Jesus The Son Of GOD ?

[Capricio]

Is Jesus the Son of God?
(please read, think and then, post your opinion about this article)


Matthew 3:17 could be used by some Christians to support the divine Sonship of Jesus. If Matthew 3:17, "And Lo a voice for heaven, saying, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," is used to support divine Sonship, then there should be no other verse that contradicts or gives equal divine Sonship to another person or persons in the Old or New Testament. However, many references were found in the Old and New Testaments that mentioned someone other than Jesus as having a divine Sonship to God. See Exodus 4:22:

"Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.

The word "Son" must not be accepted literally because God addresses many of his chosen servants as son and sons. The Jews have also claimed Ezra to be the Son of God. The New Testament Greek words used for "son" (pias and paida, which mean servant or son in the sense of servant) are translated as son in reference to Jesus and as servant in reference to others in some translations of the Bible.

Further, the term "Father" as used by Jesus corresponds more closely to the term Rabb, i.e. One who nourishes and sustains, so that in Jesus’ doctrine, God is "Father" – Nourisher and Sustainer – of all men. The New Testament also interprets "son of God" to be mystical: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14). This mystical suggestion is further supported with Jesus being called the only begotten Son of God.

In Psalm 2:7, the Lord said to David:

"...Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee."

Does this mean that God had two sons? Jesus also said that God is not only his Father but also your Father (Matthew 5:45, 48). Luke 3:38 says:

"...Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God."

Who is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3 as like unto the Son of God? It is Melchisedec, King of Salem, as mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. He (Melchisedec) is more unique than Jesus or Adam. Why is he not preferred to be the Son of God? Moreover, Adam did not have a mother or father, but was the first human being created by God and in the likeness of God to exist in the Garden of Eden and on earth. Wouldn’t this give more rights to Adam to be called the Son of God in its truest meaning?

I would like to share with you an obvious contradiction between John 3:16, Luke 10:25-28 and Matthew 19:16-17. John 3:16 reads:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten, Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Now let’s read Luke 10:25-28:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, what is written in the law? How readest Thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and Thou shalt live.

These verses tell us that the inheritance of eternal life is for anyone who believes and worships no other God, but the One True God. Luke 10:25-28 agrees with Matthew 19:16-17 which says;

"And behold, one came and said to him (Jesus), Good teacher, what good things shall I do that I may have eternal life? So he (Jesus) said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? – No one is good but One that is, God. But if you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments."

There is no commandment that says to worship Jesus, but there that tells us to worship God alone.

In Luke 4:41, Jesus refused to be called the Son of God by demons. Do you think that Jesus would rebuke the demons, or anyone else for that matter, for telling the truth? Unquestionably, no! Jesus rebuked the demons because they were saying something false by calling him the Son of God. Also, if the demons knew that Jesus was the Christ, for Jesus to shut them up because they called him the Christ is a contradiction to Jesus’ mission.

In Luke 9:20 & 21, Jesus said unto his disciples:

"But who say ye that I am? Peter answered saying, "The Christ of God, and Jesus straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man that thing."

Furthermore, verses like John 3:2, John 6:14, John 7:40, Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16 and 24:19 confirm that Jesus accepted the title of teacher, Prophet and called himself the son of man in Matthew 8:20, 12:40, 17:9 & 12, 26:24, Luke 9:26, 22:48, 22:69, and 24:7. The most conclusive verse that says Jesus is the son (servant) of man is Mark 14:26 where Jesus is mentioning the Day of Reckoning. Jesus specifically said we would see the son of man, not the Son of God, sitting in the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The act of begetting is a physical act and such act is against God’s nature. The Qur’an 19:35 says:


"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is." (Maryam 19:35)


The teachings of Jesus as the Son of God were not preached by Jesus nor accepted by Jesus, but were taught by Paul as supported in Acts 9:20:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."

Did Jesus ever claim to be God or say, "Here am I, your God, worship me"? The answer is no. For there is no single, unequivocal statement in the Bible whereby Jesus himself declares, "I am God, therefore worship me." Virtually all of the more than two thousand verses of the epistles of Paul are his own fabrications to include Romans 9:5 that says, depending upon which Bible you read:

"...Christ came, who is overall, the eternally blessed God."

Christians should know that Paul himself mentions his own gospel, not Jesus, in his epistle to the Romans when he says in Romans 2:16:

"In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

In face, the Pauline epistle to the Romans serves as the foundation of today’s Christianity. Thus, it is the Christians whose efforts will be wasted in this life as they think they were acquiring good by their works when they attribute partners to God, as stated in Chapter 18:103-106 of the Qur’an:


"Say: Shall we tell you of those who lost most in respect of their deeds? Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?" they are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of judgment, give them any weight. That is their reward, Hell; because they rejected Faith, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest.
(Al-Kahf 18:103-106)

Indeed, it is so strange and ironic, knowing that none of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, more than 430 verses, were ever formulated by Jesus. Paul should have made direct reference to the pristine teachings of Jesus, if only the former claim for apostleship by divine inspiration was indeed true. Instead, large parts of his epistles’ Biblical quotations (notably those in the Epistle to the Romans) were taken from the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Hosea. His epistles were, indeed a product of tedious efforts, but that does not make Paul far better than any of the other men who authored the Bible, nor does it make him a Prophet.

Other practices that were adopted under Paul included the following: the Roman sun-day as the Christian Sabbath; the traditional birthday of the Sun-god as the birthday of Jesus; the emblem of the sun-god (the cross of light) to be the emblem of Christians; and, the incorporation of all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sun-god’s birthday celebrations.

As I come to a close concerning the position of Christ, I would like to ask my Christian reader bow down and pray earnestly to God and ask Him to invoke His curse on you, your wife, your sons, and your daughters if what you believe about Christ (Christ is God, Son of God or part of a trinity of God) are false. Likewise, I have learned that if you asked a Muslim to earnestly pray to God to invoke His curse on him, his wife, his sons, and his daughters if what he is saying about Christ (Prophet, Messenger of God, A Word from God) are false, the Muslims are firm in their faith knowing that Christ is not God, nor the Son of God and nor part of a trinity of God. This exercise of asking God to invoke His curse on you and your family may sound a bit cruel, but it would prove two points: (1) you would know that you are on the wrong path; and, (2) it would put you on the right path.


take care for now..

[Babs]

have you ever taken a philosophy class, your scholarship here is very impressive but you will not elicit much from these boards in terms of unbiased rational points of view. I am sure that people are just going to offer you some totally unfounded theological points that they think make these contradictions irrelevant.

[Babs]

you actually want to look at some unitarian theology and philosophy. This is the Christian sect that believes that God really is only one and not three and that Jesus is just a man that representerd God. (sort of like Mohammed)

[LucyFurr]

interesting. Thats one thing that i feel is annoying about many christians - they take a passage (sometimes out of context) and take it literally. I think the bible is full of metaphors, used to help explain things to a people of a different time. They translate these things word for word, and follow strict rules that were there for a good reason at the time but have become outdated or irrelavant. something that comes to mind right away is like how the jews dont eat pork. at the time health standards were not what they are today and you would get trichinosis (roundworms found in uncooked pork), whereas now pork is totally safe to eat. While I certainly am not christian, I do believe jesus was a real person, probably a disciple/prophet type person that did a lot of good deeds at the time. To say he is the son of god though, what a bunch of baloney. IMHO people believing in things literally such as "immaculate conception", "son of god", "eve was made from a rib bone", etc etc just discredit the whole thing to me, i think they are all just metaphors used as teaching aids to a groupl of people in more simple times.

[LucyFurr]

also somewhat unrelated but why is it if god talks to you, you are schizophrenic, but if you talk to god thats totally ok?

[Jud]

Man,the bible is so out of date.

[muscleboy69]

Originally posted by Jud
Man,the bible is so out of date.

well the old testament is.

[kcck]

Originally posted by LucyFurr
also somewhat unrelated but why is it if god talks to you, you are schizophrenic, but if you talk to god thats totally ok?

i believe god talks to us

[Jcfreak_02]

Boy, do I got my work cut out for me.

[LucyFurr]

im saying considering society at large, if you go around telling folks you hear god talking to you, the psychiatrist will have you on meds damn quick. on the flip side, if you talk to god (even out loud in public) thats totally socially acceptable.

Originally posted by kcck
i believe god talks to us

[Jcfreak_02]

Here it goes
The reference of Mattew is literal Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and this part is the transfiguration, when God the Father confirms Jesus's claims.
Isreal being called God's first born refers to the Isreal nation being God's chosen people. I haven't read the original greek but those scholars in my church that have explained this to me. The greek and Hebrew used is different when Jesus says "Son" to the other times throughout the Bible. Remeber the language barrier.

The reference of Psalms, remeber psalms is a book of prophecy, when he was speaking about the Messiah (whom I believe to be Jesus Christ).

Technically speaking it refers to Adam as the son of God because God made him, the genelogies said "such and such, son of ____" they said God so that we would know it was the first Adam.

The reference to Melchisedec, is a man who was a King and a priest, the refernce to Melchisedec was to show that Jesus was greater than this man. It was paralleling the two so people could understand that Jesus was a real King and greater than a high preist also.

Don't worship Jesus was a rehtorical(sp?) question, Worship God alone, so if you worship Jesus, then he is also God.

Hushing the demons was so that people could see for themselves that he was the Messiah, for demons to simply come out and say he is it was not the plan of God. People had to realize it for themselves.

I am not going to go there with Islam right now. In short Muslim culture believes that a son's sole purpose is to help the father, to say that God then needs a son is to also say that God needs help. What kind of God needs help, that is why Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet but not the Son of God.

Jesus's job was not to be worshiped, it was to redeem the sinners. Jesus points people to worhsip God the Father.

Once again not going there with Islam, good works are thoroghly discussed in James.

I hope this clears up some. You need to remeber the culture and the translation differences in the Bible. Instead of looking for errors, look for understanding of what was written and then try to find error in the message.

[Al_Bundy]

Firstly, when Joan of Arc spoke to God, she got her ass kicked. He spoke to Jesus, he was crucified. He spoke to Noah, he nearly drowned. Anyone notice a pattern developing here....?

Second of all, notice the irony of the Adam and Eve story? Adam was created, he boned thin air via his rib, and created was Eve. They gave birth to two sons. Without participaing in incestuous activities, how in the hell did the worlds population grow to over 6 billion in three thousand years or however long ago Adam shagged the air? My theory is that they f*cked monkeys, all of em - those monkeys bred with other monkeys, and eventually those monkeys developed into the people we are today - that explains why some people still look and act like apes.

Thirdly, Jesus is the son of God. He claims to be on South Park, and thats good enough for me.

[JonZ]

Jesus was a prophet, not God himself and anyone who worships JESUS AS GOD is breaking the first commandment.

Of course Christians will say "If Jesus is God, we're not breaking the first commandment". Its their way to justifying it. They also worship Mary is a diety.

The Catholic religion has been so twisted by the church in the past 2000 years (for instance Jesus had hinted to Reincarnation - which has been dropped by Christianity).


BTW, Im not religious but have done alot of reading on lots of different religions.

[irpker]

Originally posted by Al_Bundy
Firstly, when Joan of Arc spoke to God, she got her ass kicked.

hu hu? She led the French to victory over the English^^

[kcck]

Well, Adam and Eve got the population up to 6 billion quite easily, actually. In the pre flood world, and the world shortly after the flood, people lived for much longer tjan modern people do. adam in fact, if im not msitaken, lived ot be 952. Plenty of time ot have children. I read that Jewish tradition teaches that Adam and eve had like 56 kids. And, they had kids, and so and so and so on. Then, after the flood, people continued to live longer than modern people, butn ot nearly asl ong as in the pre-flood world. With longer life expenctancies, and a helathier population (a whole other side of the story) the population grew rapidly.

[bigliftsCNU]

Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
Here it goes
The reference of Mattew is literal Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and this part is the transfiguration, when God the Father confirms Jesus's claims.
Isreal being called God's first born refers to the Isreal nation being God's chosen people. I haven't read the original greek but those scholars in my church that have explained this to me. The greek and Hebrew used is different when Jesus says "Son" to the other times throughout the Bible. Remeber the language barrier.

The reference of Psalms, remeber psalms is a book of prophecy, when he was speaking about the Messiah (whom I believe to be Jesus Christ).

Technically speaking it refers to Adam as the son of God because God made him, the genelogies said "such and such, son of ____" they said God so that we would know it was the first Adam.

The reference to Melchisedec, is a man who was a King and a priest, the refernce to Melchisedec was to show that Jesus was greater than this man. It was paralleling the two so people could understand that Jesus was a real King and greater than a high preist also.

Don't worship Jesus was a rehtorical(sp?) question, Worship God alone, so if you worship Jesus, then he is also God.

Hushing the demons was so that people could see for themselves that he was the Messiah, for demons to simply come out and say he is it was not the plan of God. People had to realize it for themselves.

I am not going to go there with Islam right now. In short Muslim culture believes that a son's sole purpose is to help the father, to say that God then needs a son is to also say that God needs help. What kind of God needs help, that is why Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet but not the Son of God.

Jesus's job was not to be worshiped, it was to redeem the sinners. Jesus points people to worhsip God the Father.

Once again not going there with Islam, good works are thoroghly discussed in James.

I hope this clears up some. You need to remeber the culture and the translation differences in the Bible. Instead of looking for errors, look for understanding of what was written and then try to find error in the message.

bump good post!

[WrestlinAngel]

The reference of Israel being the first-born son is a metaphor of the blessings a father would usually bestow on his first born son, like the inhertitance of his family's.


JC Freak:
The point in Psalms is mistranslated hebrew. The line that speaks of "pierced hands and feet" that I believe you are refering to is a mistranslation by the church of the hebrew word ka-ari' which does not mean pierce (that would be dakar), but is making a reference to a lion. The line should read "Like a lion they gnaw at my hands and feet." No reference there...and the line in Psalms 110 is also twisted slightly, it should be "The L-RD said to my master" not to my Lord. Again, no reference.


The entire New Testament is full of contradictions. Matthew, Mark, and Luke place the Last Supper on Pesach (or, in English, Passover), but John has the "Last Supper" the day before...placing the day he died on a completely different day...he cant have been crucified on two days, could he? The entire dinner is different in each version as well...

The four first books, which are actually little gospels of riverside churches (others were written as well, wonder why the others werent important enough to be kept in) conflict with one another. First you have angels being at the tombs telling that Jesus has a risen and will meet them at Galilee, another books says that Mary think his body has been stolen...and go searching for someone who knows what happened...conflicts again...not translation conflicts nor culture, but information conflicts

Also, you have a small glitch in the fact that the prophecy didnt come true...If Jesus were the Messiah, he would have been descended of David. According to Jewish Law, one's lineage comes through one's father...and Jesus - according to Xtians - had no Hebrew father to trace to David...and if you trace Mary's line...you come no where close. A small problem...

Also, the prophecy that the laws of sacrifice would return after being destroyed did not come true, as they had yet to be fully destroyed in Jesus's time and would not be for another 30 or so years with the destruction of the second Temple. One also must remember that according to Jewish law, there are 3 ways to be saved from one's sins - repentence, charity, and the sin/blood offering, and the sin/blood offering could only be done for sins done unpurposefully. Blood was also not needed for the sin offering, as the poor could not have gotten that, so many fruits were used as an offering as well - which is why the first fruits of the land were given in sacrifice in the fall festival which in English translates to "Festival of First Fruits" I believe. Blood, according to Jewish text, is completely unneeded to atone for sins - and is the least desireable. As Hosea states "We shall make sacrfices of bulls upon our lips." showing that the "sin sacrifice" shall be done with repentence after the destruction of the sacrifice system. It also states in jewish law doing mitvahs, or good deeds/obeying the 613 commandments would also atone for sins (yes, there are 613 - not 10...the 10 are kinda like catagories). Also, it is forbidden in Jewish law for someone to take the sins of another (a father can not atone for his son's sins), nor for a person to pray through a person...a mediator between the people and the Creator is not only repeatedly stated as unneeded, but it is forbidden.

With all these contradictions between Jewish law and Xtian beliefs, its no wonder the Catholic church and to change and "retranslate" so many lines of the "old testament". Most of Psalms was changed...and an Isaiah the hebrew word for "young woman" ha'almah is translated to mean virgin...not only wrong but also a deciving lie to try to use "old testament proof" to support Xtian claims...when all they do is contradict them.

So, I guess you guys can figure out my answer from here...it's amazing how similar the "virgin birth" comes to many pagan tales (seeing as most Xtian traditions come from pagan ones), and how so many other religions have virgin births...such as Buddism (Gautam - Buddha - is said to have been born of a virgin), as well as many Hindu creations...

The language barrier may be hard for most to come by, but glaring errors and mistranslations by the Church make the language barrier even harder for people who don't have the time to find the meaning behind the words or to fully read through scripture. I had a minister for a grandfather, as well as two cousins, so at a young age I was pushed head first into the Xtian church...but I have a tendancy to study things completely, which is how I came to the knowledge of what I gave you above.

Laters all, and good luck figuring the whole religion thing out

[Jcfreak_02]

Originally posted by JonZ
Jesus was a prophet, not God himself and anyone who worships JESUS AS GOD is breaking the first commandment.

Of course Christians will say "If Jesus is God, we're not breaking the first commandment". Its their way to justifying it. They also worship Mary is a diety.

The Catholic religion has been so twisted by the church in the past 2000 years (for instance Jesus had hinted to Reincarnation - which has been dropped by Christianity).


BTW, Im not religious but have done alot of reading on lots of different religions.

Some Catholics worship Mary, but Christians do not deify Mary. I don't pray to saints either. Jesus proved himself to be God. It is not "if Jesus is the Son of God, therefore we're not breaking the Ten Commandments" it is "Jesus is the Son of God, he invalidated the Ten Commandments with himself, the new covenant."

[Jcfreak_02]

Good work Angel, there are somethings I can share my insight on and some things I was unaware of so far. The four gospels have different stories and different versions of the same story because four different guys wrote them, they focused on different aspects of the same time period.
Joseph, was in the lineage of David. The Genelogy of Jesus is listed in Matthew 1.
Something the Jews missed about the Jewish law is that there are so many laws to abide by that it is impossible. They must look forward to the Messiah (Jesus) for forgiveness. Then when Jesus came people were to look to him as the Messiah for forgiveness of sins. Now, we look back to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. To get to heaven by our own accord (being perfect) is impossible, that is why we need forgiveness from Jesus.
The contradictions are minor and grammatical that I know of. Unless the Catholic church changed the origional scriptures the versions are as complete as English to Greek and Hebrew allows.
THe virgin birth was necessary for Jesus so that he does not have the sin nature from his father (Joseph), the seed from his Father (notice the change in caps) was sinnless, that is how it was possible for Jesus to be perfect.

[Babs]

or perhaps all the contradictory paages are just what theologians have interepreted as metaphor to hide the contradictions. Unless you can prove which are literal and which are not, and you just rely on traditionally held theological tyalk about it to cover up the contradictions, then you have no case. just imagine we philosophers defending our bad arguments by saying certain contradictory premises are just metaphors that don't really mean what they obviously seem to mean(and don't say you know that they are metaphors, all you have is the tradition view that they are metaphors, not proof that there were certian passages that were truthfully intended by the writers as metaphors and certain one's that wewre intended to be literal. ) The idea that certain contradictory passages are metahors is only a possibly true interpretation and if you do not accept that you are being dogmatic and not worth arguing with.

[Babs]

sorry the tone was harsh there no offense meant.Peace

[Babs]

as for original sin idea, babies are not born with sin, evil is a matter of nature and nurture.

[Babs]

and that is a hypothesis, not something I dogmatically say is true.

[Jcfreak_02]

Originally posted by Babs
as for original sin idea, babies are not born with sin, evil is a matter of nature and nurture.

Not according to Christian beliefs

[Babs]

did I not say that it was theory jc, peace brotha!

[Jcfreak_02]

oh, my bad

[Babs]

and to clarify whatr i said vaguely(sorry) i said evil is a matter of nature and nurture i was not saying directly that sin is a matter of nature and nurture. But since the idea of sin is based on the existence of evil, to show that evil is also a matter of nurture would show that human beings are MADE capable of doing evil and sinning, not BORN capable.(for instance an unnurtured, wild child without a family or outside society who kills, kills by nature like an animal would) A child unurtured by human parents would not fully be a human since being part of a family and society is integral to what it means to be a human. We are not what we are only naturally but through nurture also.

[Red Oktober]

LMFAO! You people are so stupid.

Jesus was the first CLONED baby! Didn't he say,"The Father and I are ONE" ? "If you have seen the me, you have seen the Father"? That also explains why his mother Mary was a virgin! Artificially implanted cloned embryo. Perfect explaination. Time to call up the Nobel prize committee! LMFAO!!

[Positive K]

god....

[seanconnery]

I have something to contribute!