Is Jesus the Son of God?

[Deeje]

The Christians belief that Jesus is literally the Son of God. Is this possible? Is there a better way of considering this core Christian belief?

Since the scriptures say that others are also "sons of God" what does this designation mean as it applies to the "only-begotten" (monogenes) son of God? How is Jesus "only-begotten"?

How could we account for the Christian story of the virgin Mother of God. Is that also a metaphor?

Jesus came down from heaven, so how was he born as a human child? Was Mary the "Mother of God"?

In Christian scripture Mathew 1:18-25

How does this account add to our understanding of who Jesus was?

How about He was crucified and the earthquake didn't happen and the dead didn't literally rise from their graves? That would account for why such things were no mentioned by Josephus, make Jesus a real historic person, and account for metaphorical embellishments in the story.

The earthquake shook bodies out of tombs. There were no walking dead. All things can be reconciled with a little study.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is evidence that Jesus existed as a person, but there is no evidence that he was divine, performed miracles, or was the Son of God by way of a virgin birth.

Agreed, other than what is written in the New Testament.

The authors of the NT were all anonymous, 3rd party, and writing decades after the fact. None were an eyewitness to Jesus.

Would you provide some references you consider authorative. Thank you for your contribution. I had not seen it when I replied before.

 

[psychoslice]

the problem with those that scream blaspheme is they dont see the damage they do by that. IMO Jesus was saying "follow me" "I am one of you" "if i can do it you can do it". He wanted us to follow this example. when you elevate Him to the Most High, you send your self right back to ground zero before He got here because who can follow that. thats to big a mountain for me to climb,

Yes well said, and we don't even need Jesus, there are many enlightened people even today that points the way, I cannot understand why we have to cling to old backdated scriptures, that really only gets in the way, of finding the way.

 

[james bond]

I had my teen years in the 70s and 80s so just loved the music including woodstock.
On another thread some Christians were trying to convince some Jews that Jesus must have been the Messiah because Mary was a virgin. I don't think using this story as a proof to those who are not Christian a good idea. We can't possibly prove it. Really!!!!? So I wanted to encourage some deeper reflection what is a profound Spiritual teaching in the Christian Faith.

This thread is all over the place, but the profound teaching is John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Jesus died for all humankind and through His resurrection, the afterlife was borne. Prior to it, there was none. Moses had nowhere to go in the dark.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since the scriptures say that others are also "sons of God" what does this designation mean as it applies to the "only-begotten" (monogenes) son of God? How is Jesus "only-begotten"?

You are referring to the following passage:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that however believes in Him should not perish and have everlasting life. John 3:16
This is important to contrast with the quote we are all sons of God. The significance of this quotation is the unique role of Jesus to humanity as distinct from other humans. Where we would differ is that for Baha'is this unique relationship to humanity can extend to other manifestations of God.

Jesus came down from heaven, so how was he born as a human child? Was Mary the "Mother of God"?

Here we need to understand that Jesus came from the invisible heavenly realm, not up in the sky. The second question touches on the Divinity of Jesus, a complex issue. I would argue that Jesus could not possibly be a physical incarnation of God so in that sense "No".

How does this account add to our understanding of who Jesus was?

It sets the scene for a great story! We start to understand the Jesus is special and the author is clearly referring to prophecy in the Old Tesament. While upholding the Divine mystery of the virgin birth waht is not helpful is offering as a proof of the greatness of Jesus. From a scientific or rational perspective we can not possibly know for certain. However for the believers in Christ it aids in understanding His special relationship with God.

The earthquake shook bodies out of tombs. There were no walking dead. All things can be reconciled with a little study.

Please to hear about the absence of walking dead Its most likely a spiritual awakening from the death of unbelief than a physical awakenng from the dead. The purpose of this post is to facilitate such an understanding.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Christians belief that Jesus is literally the Son of God. Is this possible? Is there a better way of considering this core Christian belief?

Jesus cannot be son of god, for that Mary has to be wife of god.
Did Jesus ever believe that Mary was a wife to god.
Neither Jesus believed as such nor Mary believed that god was her husband. (I seek refuge of G-d).
Regards

 

[Neo Deist]

Agreed, other than what is written in the New Testament.


Would you provide some references you consider authorative. Thank you for your contribution. I had not seen it when I replied before.

Therein lies the problem. Various translations of the Bible are either based on one particular denomination's interpretation of the Bible (ex. NWT - Jehovah's Witnesses) and what they want it to say, or it is based on what a particular publishing house pushes within its translation team (Zondervan for example). Since most people are not going to learn ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek in order to read the oldest manuscripts available, most are left with relying on translation X and the bias that comes with it.

To compound the issue, many pastors will teach from tradition rather than from the Bible. So many of them do not have a formal education from seminary, and they do not get instruction in critical classes such as hermeneutics, apologetics, or exegesis. The obvious problem is that if their mentor was wrong and they repeat what they were taught, they too are wrong.

Then comes the crucible to the Abrahamic religions, especially Judaism and Christianity. The original works, called the Autographs, have long been lost/destroyed for thousands of years. Most went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed much of Jerusalem during his reign over the Persian Empire. We have no way of knowing what those original works actually said. All we have are copies of copies. Anyone or any organization that says "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" is making an assumption that they simply can't prove. We know for a fact that everyone makes mistakes, so biblical translators and copiers are not exempt.

So, what do I consider authoritative? When it comes to interpreting the OT (Tanach), I leave it up to Hebrew scholars such as Jewish rabbis. When it comes to the NT, that is a different conundrum altogether. I use several different translations of the Greek, or I study the Greek myself (a long, slow process usually reserved for specific words or phrases, such as ouranós). When a common theme presents itself and can be rationalized with logic, I give it credit and consider it fairly authoritative. If it is far fetched and borders on a fairy tale or the supernatural, I usually consider it to be metaphorical or allegorical.

There is a reason that I entered seminary as a Baptist and ~8 years later left as a deist...albeit with a Th.D.

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus cannot be son of god, for that Mary has to be wife of god.
Did Jesus ever believe that Mary was a wife to god.
Neither Jesus believed as such nor Mary believed that god was her husband. (I seek refuge of G-d).
Regards

If Mary was not a wife unto god, then Jesus was not son of god, literally and physically.
Is there a Christian who considers Mary a wife unto god? Please
Regards

 

[Dawnofhope]

Therein lies the problem. Various translations of the Bible are either based on one particular denomination's interpretation of the Bible (ex. NWT - Jehovah's Witnesses) and what they want it to say, or it is based on what a particular publishing house pushes within its translation team (Zondervan for example). Since most people are not going to learn ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek in order to read the oldest manuscripts available, most are left with relying on translation X and the bias that comes with it.

To compound the issue, many pastors will teach from tradition rather than from the Bible. So many of them do not have a formal education from seminary, and they do not get instruction in critical classes such as hermeneutics, apologetics, or exegesis. The obvious problem is that if their mentor was wrong and they repeat what they were taught, they too are wrong.

Then comes the crucible to the Abrahamic religions, especially Judaism and Christianity. The original works, called the Autographs, have long been lost/destroyed for thousands of years. Most went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed much of Jerusalem during his reign over the Persian Empire. We have no way of knowing what those original works actually said. All we have are copies of copies. Anyone or any organization that says "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" is making an assumption that they simply can't prove. We know for a fact that everyone makes mistakes, so biblical translators and copiers are not exempt.

So, what do I consider authoritative? When it comes to interpreting the OT (Tanach), I leave it up to Hebrew scholars such as Jewish rabbis. When it comes to the NT, that is a different conundrum altogether. I use several different translations of the Greek, or I study the Greek myself (a long, slow process usually reserved for specific words or phrases, such as ouranós). When a common theme presents itself and can be rationalized with logic, I give it credit and consider it fairly authoritative. If it is far fetched and borders on a fairy tale or the supernatural, I usually consider it to be metaphorical or allegorical.

There is a reason that I entered seminary as a Baptist and ~8 years later left as a deist...albeit with a Th.D.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for your thoughtful and well considered post. I am in agreement with much of what you say. They are ancient texts afterall and no one has any of the originals.

I was a Christian but over 25 years ago became a Baha'i so my concern is to uphold the great spiritual truths within the Gospels but also to view it through the lens of Baha'u'llahs revelation. I would consider Bahau'llah to be the manifestion of God for this day and being a more recent religion these problem are either not present or least not to the same degree as the older texts.

I was a Baptist prior to becoming a Baha'i and while not a University PH.D doctrate I am a medical doctor. For the last 5 years I have provided volunteer medical services for a Christian medical Centre run by Baptists and am committed to developing better interfaith understanding and dialogue.

Here's what Baha'u'llah says about the manifestations of God, which of course would be applicable to Jesus.

"O Salmán! The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Being hath ever been, and will continue for ever to be, closed in the face of men. No man's understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Day Stars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testifieth to the truth of their Revelation, hath testified to the truth of God Himself. Whoso turneth away from them, hath turned away from God, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God. Every one of them is the Way of God that connecteth this world with the realms above, and the Standard of His Truth unto every one in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. They are the Manifestations of God amidst men, the evidences of His Truth, and the signs of His glory."

 

[Dawnofhope]

If Mary was not a wife unto god, then Jesus was not son of god, literally and physically.
Is there a Christian who considers Mary a wife unto god? Please
Regards

I agree with you. Some Christians would not. The misundertanding comes when the spiritual reality of Jesus is confused with the physical.

 

[Deeje]

You are referring to the following passage:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that however believes in Him should not perish and have everlasting life. John 3:16
This is important to contrast with the quote we are all sons of God. The significance of this quotation is the unique role of Jesus to humanity as distinct from other humans. Where we would differ is that for Baha'is this unique relationship to humanity can extend to other manifestations of God.

Understanding the mechanism behind the ransom, helps us to identify why there was no need of a successor.

What do you understand about the ransom?

Matthew 20:28:
"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

According to Strongs, the original Greek word for "ransom" is "lytron", defined as.....

1. the price for redeeming, ransom
   1. paid for slaves, captives
   2. for the ransom of life
2. to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins."

How do you understand the reason for Christ's death? How does it relate to redemption in Jewish law?

Here we need to understand that Jesus came from the invisible heavenly realm, not up in the sky. The second question touches on the Divinity of Jesus, a complex issue. I would argue that Jesus could not possibly be a physical incarnation of God so in that sense "No".

How do Baha'is understand the "divinity" of Jesus?
Was he "God incarnate" or was he "sent" by God as a sinless human as the scriptures say? (Hebrews 4:14-15; John 17:3)
How is his human birth tied into 1 Corinthians 15:45 according to your understanding?

It sets the scene for a great story! We start to understand the Jesus is special and the author is clearly referring to prophecy in the Old Tesament. While upholding the Divine mystery of the virgin birth what is not helpful is offering as a proof of the greatness of Jesus. From a scientific or rational perspective we can not possibly know for certain. However for the believers in Christ it aids in understanding His special relationship with God.

Do you think that scientific thinking (or thinking rationalized by science,) can sometimes detract from fully accepting the words of scripture? If you had to choose between science and scripture, which one would win?

How would you describe his "special relationship with God"?

Please to hear about the absence of walking dead Its most likely a spiritual awakening from the death of unbelief than a physical awakenng from the dead. The purpose of this post is to facilitate such an understanding.

It is good to expand our understanding......we all have much still to learn.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Understanding the mechanism behind the ransom, helps us to identify why there was no need of a successor.

What do you understand about the ransom?

Moses redeemed the Hebrew peoples both physically and spiritually. He freed them from captivity by the Egyptians and prepared them to capture the land of Canaan, which God promised Abraham. He provided the law that enabled His peoples to live together culminating in the Kingship of David. An Eternal Covenant was established yet there was the need for a New Covenant. The same could be said of Noah and Abraham. Yet there was a need for God to manifest Himself again.

Baha'u'llah has said of this time:
"The vitality of men’s belief in God is dying out in every land; nothing short of His wholesome medicine can ever restore it. The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; what else but the Elixir of His potent Revelation can cleanse and revive it? Is it within human power, O Hakím, to effect in the constituent elements of any of the minute and indivisible particles of matter so complete a transformation as to transmute it into purest gold? Perplexing and difficult as this may appear, the still greater task of converting satanic strength into heavenly power is one that We have been empowered to accomplish. The Force capable of such a transformation transcendeth the potency of the Elixir itself. The Word of God, alone, can claim the distinction of being endowed with the capacity required for so great and far-reaching a change."

In regards to God manifesting Himself again, Jesus speaks specifically in regards to His return on the Mount of Olives. Yet many Christians remain perplexed and oppressed unable to discern the signs...

Keeping asking the hard questions my friend.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you think that scientific thinking (or thinking rationalized by science,) can sometimes detract from fully accepting the words of scripture? If you had to choose between science and scripture, which one would win?

Baha'u'llah teaches that religion without science leads to superstition and science without religion leads to materialism. These are the great pillars of knowledge upon which provides for the security, prosperity and wellbeing of mankind. We need to avoid dichotomous thinking. Its not science or religion. Its both we need.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How do Baha'is understand the "divinity" of Jesus?

I'll let the words of Baha'u'llah Himself speak to that question:

"Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world."

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Jesus cannot be son of god, for that Mary has to be wife of god.
Did Jesus ever believe that Mary was a wife to god.
Neither Jesus believed as such nor Mary believed that god was her husband. (I seek refuge of G-d).
Regards

If Mary was not a wife unto god, then Jesus was not son of god, literally and physically.
Is there a Christian who considers Mary a wife unto god? Please
Regards

Quran mentions this point:
Verse (6:101)

Sahih International: [He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion* and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran
* wife

Regards

 

[firedragon]

If God is Omnipotent and All-powerful why does he require a consort?

A child of a horse is a horse. Similarly a child of God is a God. If God is one, there cannot be a thing called "a god".

If God is uncreated, there cannot be a God who is created. Hope you understand.

Jesus has a mother. WIth the same logic you use, if God is all powerful why does he need a woman to have a son?

And if God is all powerful why couldnt he just forgive everyone rather than siring a son to be willingly killed by people?

 

[firedragon]

Since the scriptures say that others are also "sons of God" what does this designation mean as it applies to the "only-begotten" (monogenes) son of God? How is Jesus "only-begotten"?

Ephraim is called Prototokos. The eldest born. Does that make him the elder brother of Jesus? But then again, Monogenes contradicts this right? Is God just playing with us?

Monogenes is the same.

These are phrases used amply in the bible for showing of affection and responsibility of the adherents.

Jesus came down from heaven, so how was he born as a human child? Was Mary the "Mother of God"?

Actually mother mary was named Theotokos. Mother of God.

 

[firedragon]

The Christians belief that Jesus is literally the Son of God. Is this possible? Is there a better way of considering this core Christian belief?

Is Jesus the biological son of God?


As cited earlier in this book, the only verse that quotes Jesus to be the begotten son is taken out as a fabrication. There is not a single verse in the bible that says Jesus is the begotten son of the almighty god. But the bible does call him the son and he does refer to god as the father.


As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” – Matthew 3:16


Some would find it incongruous that the bible also calls him Son of Man many times in the bible.


· Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” – Matthew 7:28


Jesus also refers to God as your father in the bible. The word Abba and bene (Father and Son in Hebrew) biblically does not mean to claim that either you are the begotten son of God or God is your biological father.


In the Gospel of Matthews Jesus refers to God as “Your Father” thirteen times before he calls God by the words “My Father” for the first time. But people completely ignore all the verses except the one where the words “My Father” is contained. Thus, when Jesus tells you “Your Father” does that make you also God or that you are biological sons of God?




Other Sons of God in the Bible


There are other sons in the bible. It is a generic term for Godly person (Bene

Elohim or Son of God in Hebrew).


· The sons of God saw that these daughters were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. – Genesis 6:2


For those who insist that when Jesus is referred to as son it is a biological relationship, here is some news, God has older sons and he calls them first born. Does that mean they are more important than Jesus?


· Then say to Pharaoh, This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son - Exodus 4:22

· They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because

I am Israel’s father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son. – Jeremiah 31:9


The New Testament proclaims that anyone Godly is a Son of God.


For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God – Romans 8:14


This is why some bible scribes inserted the begotten word only to be removed later due to it being recognised as fallacy, because the scripture does not have solid evidence that Jesus is the begotten son of God though the church teaches it. 1 john 4:9 is the verse the church has been using to strategise the begotten son concept where the Greek word used is “Monogeni” which means “only son” whereas when it comes to the Old Testament others are called “Prototokos” or “first born” which is a higher position. Firstborn son is the heir to the father’s throne, the one who will carry his legacy and the guardian over the family when he as the father is gone. If Jesus is the begotten or biological son of God then the first born or the eldest son is the heir to Gods throne. Does that make Jesus any lesser in importance?


The duplicity is to add the word “begotten” to a text that does not contain that it.


Children of God


The bible explains that it is possible for all of us to be children of God.


See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! – 1 John 3:1


The scripture goes on to explain that the righteous are born of God and his seed remains in them


Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. Those who are born of God will not continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Those who do not do what is right are not God’s children; nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters. – 1 John 3:7-10


The word “sperm” has been derived from the Greek word “Sperma” which means seed. When the epistle of John says that “whoever is born of God will not continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them”, that is the word used (Sperma=seed). Born or generated in Greek is “Gegenimenos” which is what we are described as if we live a righteous life. That does not mean we are all God’s or that we are all biological children of God.


If logic grazed our thoughts we would see that the Gospels are the oldest, closest to Jesus and named after disciples and closest to Jesus. Most of the other books are written by Paul (Actual name is Saul, Paul is a concoction) who in life never met Jesus. Is there any logical reason for those books (Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) never to connote that Jesus was the biological son of the almighty God?

 

[Deeje]

Ephraim is called Prototokos. The eldest born. Does that make him the elder brother of Jesus?

Not sure I understand the question.....

How can Ephraim be an older brother of Jesus?
According to Matthew 13:54-56, Jesus had four younger brothers, "James, Joseph, Simon and Judas" and some unnamed sisters. Large families were not uncommon in Jewish society back then.

The tribe of Ephraim became the most prominent tribe of the northern kingdom of ten tribes, its name often standing for that entire kingdom. Because Jehovah chose to have Ephraim receive the firstborn son’s blessing from his grandfather Jacob instead of Manasseh, the real firstborn son of Joseph, Jehovah rightly spoke of the tribe of Ephraim as “my firstborn.” That was in relation to Israel.

In Colossians 1:15, 16, it says of Jesus......"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him." (NASB)

As "firstborn" it means that no one was before the prehuman Jesus. He was the very beginning of God's creation (Revelation 3:14) Everything else came into existence through the agency of the son....."from" God "by" or "through" his son.

But then again, Monogenes contradicts this right? Is God just playing with us?

Not at all. "Monogenes" simple means an "only child". The prehuman Jesus was the only direct creation of his God and Father, making him unique....the "only child" produced this way.

These are phrases used amply in the bible for showing of affection and responsibility of the adherents.

Jesus was certainly in a very responsible role and there was much affection between he and his Father, but they were a team, working on creation together (Proverbs 8:30-31) The Grand creator brought all the raw materials into existence and assigned his son as the Master Craftsman working at his side....this is the reason why Genesis says..."Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness".

Actually mother mary was named Theotokos. Mother of God.

No, actually Mary did not attain this title until centuries after Jesus' death. It was not bestowed upon her until the Roman Church adopted the pagan doctrine of the trinity in the fourth century.

The Jews did not believe that Jesus was God's son, so Mary, as a devout Jew certainly never saw herself as the "mother of God", but as the "highly favored" mother of God's son. (told to her by the angel Gabriel)

Since Jesus never taught that he was God, he did not see his mother as anything more special than the human mother from whom he was born into this world. Loved it is true by all her children, but not revered as anyone to be adored.