The Son of God

[NickHassan]

Hi RR,
THE Son of God was sent into the world.
All men are sons of God as scripture says we are “all His offspring”
The Jews were also all sons of God as shown in Deut 14.1

I get the sense the word Yachid has a hint of “special” about it. What do you think?

[truebelief4u]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2006,03:25)

Quote (truebelief4u @ April 26 2006,19:14) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,15:45) Hi tbfu, Then what does “only begotten” mean to you? Pre-existence is a silly term. Surely a being exists or it does not. When you say “pre-existed” you really mean “existed in a form prior to visible physical existence?” We know God did and the angels do. Why is it so hard to grasp what we cannot see with our own eyes? Yet faith is to do with things that are not seen.[Heb 11.1] The Word did..was that THE Son of God? “You are the Christ THE Son of the Living God” “Only begotten,” to me means just that….Yashuah was the ONLY “begotten” Son of God…the ONLY one ever conceived via the holy spirit directly. “Pre-existence” may be a semantic argument…I lean toward the view that Yashuah did not exist until his conception, but there are other views…that's just my personal leaning. John 1:1, et.  seq. has been misinterpreted, and has nothing to do with “Jesus” existing way back in Genesis. See: http://www.jetlink.com.ph/~religion/relig029.htm and; http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/5257/colossians.htm I think Ramblinrose has supplied some links, as well, that would apply. Hi tbfu, Clearly you have not looked at the greek. “only begotten” is one word 'monogenes'. He is also the only and beloved “only begotten son”, who was sent into the world.

Nick….I'm not even sure the translation is correct (see the following)…..

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….ion=kjv

And see: …his only begotten Son…http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/march2002.htm
“Only begotten” renders the Greek monogenes, found nine times in the New Testament (five of these of Christ – John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9). The term derives from two roots, monos (only, alone) and genos (race, stock).

In the contexts in which it applies to Jesus, it undoubtedly denotes that he is “unique in kind” (F.W. Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon, University of Chicago, 2000, p. 658). It is used “to mark out Jesus uniquely above all earthly and heavenly beings” (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed., Zondervan, Vol. II, p. 725). “In its significance monogenes relates to the several areas: (1) being or nature (uniquely God’s Son), (2) the revelation of God to man (John 1:18), (3) salvation through the Son (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9)” (Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, Hendrickson, 1999, p. 386).

[Note: there is nothing in the term monogenes to indicate that Christ was “the eternal Son of God,” as some have suggested. For a refutation of that notion, see Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Luke 1:35. Before his incarnation, Jesus was the eternal Word (logos) Jn. 1:1,14.]

And in particular: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx26.htm

[NickHassan]

Hi and thank you tb4u,
The Son of God was sent into the world.
1Jn 4.9
“…God has sent His only begotten Son into the world..”

How could this be if he did not exist till he arrived on earth then?

[Ramblinrose]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,22:27)

Hi RR, THE Son of God was sent into the world. All men are sons of God as scripture says we are “all His offspring” The Jews were also all sons of God as shown in Deut 14.1 I get the sense the word Yachid has a hint of “special” about it. What do you think?

Speaking of his disciples

Quote

John 17:18  “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

[NickHassan]

Hi RR,
So when was Christ sent into the world?
Is it recorded?
When did he humble himself and partake of our fleshly estate?

[NickHassan]

Quote (truebelief4u @ April 26 2006,22:32)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2006,03:25) Quote (truebelief4u @ April 26 2006,19:14) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,15:45) Hi tbfu, Then what does “only begotten” mean to you? Pre-existence is a silly term. Surely a being exists or it does not. When you say “pre-existed” you really mean “existed in a form prior to visible physical existence?” We know God did and the angels do. Why is it so hard to grasp what we cannot see with our own eyes? Yet faith is to do with things that are not seen.[Heb 11.1] The Word did..was that THE Son of God? “You are the Christ THE Son of the Living God” “Only begotten,” to me means just that….Yashuah was the ONLY “begotten” Son of God…the ONLY one ever conceived via the holy spirit directly. “Pre-existence” may be a semantic argument…I lean toward the view that Yashuah did not exist until his conception, but there are other views…that's just my personal leaning. John 1:1, et.  seq. has been misinterpreted, and has nothing to do with “Jesus” existing way back in Genesis. See: http://www.jetlink.com.ph/~religion/relig029.htm and; http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/5257/colossians.htm I think Ramblinrose has supplied some links, as well, that would apply. Hi tbfu, Clearly you have not looked at the greek. “only begotten” is one word 'monogenes'. He is also the only and beloved “only begotten son”, who was sent into the world. Nick….I'm not even sure the translation is correct (see the following)….. http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….ion=kjv And see: …his only begotten Son…http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/march2002.htm “Only begotten” renders the Greek monogenes, found nine times in the New Testament (five of these of Christ – John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9). The term derives from two roots, monos (only, alone) and genos (race, stock). In the contexts in which it applies to Jesus, it undoubtedly denotes that he is “unique in kind” (F.W. Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon, University of Chicago, 2000, p. 658). It is used “to mark out Jesus uniquely above all earthly and heavenly beings” (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed., Zondervan, Vol. II, p. 725). “In its significance monogenes relates to the several areas: (1) being or nature (uniquely God’s Son), (2) the revelation of God to man (John 1:18), (3) salvation through the Son (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9)” (Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, Hendrickson, 1999, p. 386). [Note: there is nothing in the term monogenes to indicate that Christ was “the eternal Son of God,” as some have suggested. For a refutation of that notion, see Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Luke 1:35. Before his incarnation, Jesus was the eternal Word (logos) Jn. 1:1,14.] And in particular: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx26.htm

Hi tbfu,
Interesting articles thank you.

However the articles, having said Monogenes should be derived from Monos and Genos[1085-family, offspring] rather than Monos with Gennao [1080 descent, birth] and suggesting the word really means “unique in kind” and not anything to do with “begetting” he fails to note that Genos derives from Ginnomai[1096] which means 'to come into being, to happen to become.'

So the difference is not that great between the two words with both relating to origin in some way.

[NickHassan]

Hi ,
One of the commonest attacks on scriptural truth is on the Divine sonship of Jesus Christ.

Faced with the revelations in the New Testament that Jesus was called God even in places in the Old Testament and in fear of being accused of polytheism men devised a binity and then a trinity God. Thus they could agree that Jesus was God and there was only one God. But it did mean that Son of God had to be only a title and not a scriptural fact because sons are separate from their fathers.

Likewise the Modalists decided that to resolve the issue God had several modes and one of them was Jesus Christ. Again as he was God by another name he was of course not really the Son of God and this had to be denied becoming again just a title.

Biblical unitarians and others developed a belief that Jesus was just a man with no divine origins, not in the beginning being with God, and much of the bible was found to be allegorised rather than simple truth. Jesus was again not truly the Son of God.

I say prove your faith if you hold these views and show that God's declaration that Jesus is His Son is not true and we may come to accept these outrageous claims. This is a serious denial of an multiply stated easily established scriptural fact.

God is true though every man be proved a liar.

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is only a Son of God by title?
The Israelites are also called sons of God and of course they all are through Adam.
Even all men can claim to be true children of God according to Paul in Acts 17.28f

Is any other person or being given this description only as a title or is he the only one?

[NickHassan]

Hi,
I can understand how some might say that the words “the Son of God” might be a title. But is it not a little different when God Himself says Jesus IS His Son?

Lk 3.22
“…Thou art My beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased”
Mk 1 11
“…Thou art My beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased”
Matt 3.17
“…This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”
Matt 17.5
“…This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased;hear him”
Mk 9.7
“…This is My beloved Son, listen to Him”
2Peter 1.16
“For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were witnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God, the Father, such an utterance was made to him by the Majestic Glory

'This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased'

and we ourselves heard this utterance from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain”

Who will argue with God that Jesus is not His Son?

[malcolm ferris]

Nick
I think that many people get confused with the roles/offices and titles of Messiah.
The word Messiah from which we get Christ in the New Testament means to smear
or anoint with oil.
This anointing was performed on three offices in the OT: Prophets, Priests and Kings.
So that in the sense of the word Messiah, each of these could be called a messiah or annointed one.
We also see in the gospels that Jesus took three titles upon himself that begin with the words 'Son of'
Namely : Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David.
I believe these three titles correspond to the three offices of prophet, priest and king.

Now don't get me wrong – Jesus was definately God's son, no disputing that fact.
But as far as offices/roles and titles goes –
He was primarily active in the role of prophet during the earthly phase of his ministry.
He took upon himself the title of Son of Man for identification of this office.

ROMANS 1:3-4
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Paul here is saying that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with authority (Mt 28:18) how? by the resurrection from the dead.
It was upon the ressurection from the dead that his office of priest began – the sacrifice of a better covenant now having been offered, the covenant now having been ratified by the death of the testifier.

Anyway if anyone wants to read more on this idea you can do so here

The Roles and Titles of Messiah
Messiah – The Son of Man
Messiah – The Son of God
Messiah – The Son of David

This saves replicating a lot of material on this board.

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
Matt 28.18
” All authority has been given to me..”
So this is a statement about the authority given Jesus by the Father to be Lord.

The resurrection from the dead was used by Peter in Acts 2.22f to demonstrate that Jesus was the one David prophesied about, as to the fact that he was not to rot in the grave or be abandoned to Sheol as to his soul.

That is how Peter showed that God had declared Jesus to really have been, and to be the prophesied Messiah, by the fulfillment of prophetic scripture.

Acts 2.36
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ-this Jesus whom you crucified”
Romans 1.4 adds to the declaration about him being
“Jesus CHRIST, our LORD”
that it also declared Jesus to be
SON OF GOD “according to the spirit of holiness”
and
SON OF DAVID “according to the flesh”.

[malcolm ferris]

I don't dispute that what you say is also true. Peter tells us God has now made him both Lord and Christ. All authority was given to him, and he passes this onto the church through the ministry of the Holy Spirit – to what end? to continue and finish the ministry of reconciliation – a priesthood work.

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
see changes to previous post.

Amen. Christ entered through the torn veil of the temple [his body at death] as priest forever.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Lk 22. 67f
” 'If you are the Christ tell us'
But he said to them
'If I tell you you will not believe; and if I ask a question ,you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God'
And they all said
'Are you the Son of God then?'
And he said to them
'Yes, I am'”

So
He did not say he was the Messiah or the Christ.
He called Himself the Son of Man and
He said he IS..THE SON OF GOD

The Pharisees asked him this specific question as if claiming to be the Son of God was a hugely important statement equivalent even to being deserving of stoning for blasphemy, as in fact they had previously accused him of.

They had seen the scriptures about God having a Son in Ps 2 and Prov 30 etc.They asked this question despite the fact that they knew that he was apparently the natural son of Mary and Joseph.

Yet they did not laugh at his response so they knew that being THE Son of God was not of the natural earthly world, but was a statement of a claim of divine origins.

How can anyone, in the face of such a claim by he who is truth himself then say to him that being the son of God, and also being the son of Man and the son of David are only titles!!If being the son of God was only a title he who is truth would have said so.

[malcolm ferris]

Why would anyone want to think that anyway?

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
Some say he never really was the Son of God, it was only a title.
That is the position of trintarian believers as they say the Son never became separate from His Father but they are always and have always been, and remain forever, only one being.

Some say He is Son of God at his “conception”. They say he had no independant life before this moment. But they have to say Mary had no part in this and was only a surrogate mother so that he can claim purely divine origin. They must thus say he is not a son of Adam, David or Mary and they must declare these only to be titles.

I believe both of these positions to be false and he was truly a
Son of God,
Son of Man,
Son of Adam,
Son of David and
Son of Mary..

[Artizan007]

Hi Nick & Malcom,

Still trying to understand this whole concept. My thoughts have changed so drastically since being on this site that I have to completely relook at the scriptures and see what I do believe… I am enjoying it but at the same time the “what I used to believe”, “what Scriptures can be taught to say” and the “what I am beginning to believe” seem to war with each other and so I am throwing a few questions on your posts above. it is from a point of rethinking what I believe that I approach this post.

What does being pre-existent have to do with him being the Son of God, Son of Man, Son of Adam, Son of David, and Son of Mary… I believe he is all these things, but not that he is the Eternal Son.

If Jesus is pre-existent – you tell me how he was conceived in Mary, how could he be made in everyway like we are, and how do you see that he is “fully” human. No human pre-existed as another from, neither has any human pre-existed that created the form it is taking on – this surely cannot hold water? If Jesus was pre-existent, he was immortal, and then became mortal (is this possible? – where do we find this in scripture?) and somehow entered a body that could die in (ie: mortal). If so, then he really was not human as we are in any way at all, but a pre-existent being that put on the cloak of humanity. How was Mary his mother if he pre-existed? That would either make Mary a surrogate mother of God's action, or Jesus just an alien that used Mary's Womb? That sounds gnostic to me… a little like reincarnation… only that would mean Jesus first got a demotion in becoming a man, lived a perfect life and then recieved a promotion… to Lord and Christ.

Can you explain what is and how you see your view point on the above.
And how Jesus is this pre-existant god/Eternal Son i guess you would say.. You somehow believe he is a pre-existent Son… that he somehow forgot all he was at rebirth in the womb of Mary; he had to grow in favour with God and men, relearn information you say he created, discover who he was… etc and then later; he returned to a state he was before the world was? again that sounds like reincarnation to me.

Can you give me a single scripture to prove your position of “eternal sonship”. if not then are you not doing what the Trinitarians do to prove that Jesus is God. In fact they have a few scriptures to say that he is God, well “god” who has a God, but I cannot find a single scripture that states God had a Son from Eternity. Psalm 2 is not eternal, but prophecy, projected forward to the day of the Messiah. Dan 7 is a vision…

I believe Mary had a huge part to play in this process. I believe that it is possible that God did in Mary what he did to the dust in the ground – and why not. It was Ruach, not sperm that was breathed into the dust that formed Adam, and it was Holy Pneuma that came over Mary, the power of the Highest and Jesus was conceived. With God all things are possible. How this happened, or in what way it happened – all have to speculate for no further information is given: so how can you make a dogma out of this as the Church has done, is my question?

Matthew 1:16 says,

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

16 And Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband to be of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

16 And the son of Jacob was Joseph the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, whose name is Christ. [this one says Jesus was from Mary but it is not the best version] BBE Version

16 Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Christ. [how do they get this] ISV version

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

16 and Jacob of Joseph the husband of Mary, who was the mother of JESUS who is called CHRIST. [How is this so different]

16 and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ.

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

This is interesting, did not see this verse in this way till I looked it up to respond to your post. Depending on where you place a comma, or what way you interperet “born to Mary, or Mother of Jesus”, depends on how you see this verse…

Who was the son born to here, just interested to hear your view. The subject is Joseph, who is the Husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ.

What are your thoughts, i dont want to prove anything just see what your thoughts are on this verse?

[NickHassan]

Hi A7,
If I knew it all I would not be still searching the scriptures daily.
But my conclusions so far are that;
Jesus is
the Word who was with God and
the Son of God who was begotten in the beginning from God alone.
Since Jesus
was sent by God
and came in the flesh
partaking of our flesh
He existed in a divine form [Phil2]before all this happened or he could not be sent or come and partake of flesh. All those statements presume he had his own being first and have no meaning unless that is true..
He was likle to us.
Man is body soul and spirit.
So is Jesus, a son of Adam.

All beings have spirit because spirit gives life. Soul is the being. Certainly his soul vessel was a glorious one as gold is greater than earth [2Tim 2.20f] but it was still a vessel like ours. Only those with spiritual eyes, like John the baptist, could spot the difference.

Body, a normal human body, was all that had to be added to Jesus to make him one of us once he had shed his advantages over us when he was greater than the angels, and thus he became like us and less than them.

God does not share His glory with anyone.
Ps 148.13
” His glory is above heaven and earth.
Is 42.8
“I will not give my glory to another..”

When God begat a son, as shown in Ps 2. He did it alone and did not have to thank Mary or any other human for their assistance. Mary did assist in providing the human aspect of his nature as Son of Man, and the inheritance through David.

She married into her own tribe, that of David in Joseph, as was the expectation and her relationship with Elizabeth does not alter this fact. Like John in Elizabeth Jesus was CONCEIVED IN and BORN OF MARY so she was his real mother.

Yes Ps 2 is prophetic of the return of Jesus and the rebellion of the kings at the end of the millenium but Paul seemed to regard it as the most important scripture about Christ using it in several different ways.

Truth is truth. I cannot understand those who seem to try to get around the obvious meanings of scripture in defence of their own ideas.

[Artizan007]

Thanks for your post.

Nick I agree truth is truth, providing it is truth!

So said all the “greats” but what they thought as truth is not necessarily truth we later discovered but rather it was their interpretation of truth… and they died believing what they held was The Truth and even put others to death who did not believe in that truth… I am seeking truth and will keep seeking The Truth till the day I die. When that day is and how it shall happen is not up to me… but I will be happy to know that in all my ways I have sought God. I love God and believe in his Son, Jesus Christ but I cannot ignore the “reason” that God gave me… so I will keep asking questions your posts bring up in my mind and learning stuff your posts teach but hope my posts will make you think too.

If Jesus' SOUL vessel as you say is a glorious one, then he is not made like us in every way, maybe some ways but not every. He is different to us, he has an advantage over us yet Hebrews says he is like us in every way yet he did not sin. Do we have eternal souls? Is our soul immortal whilst our body is not… or are we mortal through and through awaiting for resurrection life to wake us up and give us immortality… What is the point of the resurrection if we are immortal souls already. If your soul is immortal then you are alive already and actually do not really die – you simply trade realities so to speak. We will receive immortality at the last days, so what is the big deal of the resurrection if we already have it. What is all the fuss about.

I still hold that if Jesus already existed then he was not born of Mary as you say. He was not conceived, Mary merely carried him. How can you conceive a pre-existent person – that seems wrong, has this ever happened in history? Does God break his own rules of engagement. If he was conceived then I ask you – how? And so I understand you right, what connected with Mary's seed to produce the human, mortal life of Jesus… was her seed even necessary. So in your opinion Nick, was Jesus planted in the womb of Mary as a pre-existent soul and that soul took on a flesh suit? or was it something different. What do you see happened when Jesus was conceived in Mary?

I ask the questions because something inside me does not sit right with what I hear taught on this subject… if Jesus is God like some say, then he cannot be like me in every way for we are only an image of God; God cannot become his own image. In the same way, if Jesus is from eternity as the pre-existent Word and then as you say He also created us, then he cannot be like us in every way for none of us pre-existed – and to say that the one who created me became like those he created sounds pagan, but I am still learning.

You say he was concieved of God alone, where does it state that? please show me. It does state however, that Jesus became a son when he was conceived in Mary… by the power of Holy Pneuma.

Be blessed and keep seeking.

[NickHassan]

Hi A7,
We are all vessels but not all vessels are the same [2Tim2]
The Son was “begotten ” of God alone , not “conceived” of God alone.
The Son came in the flesh, partook of flesh.
He was conceived in Mary. and had a weak perishable body.
That made him like unto us in every way in the eyes of God and according to scripture.
The body is mortal. The soul , which can be destroyed later in the lake of fire, sleeps.
The resurrection of the dead is the waking of the soul and the resurrection of the body, perishable or in our case the new imperishable body.

[Author]

Posts