The Son of God

[alyoshka]

Nickfdr:

Why did Jesus die on the cross? Because the Jews wanted him dead… He pissed off the religious authorities of his day with his heretical teachings.

His death wasn’t part of some grand scheme to redeem the sins of humanity. It was simply an injustice, pure and simple.

It’s not Jesus’ death that matters most but Jesus’ life.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

@TheStumps

@WW_III_ANGRY

Son of God makes more sense than Son of Man… explain that one.

There’s a few meanings and they are unfortunately inferred meanings because of the languages used in writing the texts.

The first meaning: Of the lineage of man; not of sole divinity inherent.

The second meaning: From the line of Adam; man (Adam and Man are the same word in Hebrew, so it’s a little mixed in meaning).

The third meaning: as a term of humility when referring to one self as a member of humanity.
Something like, “I am but a man, as you”.

The fourth meaning:
Jesus is referred to both commonly as he is like Greek Hero’s, part God and part Man.

In the terms where it directly relates to Jesus in a divinity concept, it is a meaning (even in the old testament) that refers to the Song of God as Man; or said otherwise; Your Son in Man’s Form; or in short, Son of Man.

Well thank you but that doesn’t correlate to me how o.t. prophets get to call themselves that, of course they were men why make it obvious? However, Jesus was not to be a son of a man, which suddenly the mean changes for him? I don’t get it… yes he was a man, but not a son of a man.

[Jayson]

@WW_III_ANGRY

Well thank you but that doesn’t correlate to me how o.t. prophets get to call themselves that, of course they were men why make it obvious?

This is the “I am but a man” concept as mentioned before, and it is important as they are constantly reminding people that they are Mashiach (Messiah, meaning prophet in their use), but not the Mashiach Moshia’ (or Hamoshia’), or rather, they are stating that they are not the Savior Prophet.
This is important to the Hebrew, as the last Moshia’ of any form was Moses (Mosheh), who’s name was literal of Masha, meanding similarly, to draw out, or save.

Considering the reverence for such a second savior, the liberating savior, Prophets always made their attempt to announce that they were indeed not of this claim; that they were merely a regular man, called to offer warnings and prophecies.

However, Jesus was not to be a son of a man, which suddenly the mean changes for him? I don’t get it… yes he was a man, but not a son of a man.

He was a son of man in the sense that he had a man’s birth.

He is a man.

Specifically, he was both a Son of Man and a Son of God.
This means that he would answer to both when asked.

Most commonly, when referred to as the Son of Man he was referred to as HaAdam Harishon (the first Adam), and sometimes HaAdam Ha’acharon (the last Adam) referring to the first and the last sacrifice, as the fall of Adam was considered the original sacrifice to becoming truly man, and it was to be the Mashiach Moshia’ that was to be the last sacrifice of man to reconcile man with God.
To right Israel once again and liberate them back to their just place as God’s righteous people.

So when Jesus shows up talking about metaphysical kingdoms…well, that’s when heresy starts being discussed.

Aside from these, Jesus is also called:
Son of the Living God
Ben Elohim Chayim

Son of David
Ben David

Son of Abraham
Ben Avraham

Son of the Father
Ben Ha’Av

Son of the Highest
Ben Elyon

Each with their own list of relations to the Hebrew prophet and law culture.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

@TheStumps

@WW_III_ANGRY

Well thank you but that doesn’t correlate to me how o.t. prophets get to call themselves that, of course they were men why make it obvious?

This is the “I am but a man” concept as mentioned before, and it is important as they are constantly reminding people that they are Mashiach (Messiah, meaning prophet in their use), but not the Mashiach Moshia’ (or Hamoshia’), or rather, they are stating that they are not the Savior Prophet.
This is important to the Hebrew, as the last Moshia’ of any form was Moses (Mosheh), who’s name was literal of Masha, meanding similarly, to draw out, or save.

Considering the reverence for such a second savior, the liberating savior, Prophets always made their attempt to announce that they were indeed not of this claim; that they were merely a regular man, called to offer warnings and prophecies.

However, Jesus was not to be a son of a man, which suddenly the mean changes for him? I don’t get it… yes he was a man, but not a son of a man.

He was a son of man in the sense that he had a man’s birth.

He is a man.

Specifically, he was both a Son of Man and a Son of God.
This means that he would answer to both when asked.

Most commonly, when referred to as the Son of Man he was referred to as HaAdam Harishon (the first Adam), and sometimes HaAdam Ha’acharon (the last Adam) referring to the first and the last sacrifice, as the fall of Adam was considered the original sacrifice to becoming truly man, and it was to be the Mashiach Moshia’ that was to be the last sacrifice of man to reconcile man with God.
To right Israel once again and liberate them back to their just place as God’s righteous people.

So when Jesus shows up talking about metaphysical kingdoms…well, that’s when heresy starts being discussed.

Aside from these, Jesus is also called:
Son of the Living God
Ben Elohim Chayim

Son of David
Ben David

Son of Abraham
Ben Avraham

Son of the Father
Ben Ha’Av

Son of the Highest
Ben Elyon

Each with their own list of relations to the Hebrew prophet and law culture.

Ok I’ll accept it for what it is I guess. Thanks,

[felix_dakat]

@anon

What does the son of God mean? Is it somehow literal? Is it just an expression, like “the mother of all x’s”?

For that matter, what does it mean that Jesus died on the cross for my sins?

I don’t mean to be rude (though I’m not interested in converting to Christianity either) - I just wonder about these things from time to time. They don’t make any sense to me. They’re nonsensical.

I brought up that “son of God” question to a Mormon acquaintance once, thinking it would be a fun to tease him a little bit and point out how unquestioning people are about their beliefs (hubris on my part, I know - I think I had had some wine) and was astonished that he had actually thought about this, as had others in his circle, and that there were vague theories floating about concerning Jesus’ mother - God’s wife (not Mary). I dropped the conversation at that point.

I have no fundamental problem with nonsensical things by the way. I’m just curious how people present these things to people who ask about them, as I am asking now.

To me, the expression “Son of God” as applied to Jesus of Nazareth, means that he had a uniquely vital, intimate, loving, trusting, quasi-personal relationship with ultimate reality.