The Son of God

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.

What sort of language would you consider to be “sensical?”

Some of the logical positivists (like A.J. Ayer) claimed that any word referencing something that cannot be empirically verified is “nonsensical” and incoherent. Would you agree with them?

I guess what I’m trying to figure out, is…are you critiquing your conception of the content of the words, or are you critiquing the words themselves?

I suspect the former, and if so, I can quickly point out that Christians have for years had systematic and consistent answers to such questions.

I could point you towards the Council of Chalcedon and the surrounding controversy.

Nonsensical to me, as in meaningless. I’m just being honest in saying that.

As I said, my interest is “how people present these things to people who ask about them”.

Do you avoid the question? Present it in terms of myth and allegory? As literal truth? It’s a friendly question, even if I use honest words like “nonsensical”.

Anon,

You better believe it, some religious people do think about their religion! My thoughts on Jesus being the son of God have led me to this:

God shows us a way of life. Jesus follows this way of life and in doing so becomes an image of God.

Jesus is an image of God just like the son is an image of the father. Jesus follows God just as the son follows the father.

It’s a case of ‘monkey see, monkey do’. Or if you’re a psychologist, it’s the maxim behind the idea that ‘abused children are more likely to abuse’…

The promise of the Bible is that God sets a good example, an example we would be wise to follow…

Regarding Jesus dying for our sins: I’m with you on that. Total nonsense. But in my opinion it’s also inconsistent with Christianity (pace most who call themselves Christian).

Thanks Alyoshka. I just wrote a full paragraph of questions before I realized I really do understand what you’re saying.

It seems like there’s so many ways that kind of relationship between God-Jesus could be stated though. Why do you think it was stated as a father-son relationship, rather than in some other way - say master-servant or king-subject (or even relationships with a different meaning)?

Actually, those relationships might also be stated in the Bible? Are there multiple analogies found there? If so, do you know if biblical literalists take one of them to be literal and the others analogous?

Oh brother…

Aly…How do you know Jesus was conforming to God?

To Anon,

“Son of” often meant “from” or, “representative of…” or “subservient to”. Thus when the Jews heard Jesus talk as if He were directly from, and representative of, God…they were a bit upset and called Him a blasphemer.

Also, even if the Christian was forced into applying a 20th century meaning to the term “Son of God” it would be easy enough to demonstrate the Christ (as the second member of the ontological trinnity) has ontological unity with God the father but is subject to Him economically. In that sense Christ is the economical “second” of God the father.

“Representative of” makes sense to me. Did Jesus use the quote to say that he was the specially appointed representative - i.e. other men are not representative? Is it an either/or situation? A more or less situation?

Is there a 20th century meaning to “Son of God”?

What do you mean by economical?

Anon:

I think it was stated as father-son relationship because, well, the point of religion is to spread and this makes the idea relatable to all members of society. Everyone can understand because everyone has witnessed real life manifestations of this idea, especially in the ancient world, where sons were expected to follow their father. If the father was a carpenter, the son became a carpenter. if the father was a king, the son became a king… People also saw different cultures pass on to their sons the traits of the fathers, just as they saw the same happen - although they were different traits - in their own culture.

Ultimately I think it was just a very relatable idea. It’s unfortunate there’s this tendency to turn Scripture into historical-ontological fact, so that there is a super being out there called God who literally fathered Jesus by literally impregnating a human woman. I think this more original intention gets lost as a result…

I’m not sure if there’s another metaphor in use in Scripture to represent this… I don’t think master-slave usages in Scripture have the same point… A slave doesn’t “follow” the master like a son follows the father, but rather a slave serves the master… The way of life of the slave is completely different from the master: the slave works while the master rests. Father-son is when the ways of life are the same… IMO.

Shotgun:

How do I know Jesus followed God’s way? Why, from Scripture of course!

God reveals God’s way in Genesis 1, which depicts the divine action. Linking this up with the story where Abraham serves the three strangers further shows us that God’s way is to serve those who come God’s way like a hospitable host, even if those who come are complete strangers. This is precisely what we see again in the Gospels, where Jesus’ life is portrayed through countless scenes where he serves those he meets, even the dregs of society (strangers, lepers, Gentiles, etc), just as God does.

Do you need further demonstration? God’s way is love, and Jesus lived a life of love. The father-son metaphor is meant to express precisely this: that Jesus followed God’s way.

BTW you’ve yet to show me why I’m not Christian. I agree I’m not Christian in the common sense of the term, but I would hold that those who fit the common sense of the term are the ones who aren’t in fact Christian…

Folks, let’s keep this on topic to the original point that anon is actually interested in.

He didn’t start this thread to debate which view of the Son of God is correct.

I would advise, cordially, that if you wish to debate the nature of the Son of God that you open up a thread for doing just that.

For “The Son of God” thread by anon, this thread, I would suggest sticking to answering the questions posed:

Present explanations of how these concepts are presented and explained as per either yourself or a given theology, or other explanations that you may have witnessed in your life that you think anon may find interesting.

If anon asks more about one of the vantage points that you bring up, answer it as best as you can.

If it doesn’t make sense to anon, and it cannot be reconciled with anon to make sense of a given vantage point that you have posted about, then let it be unreconciled.

anon did not request to be converted into a mindset; he simply requested to be explained methods of presentation regarding a concept of Christianity.

If it doesn’t make sense, then it doesn’t make sense.

If you aren’t anon and you are debating with someone else that is also not anon about the Son of God, then it would benefit the thread if you would open another thread, as suggested earlier.

HOW I HAVE EXPLAINED THESE ARTICLES IN MY LIFE

Earliest
Son of God:
God was literally a creation of God, like Adam, through Mary and born a demigod; God in man’s body.
Jesus was a part of God extended out into man; similar to some Greek Hero’s.
However, Jesus was both divine and fallible by choice; contradictorily at the same time (temptation of Christ, as an example).
Jesus, being born in part of God and of Eve (meaning, from the lineage of Eve [woman] via Mary), Jesus was brought into the world through what was established as Eve’s penance for the sin of the Garden of Eden, which was Eve’s atonement.
Through this birth; Mary atone’s for all man in suffering the bearing of the purest Lamb for sacrifice.

Middle explanation (part of my middle life where I was more loose with theology):
Jesus was a song of God, just as we all are, but was the principle son that mattered the most as he was pointing out the very concept of being a son of God vs. being a chosen people as the Israelites had thought of themselves for so long.
To say, “son of” in the Hebrew is a very clear message as sons were known by the reputation of their Fathers, and treated likewise as the Father was viewed in the community.

To declare oneself as a son of God was to state that one’s Father was God and that the reputation of God is the reputation that should be considered for that which claims to be the son of God.

Jesus did not stop there, but continued on to announce that all were sons of God; this is the nature of his provocative movement in that liberation from being pompous with the idea of being a chosen and select group of people that did not need to be reputed other than being chosen by God.
Instead, people were now being urged by Jesus to consider themselves as direct reputations of God; that as God is, so are they in view.

Just as a child who strays from the good reputation of his Father would shock a member of a community and cause scolding immediately, so to was the suggestion carried over that if a son of God is acting out of the reputation of their Father, that it should not be allowed for the Father’s reputation to be destroyed by such a person, and is indeed cited several times as a primary motivation for God to ignore some people that attempt to claim God as their Father.

Now:
As well as the previous two descriptions, I also have added on the concept that Jesus is the oldest Son of God, though we are all the sons of God, and that Jesus was spiritually alive before manifesting onto Earth; just as we all do the same and for the same reason; to grow through tests that allow us the agency of Choice, just as Jesus had.

This worked out fantastic when I found out the LDS shared the same ideas and hence partly why I’m LDS now.

Jesus died on the cross for my sins:
This one is always simple in my mind.

Jesus died because God constantly shows a need for a blood sacrifice.
The Hebrews were constantly sacrificing their purest stock, and Jesus was the purest stock that the Hebrews (and arguably mankind) had to offer.
Jesus seemed well aware of this, and even shows us that it was needed as if it wasn’t needed, he simply requested God to not force it. Unfortunately, blood sacrifice is apparently a requirement for atonement and forgiveness on a divine level.

This is similar to, in LDS, Joseph Smith, who had premonition that he was going to die, and even asked God for another method, but God explained that such was needed; that the promises and instructions passed through Joseph Smith were to be sealed with blood.

This is a common theme in the Bible, and Jesus’ point was to shed Blood for sin specifically.

This isn’t a difficult concept of any kind, other than it is a blood sacrifice, but it is one that is from that which is near to God and more valued to God; a part of God.
This makes the entire act mean that God, in part, felt the pain directly of the agony of sin when man has to face his own guilt, and in so doing allows God to let Jesus act on behalf of man in the idea of atonement.
That Jesus is the primary defender of man’s forgiveness; that he will, and has, gone to the fullest lengths to defend just so.
On the other side is the prosecutor; Satan, with all of the evidence ready for how man has neglected to choose God time and time again.
In the middle of this, is God; the judge of the evidence.

To this end, Satan had to suffer being cast out of God’s presence to become the prosecutor, and Jesus had to endure pain and suffering as a man tortured and killed.

God had to lose his two favored sons; Jesus, and Satan to allow his angels the ability to become man and to have free agency to choose God on their own.

That’s how I look at it.

No. It’s not actually. It was necessary, perhaps, pre-Jesus, but Jesus’ ministry starts a revolution against this thinking.

For Jesus, sacrifice (or any form of repentence for that matter) is no longer necessary for forgiveness.

JESUS FORGIVES EVEN AS THE SINNER SINS, i.e., Jesus forgives before sinners can pay back their debt with a sacrifice or regret their actions.

The idea of a blood sacrifice to save us from sin is barbaric. The idea that God requires this in order to forgive, i.e., the idea that God requires the injustice of an execution to cleanse the world of injustice, is absolutely absurd.

Fresh injustice does not pay for past injustice. It only increases the injustice.

Aly, I will slap you.

Stumps:

It seems to me that anon should be the one to decide such things. But then again this is an open forum, so even that could be challenged…

It’s considered general forum respect to follow the chain of the Original Posted question or statement until it has been explored, or the OP switches the conversation.

OP’s are commonly considered hosts.
This is as far as I will say on that subject in this thread.

I’m not a stickler about threads staying on topic. I don’t have a lot of time at the moment - I’ll have to catch up later. I’m still interested, and I don’t mind sub-conversations.

Meanwhile I’ve got work and and then ice storm damage to deal with this weekend…

Alright, I stand corrected there…

Aly, regardless, I responded to what you wrote here in your thread Jesus Savior of All

uhh ok then, if a blood sacrifice was not needed explain why “jesus died on the cross”

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.