Why can't God have a Son?

[Satyamavejayanti]

Lawrence;2705696]Image does not necessarily mean the "physical" image. When it was mentioned that God created Adam in his image, that could mean that God created Adam, patterned after his "goodness" ("And God saw everything that He created, and it was very good") or his own spirit that serve as the reflection of God, being a spirit.

But it could mean that he created him in his Image also, and what about the son of God, will he not look like his father?

Does not follow again

.

Is the Devil as powerful as GOD?

No, every denomination, claiming to be patterned after the faith of Abraham all profess that there's only one God.

their claims are baseless if they include the son of God or a Prophet with or being equal to God, therefore they don't know the concept of One GOD at all.

Reread my post.

read my answer to that post.

If he will appear to us, we will surely die. That's why in the book of Exodus, God showed himself to Moses through the burning bush.

Why would we die, is he that horrible.

Only said by those who aren't reading the book of Revelations.

Sorry im not into fiction.

 

[Renji]

But it could mean that he created him in his Image also,

God is a spirit, which does not have a physical form (aka, physical image).

and what about the son of God, will he not look like his father?

If you are too literalistic with the Bible, that could mean "yes".

Is the Devil as powerful as GOD?

What do you think?

their claims are baseless if they include the son of God or a Prophet with or being equal to God, therefore they don't know the concept of One GOD at all.

Are they really making the saints (Mary, so and so) or prophets as EQUAL with God?

Why would we die, is he that horrible.

Seriously, you can look for biblical verse on why is that. Try google.

Sorry im not into fiction.

Then fair enough.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Lawrence;2705736]God is a spirit, which does not have a physical form (aka, physical image).

If you are too literalistic with the Bible, that could mean "yes".

Why cant we be literalistic with the bible, its historical, geographical and has names of places that exist today, do you take the history Rome literally or do you assume things, IF everything in the bible did happen, and Jesus and Adam are real people then GOD as per the Bible has a Image, that is IF it all is actual fact.

What do you think?

According to the Bible, yes the devil is as powerful as GOD.

Are they really making the saints (Mary, so and so) or prophets as EQUAL with God?

Did Jesus have supernatural powers, and did he not say "im am the father and from me you can get to the father", (not literal quote, not too sure on the wording)

Seriously, you can look for biblical verse on why is that. Try google.

Don't have to, as long as I know that the Bible actually says that "we would die if we see GOD", that enough for me to decide if its literal.

 

[Renji]

Why cant we be literalistic with the bible, its historical, geographical and has names of places that exist today, do you take the history Rome literally or do you assume things, IF everything in the bible did happen, and Jesus and Adam are real people then GOD as per the Bible has a Image, that is IF it all is actual fact.

When Jesus said that those who follow him can hold scorpions and snakes and will drink poison without any harm happening to them, is that literal?

According to the Bible, yes the devil is as powerful as GOD.

Really? where?

Did Jesus have supernatural powers, and did he not say "im am the father and from me you can get to the father", (not literal quote, not too sure on the wording)

I am the way, the truth and the life... No one gets to the Father except through me.... What's wrong with that?

Don't have to, as long as I know that the Bible actually says that "we would die if we see GOD", that enough for me to decide if its literal.

As I said, you can try googling.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Lawrence;2705791]When Jesus said that those who follow him can hold scorpions and snakes and will drink poison without any harm happening to them, is that literal?

Yes why not, he must have thought it can happen, that's why he said it, or why would he have said that, unless he was delusional.

or No, because Jesus did not write the Bible, or call it that, so someone misunderstood what he said, and what other things in the bible are just someone's misunderstanding. and if Jesus words are not literal how can we believe anything he said or the bible?

Really? where?

Dont know, you are the one who in our earlier post told me the devil was a spirit, and if god could kill the devil then the devil could kill god, so therefore I assumed you got that idea from the Bible, and you asked me what i think, so i told you, loosing track are we

I am the way, the truth and the life... No one gets to the Father except through me.... What's wrong with that?

Where's the monotheism in that?

As I said, you can try googling

.
please read my reply.

 

[Renji]

Yes why not, he must have thought it can happen, that's why he said it, or why would he have said that, unless he was delusional.

Do you know the different figures of speech? Seriously...

or No, because Jesus did not write the Bible, or call it that, so someone misunderstood what he said, and what other things in the bible are just someone's misunderstanding. and if Jesus words are not literal how can we believe anything he said or the bible?

Depends on the context.

Dont know, you are the one who in our earlier post told me the devil was a spirit, and if god could kill the devil then the devil could kill god, so therefore I assumed you got that idea from the Bible, and you asked me what i think, so i told you, loosing track are we

I didn't say they're equal. *Reading comprehension fail*.

Where's the monotheism in that?

Uhm there is only one God and Jesus is the way to HIM?:areyoucra

Or perhaps the concept of trinity...

.

please read my reply.

*Epic fail again*

 

[Caladan]

If I'm going to base it on my faith

fair enough. but I suppose you understand that this faith fundamentally goes against the basic doctrine of the mother religion of Christianity. also in this case, I think its important to look into the origins of Jesus as a Son of God in light of the realities of the period. such as Imperial personality cults and the opposition between the early Christians and Imperial Rome.

even if I (this is just an example by the way) reject Jesus as the son of God, we are still considered as God's sons and daughters (children),though this is a VERY different context with Jesus, being his only begotten son.

What does this mean beyond the world of metaphors? I understand the idea of God as a parent, perhaps a loving parent, with his children in his best interest.

To believe in such would be contrary to my faith.

Food for thought, isn't it?

 

[Renji]

fair enough. but I suppose you understand that this faith fundamentally goes against the basic doctrine of the mother religion of Christianity. also in this case, I think its important to look into the origins of Jesus as a Son of God in light of the realities of the period. such as Imperial personality cults and the opposition between the early Christians and Imperial Rome.

Yup, it does.

What does this mean beyond the world of metaphors? I understand the idea of God as a parent, perhaps a loving parent, with his children in his best interest.

You just said it.:yes: That is what I'm actually talking about.

Food for thought, isn't it?

It is. It does make sense to me.

 

[charles brough]

their claims are baseless if they include the son of God or a Prophet with or being equal to God, therefore they don't know the concept of One GOD at all.

I believe monotheism is far superior to polytheism, but the the picture in Revelations about God being in a sort of titanic duel with Satan makes him seem about equal to Him in power.

I also wonder why people pray to Jesus and the Pope to Mary if they did not think them god-like and able to alter natural cause and effect in order to answer and respond to prayers. The belief in these three powerful, if subordinate, deities is what eventually limited the spread of Christianity and helped leave an opening for the apppearaince and spread of the Muslim religion.

In the polytheistic Ancient Greek-Roman religion, the lesser gods to Zeus, the top god, were independent deities. The big difference with Christianity is that it has fewer of the lesser deities and they are all part of a single family. It just dosen't seem to me like Christianity took a very big step foreward.

 

[idav]

I've read topics asking if God (in Abrahamic religion) can have or "really" has a Son. Just reversing the question, based on your religious beliefs, why can't he have a Son?

I suppose he can do whatever he wants but would he "create" a son or spawn him using usual methods? Would god create a being equal to himself?

People need to understand Christ was Begotten not made of One being with The Father,
God did not change his mind in 4 BC, He was always a Trinity because "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1

I think it is trinitarians that have trouble with the word begotten. Humans are begotten from their parents which is how the whole father son thing works.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Lawrence;2705844]Do you know the different figures of speech? Seriously...

Figures of speech are not worth believing, or to be taken as gospel.

Depends on the context.

My point is that Jesus did not write the bible, how can we believe the words of Men, and the contradictions them selves have proven that the people who wrote the bible were not present at the time of the supposed events in the bible, so there is no first hand account of any of the stories in the bible.

I didn't say they're equal. *Reading comprehension fail*.

You didn't say they were not equal either, and you still haven't answered that question.


U

hm there is only one God and Jesus is the way to HIM?:areyoucra

I Ask Again, Where is the MONOTHEISM in your statement.

Or perhaps the concept of trinity...

I Ask Again, Where is the MONOTHEISM in your statement.
.

*Epic fail again*

 

[bain-druie]

I'm not a Christian, so can't speak to their viewpoint directly; however, I do have a view of the Creator/Creatrix as being a sort of marriage, and Creation is what they birth.

However, I do not mean that to be literal in any sense. That analogy is simply the closest approximation I know of in the physical, familiar realm to describe what I believe is the case in spiritual, unknown realms. I don't have any problem with acknowledging the fact that like any analogy, it breaks down. Like any metaphor, it becomes ridiculous when applied in a literal sense.

I would think it must be about the same idea for Christians; although again, I am not presuming to speak for them.

 

[Nakosis]

When Jesus said that those who follow him can hold scorpions and snakes and will drink poison without any harm happening to them, is that literal?

I will tell you what was taught, explained, offered to me. The is more metaphoric. Meaning those that have been shown the truth cannot be poisoned by false beliefs.

Really? where?

In reference to Satan being as powerful as God. Actually it the Spirit of Satan(evil, ignorance) being equal to the Holy Spirit(goodness, light, truth). Satan and the Holy Spirit are equally directed by God.

The mistake Christians make is to equate the Logos with God. God begot the Logos, or the Word of Creation. Sometimes referred to as the name of God. The Word provided the form of the universe. Since the Word provided the structure of the universe, we can come to know/understand the Word by examining the universe. However we can't come to know God by examining the universe. However we can come to know God through the Logos. That which gave form to the universe, the only begotten Son of God. Understanding this form is immaterial. It is what governs the material like physical laws.

Jesus is the gospels spoke as/on behalf of the Logos. In other words this immaterial essence, the Logos was vested in Jesus and spoke through him. Jesus was also an individual as the rest of us are. So Jesus spoke as the Logos and the Logos has the authority of God. However keep in mind there is still a distinction between all three.

God is unknowable except through knowledge of the Logos who manifested knowledge of itself through the person of "Jesus".

However this manifestation of the Logos is not unique. Supposedly the Logos has manifested knowledge of itself through several individuals in the Past. Rama, Hermes, Moses. So while the Logos is unique, it has manifested itself through several individuals.

Christianity has confused the Logos/Words with the Bible so seeks to understand God through the Bible. Traditionally accepted by the religion as the "Word of God".

Christianity is really a form of idolatry with regard to it's view of the Bible. Even the Logos is not God but something begotten by God. Though it could be said the Logos is the creator as far as this universe is concerned.

 

[Bismillah]

You just said it.:yes: That is what I'm actually talking about.

Yet the relationship is metaphorical as I understand it. Whereas Jesus being the Son of God most definitely is not.

 

[charles brough]

I'm not a Christian, so can't speak to their viewpoint directly; however, I do have a view of the Creator/Creatrix as being a sort of marriage, and Creation is what they birth. However, I do not mean that to be literal in any sense.

That is probably the original concept of creation, as you say. After all, in the "Mother Nature" prehistory age of agriculture vs. hunting, the planting, sprouting and growing up of their produce was only to obviously reminiscent of their own birthing process.

In my works, I refer to the religious concept as "the fem-fertility" belief system. I picture agriculture beginning with such a religion because in their pre-science age; it was a logical-for-the-times explaination they could build their agricultural technology around. There were "fem-fertility" agricultural communes throughout pre-history in the Fertile Crescent and in the Indus River valley.