Does the title "Son of God" mean divinity?

[polonius]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia.


The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride " wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial " a wicked man, "sons of prophets " disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God " ( Job 1:6 ; 2:1 ; Psalm 88:7 ; Wisdom 2:13 ; etc.).

In a similar manner it was given to Israelites ( Deuteronomy 14:50 ); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: [b]Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" ( Exodus 4:22 sq. )."

There were no capitals in koine Greek. But when capital's were introduced , they were applied to "son of God" referring to Jesus.

So when were read in the New Testament that Jesus was the "Son of God" it doesn't mean he was divine.

The Jewish Messiah was to be a man, not divine.

Rabbi Kaplan in his book ‘The Real Messiah?’ which is an attack on the view that Jesus is Messiah puts it like this: ‘The Jewish concept of the Messiah is that which is clearly developed by the prophets of the Bible. He is a leader of the Jews, strong in wisdom, power and spirit. It is he who will bring complete redemption to the Jewish people, both spiritually and physically. Along with this he will bring eternal peace, love, prosperity, and moral perfection to the entire world. The Jewish Messiah is truly human in origin. He is born of ordinary human parents, and is of flesh and blood like all mortals.’ (1)

Jesus isn't said to be divine himself until about 82 AD (see the Gospel of John written about 95 AD)


Birkat haMinim.
The Birkat haMinim (Hebrew ברכת המיני� "Blessing on the heretics") is a Jewish curse on heretics (minim). Modern scholarship has generally evaluated that the Birkat haMinim probably did originally include Jewish Christians before Christianity became markedly a gentile religion.[1] It is the 12th of the Eighteen Benedictions or Amidah.[2]

The exclusion of Christians from Jewish synogues is mentioned in John's Gospel.

[bjs]

In ancient Jewish society the idea of being the sons (plural) of God, or of a group of people collectively being called the son of God, was not unusual. Jesus used the phrase “sons of God� to describe people in the Sermon on the Mount. Other examples are given in the opening post.

In ancient Jewish society for an individual to say that he specifically is the son of God was a claim at divinity. When Jesus said that he was the son of God all four Gospels agree that people understood that he was claiming to be God. No other individual in the Old or New Testaments took the title of son of God for him or herself. I know of no example in pre-Christian Jewish literature of anyone claiming to be the son of God that was not viewed as blaspheme. Jesus saying that he is the son of God was viewed as, and almost certainly intended to be, a claim of Divinity.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 2 by bjs]

"Have ye not read, ye are gods?" Direct quote of the OT. The next verses describe how we will die as men in this world. So, maybe it was a reach for Jesus, but, if scripture is consulted, we are all God's sons.

[polonius]

In ancient Jewish society the idea of being the sons (plural) of God, or of a group of people collectively being called the son of God, was not unusual. Jesus used the phrase “sons of God� to describe people in the Sermon on the Mount. Other examples are given in the opening post.

In ancient Jewish society for an individual to say that he specifically is the son of God was a claim at divinity. When Jesus said that he was the son of God all four Gospels agree that people understood that he was claiming to be God. No other individual in the Old or New Testaments took the title of son of God for him or herself. I know of no example in pre-Christian Jewish literature of anyone claiming to be the son of God that was not viewed as blaspheme. Jesus saying that he is the son of God was viewed as, and almost certainly intended to be, a claim of Divinity.

RESPONSE: Of course not.

Christians remained very orthodox members of the Jewish faith worshiping in the Temple and Jewish synogues until about 82 A.D. when they developed tha belief that irrespective of scripture teaching that all Hebrew men were "sons of God' in Jesus' case it was literal.

As a result the Christians were declared to be heretics ("minum') and excluded from the Jewish synagogues (The Temple had been destroyed by the Romans).

The Gospel we call John's written about 95 AD describes the "parting of the ways" between Christian and Jews.

See: John 9.29 describes how "the Jews had agreed that if anyone confessed Jesus as the Christ or messiah they were to be excluded from the synagogue". Most scholars would now agree that this assertion probably reflects the time not of Jesus but of the writing of the Gospel, perhaps in the 90s of the first century. The verse implies that then those who confessed Jesus would find themselves excluded from membership of or participation in the life of the synagogue ....

Keep in mind also that Jesus was said to be the "Messiah." The Messiah was a man, not divine. Read the Old Testament.

"In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a pre-existent divine Son of God. He is considered to be a great political leader that has descended from King David. That is why he is referred to as Messiah ben David, which means "Messiah, son of David". (see Wikipedia)

[bjs]

[Replying to post 2 by bjs]

"Have ye not read, ye are gods?" Direct quote of the OT. The next verses describe how we will die as men in this world. So, maybe it was a reach for Jesus, but, if scripture is consulted, we are all God's sons.

The evidence you have supplied seems to support my position. The plural title “gods� or “sons of God� was applied to both men and angles. No individual other than Jesus in the Old or New Testament claimed the title “son of God� (singular). When Jesus claimed the singular title “son of God� then he was claiming to be equal with God the Father. All four gospels agree that, in that society, for a man to call himself the “son of God� (singular) it was blasphemy (claiming to be God).

[bjs]

In ancient Jewish society the idea of being the sons (plural) of God, or of a group of people collectively being called the son of God, was not unusual. Jesus used the phrase “sons of God� to describe people in the Sermon on the Mount. Other examples are given in the opening post.

In ancient Jewish society for an individual to say that he specifically is the son of God was a claim at divinity. When Jesus said that he was the son of God all four Gospels agree that people understood that he was claiming to be God. No other individual in the Old or New Testaments took the title of son of God for him or herself. I know of no example in pre-Christian Jewish literature of anyone claiming to be the son of God that was not viewed as blaspheme. Jesus saying that he is the son of God was viewed as, and almost certainly intended to be, a claim of Divinity.

RESPONSE: Of course not.

Christians remained very orthodox members of the Jewish faith worshiping in the Temple and Jewish synogues until about 82 A.D. when they developed tha belief that irrespective of scripture teaching that all Hebrew men were "sons of God' in Jesus' case it was literal.

As a result the Christians were declared to be heretics ("minum') and excluded from the Jewish synagogues (The Temple had been destroyed by the Romans).

The Gospel we call John's written about 95 AD describes the "parting of the ways" between Christian and Jews.

See: John 9.29 describes how "the Jews had agreed that if anyone confessed Jesus as the Christ or messiah they were to be excluded from the synagogue". Most scholars would now agree that this assertion probably reflects the time not of Jesus but of the writing of the Gospel, perhaps in the 90s of the first century. The verse implies that then those who confessed Jesus would find themselves excluded from membership of or participation in the life of the synagogue ....

Keep in mind also that Jesus was said to be the "Messiah." The Messiah was a man, not divine. Read the Old Testament.

"In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a pre-existent divine Son of God. He is considered to be a great political leader that has descended from King David. That is why he is referred to as Messiah ben David, which means "Messiah, son of David". (see Wikipedia)

This is historically inaccurate. The Apostle Paul claimed that Jesus was God in the 40’s. He wrote as if this was already a known and accepted belief, which means doctrine must have been around earlier than that. If the book of Acts is accurate then the Disciples gave Jesus a Divine title at Pentecost, less than two months after his death.

More to the point, you have not addressed anything in my post. If you ever feel like actually addressing my argument then let me know.

[Difflugia]

The Apostle Paul claimed that Jesus was God in the 40’s. He wrote as if this was already a known and accepted belief, which means doctrine must have been around earlier than that.

Do you have a clear reference to this in the Pauline epistles? He wrote that Jesus was Son of God and the meaning of the "Kenosis Hymn" in Philippians is sometimes taken to mean that Jesus was God, but I'm not aware of anything clearer than that. Did I miss it?

[FWI]

Does the title "Son of God" mean divinity?

That would depend on the definition of divinity that one supports. I prefer the definition that states: something that is divine comes from God, the Supreme Entity…Hence, to be labeled as the "Son of God" would mean that the nature of God would be given to that being! So, if that being had a human mother and the woman was impregnated by the power of God, then the result would be a being who exists with Godly nature, which is in conjunction with human nature. Yet, there is only one being (that I'm aware of) that has ever fitted such a description: Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ and the Son of God…

Therefore, to be given the title of "Son of God" would mean that divinity or something from God exists within that being.

However, this can't be confused with the term: sons of God! Which, is referring to humans or angels, which do not possess the essence of God…All humans have or will sin (excluding the Christ), where some angels have sinned and others haven't. The ones that didn't accomplished this by choice, not through the essence of God within them.

So, what is this essence of God that the "Son of God" possessed? It is the ability to exist as a human being and not sin! Hence, the "Son of God" is the only being that has the nature of God within himself, besides the Supreme Entity or God.

[polonius]

"Therefore, to be given the title of "Son of God" would mean that divinity or something from God exists within that being. "

"However, this can't be confused with the term: sons of God! Which, is referring to humans or angels, which do not possess the essence of God…"

RESPONSE: How do you know which sons of God Jesus was referring too?

So, what is this essence of God that the "Son of God" possessed? It is the ability to exist as a human being and not sin! Hence, the "Son of God" is the only being that has the nature of God within himself, besides the Supreme Entity or God.

RESPONSE: Your claim , not everyones'.

Did Jesus claim to be God? Jesus clearly claimed to be the Messiah and Son of God:

Catholic Encyclopedia: "The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. …The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God.

"In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deut., xiv, l); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Ex., iv, 22 sq.)."

Note; THe Messiah was human, a man, not divine. And which one of the apostles writing between 70 and 95 AD, long after Jesus death, reported that Jesus said otherwise?

[FWI]

Your claim, not everyones'.

Well, I agree that this is the case, but does it really matter? It doesn't to me…

Did Jesus claim to be God?

No, he didn't!

Jesus clearly claimed to be the Messiah and Son of God.

Yes, I agree that Jesus implied that he is the Messiah and is the Son of God. However, this doesn't mean that Jesus claimed to be God! Because, he didn't

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God.

The truth is that having a "special relationship" can be interpreted in many different ways. The prophets had a special relationship with God, some women had a special relationship with God and most angels have a special relationship with God. But, none were ever claimed to be the "Only begotten of God." This is considered the ultimate of relationships between God and man…Which, would require a special and unique relationship, as well as, a very special title.

The Messiah was human, a man, not divine.

Jesus was also human and he died as a human! But, he was resurrected and changed by God to a being who is now celestial and eternal…Yet, it is only an opinion that the Messiah would be human, especially considering what the Messiah would need to accomplish!

So, in Judaism the Messiah is to be a savior and liberator. In Jesus' Christianity, the Messiah is thought of in about the same way. The difference? One is related to the physical, the other is celestial, eternal and with all the powers of the Great Creator at his disposal…So, it should be clear, which perspective is more likely to accomplish the tasks required of the real Messiah!

Note; The Messiah was human, a man, not divine. And which one of the apostles writing between 70 and 95 AD, long after Jesus death, reported that Jesus said otherwise?

I have no dispute that Jesus was human. However, in my post I made it clear that one's definition or belief of what divinity means can be misleading and not coincide with reality. I stated my position, but you haven't stated yours…So, what do you believe that divinity means to you?