I have my copy of Zealot in front of me as I type. Azlan writes that neither in the Gospel of Matthew nor in the early Q source is there “a single definitive messianic statement from Jesus himself.” Jesus does frequently call himself “son of man” which, according to Azlan, was a common idiom meaning “man.”
Others sometimes called him the son of God." Azlan writes that this was a traditional designation for Israel’s kings. However when I look up his examples in the King James translation, they hardly seem clear-cut. For examples from Psalms:
2:7. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
89:26. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
Note that “Son of God” was applied by Jewish folk back in the day to a lot of people. The Dead Sea Scroll writers applied it to an entire group of people.
The context of Jesus (possibly) asserting he was a Son of God is uncertain and no special meaning can be applied based on that.
Note that Jesus’ status was open for debate among his followers even while he was preaching.
Matthew 16:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
(Also in Mark 8, but without the “Son of Man” bit.)
If people were arguing about it in ~30AD, there’s no hope whatsoever of settling things in 2018.
He actually IMPLIED he WAS God. I mean, per translation, it’s not stated in the current day Bible that he came right out and said "Hey! I’m God in the flesh! Worship me. But here are the Biblical texts that purportedly back up that he is God in the flesh:
That being said, this is the best argument I have heard RE: Jesus is God in the flesh…
The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that, if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). A created being, which Jesus would be if He were not God, could not pay the infinite penalty required for sin against an infinite God. Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected, proving His victory over sin and death.
If you kick off your explanation by claiming there’s “an infinite God,” then literally the first thing I’m going to think is “oh, so, a God powerful enough to do X” — where “X” can be, y’know, “whip up some created being tomorrow who can do stuff then”.
(Now, we of course have to be really careful about a contrived scenario where “X” is something like “Make A Rock So Heavy Even He Can’t Lift It”. But near as I can tell, this doesn’t seem to be one of those.)
Jesus of Nazareth stated that he was the son of God.
When challenged – because this was viewed as an offensively arrogant claim, worthy of stoning – he defended doing so on the basis of Psalms 82, in which “God said [to the people] ‘Ye are Gods’”.
In other words (as I understand it) he was not saying “I’m the son of God and you’re not” (if you don’t mind me channeling Chevy Chase for a moment here). He was saying “I’m the son of god just as all of us are children of God”.
Which is consistent with teaching folks to pray as follows: Our Father who art in heaven…
I’m answer the original question here, which is based on the Bible. Not other possible realities. From what I know, the God of the Bible is “semi-defined” in a specific way. He can’t defy his own rules. He demands a sacrifice for sin. That’s part of who the God of the Bible is.
He’s the “biological” son of God in the sense that he had no other father (sperm donor for lack of a better term). I think Son of God was used to help people understand how Jesus was born.
Ultimately, he was God in the flesh walking on Earth per the Bible.
"In the beginning the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God, and the Word (Jesus) became flesh…
Isn’t there a part in the Bible where he asks the disciples who do the people say I am and then he asks them who do you think I am and Peter replies something to the effect, you are the Messiah, the son of the living God. Jesus responds by telling Peter, who up until then had been Simon, you are Peter, the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So, he doesn’t say he is in this scenario, but he certainly doesn’t deny it.
And much of what was written was “polished” over the next few centuries to agree with the orthodox version as it evolved, and after the heretics had ben finished off.
But Paul is the least reliable source. Paul - who never met Jesus - basically created most of modern Christianity for Gentiles out of his own mind, equated himself to the apostles, and went on to call out the sect in the Temple that kept telling him he was wrong. (Read Aslan’s book for all the choice examples)
While what is and isn’t in the Bible can be cited factually, this thread is proving that many of those cites can be open to interpretation. As such, I think this thread is better suited for Great Debates.
Regarding the nativity/virgin birth/etc. stuff: clearly not all that significant to the early writers. Two of the four gospel writers don’t mention it and the two who do contradict each other all over the place. The prolific and earliest writer Paul never mentions it at all! (What Paul leaves out is incredibly telling.)
It sure looks like a badly done later add-on myth.
I wasn’t sure I could say. I have been on boards where you can not mention other sites or boards… that being said, it’s from a website called “Got Questions”. I think the principle is correct, just the wording not so much.