.

7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

HEBREWS 1
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Click to expand...

Those are prophecies regarding Jesus AFTER he became a man. They are not speaking to him as he existed eternally as Jehovah the Word who was one with Jehovah the Almightey and Jehovah the Holy Spirit.
Show me some scripture that says Jesus pre existed as the Son of God before he became a man.

There are limits to what we can know.

We accept a number of tenets of faith.
One God in three persons.
Our Lord an eternally begotten Son.
Who became man , conceived by the holy spirit, born of the virgin Mary
And so both Man and God

But trying to understand it, beyond a few dogmatic statements, is impossible for limited human minds.

An analogy is the average TV. Extrapolate that to the universe even.
Most know how to use one, so "understand" in that sense. But would glaze over if someone tried to explain how they actually "work" insid e.Which is a microcosm of the universe it self. By studying patterns in how it behaves we have distilled that knowledge into useful knowledge and Gadgets and TVs. But that does not mean we know what it really is, only how it normally behaves ...and the paradoxes of quantum physics show how our models in reality fail at explanations of what it is rather than what it usually does - summed up in Hawkings model dependent reality, which is more or less admission we never will.

DamianWarS said:

What it doesn't mean is God had sex with Mary who gave birth to a demi-god like person. So what is the relationship that is being expressed in this epithet that is unique to Jesus without being heretical?

Click to expand...

DamianWarS said:

I would agree with this. People have a lot to say but it seems no one has firm grasp on what it really means and end up answering questions that were never asked like going into various detail about the nature of Christ

I still find this important as Christians highly value this language that Jesus is the Son of God but no one can really say what it means. This is troubling because there are faiths such as a Judaism and Islam that not only strictly adhere to a unitarian God but also see the idea of a Son of God offensive and extremely heretical. It basically shuts down communicating the gospel when Jesus the Son of God is brought up; all they hear is polytheism.

We know what it doesn't mean. The Son of God doesn't mean a second God or demi-god. It doesn't mean a child born from a physical or biological relationship. It doesn't mean the Son was created. It also doesn't mean the Son came after the Father. But all of those things are reason why Jews and Muslims take offensive to the term so why use it when sharing the gospel to these groups? It seems to be abstractly used biblically speaking and is a metaphor. So if the metaphor is misunderstood why use it? I don't reject the term I just don't see it effective among a particular mindset that does reject it.

Click to expand...

Those are very good points. There is another issue in all of this though which is a great divide between people who received baptisms of the Holy Spirit and power and evangelicals who reject that. Those who do have some practice experance with the miraculous power of God have a little bit of an idea how Jesus could have become a man and yet do the miracles he did, or technically speaking. How God the Holy Spirit worked miracles through him.
Evangelicals, Protestants, Catholics and many Charismatics, having never had anything like this in their walk with God are left only with what they can imagine and what they imagine is along the lines of Hollywood movie demigod. They mold this picture into their doctrines and demand orothodoxy status. When they say 100% man 100% God they don’t know what they mean but sort of picture a man with the physical nature of God like ominiance and omnipresence. Something that there are lots of scriptures that imply that is not so.
So when I try to give them a more actuate picture. That God who is a Spirit came to dwell in a human body just like a human lives in one and left all those physical attributes behind in heaven. Left the miraculous power behind in heaven and walked this earth as a man dependent on God in heaven to raise him from childhood, keep him from sin, give him the knowledge he needed and the miraculous power he would end up walking in. They cannot picture that and think it is somehow outside of orthodoxy.
For them, even though they know it’s a fake book. That story of Jesus making clay birds as a child and turning them into real birds. Even though they know that did not happen. According to the picture they have in mind. That was perfectly within the scope of what Jesus could have done as a child if he wanted to.....and that my friend is a picture of a Greek demi god.
So yes I can say 100% man 100% God because as a person, a spirit is an actual person, the inner man, (person.) Jesus was the same person as he had always been but know clothed with a flesh and bone body. But not 100% God 100% man in the sense that he as a person kept all the miraculous physical attributes of his Godhood. He left that behind and as God he was able to do that.

Get prepared for this thread to get shut down. Happens every time I talk about this.

Daniel Martinovich said:

After everything I said. Did you just accuse me of saying Jesus is created?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that your reasoning is similar to what Arius said, which is why it's important to emphasize that begotten does not mean created.

-CryptoLutheran