Diogenes the Cynic

It means Jewish religious idiom across all languages, and the use of that phrase, specifically in the Hebrew Bible and all pre-Christian Jewish literature, is always non-supernatural.
Yes, but "son of god," does not denote a literally biological desecnt from God, so it doesn't matter. The phrase was figurative, not literal and it was not unique. As with "anointed," it's really just a way of saying, "King," nothing more.

spin

Complaining of silence is pretty meaningless, given the paucity of sources. Mentioning John seems unjustified for he may or may not have been a brother of the lord. The text gives no indication.

aa5874

I hope you don't repeat your erroneous mis-leading statement again because you have been CAUGHT.

Job 1:6 KJVJob 2:1 KJV Please, please, refrain from making unsubstantiated statements about the term Son of God. It is clear that you are COMPLETELY wrong.

In the Hebrew Bible it was BELIEVED the very LORD God had SONS.

Mandelbrot

You really shouldn't argue that Diogenes. Afterall, the NT is written in Greek not in a "Jewish vernacular" and using anointed as an example (as you do) is quite harmful to your argument since the Greeks anointed wrestlers. By your argument that would mean wrestlers are kings according to "Jewish vernacular."

aa5874

So, now it is shown that in Jewish Vernacular Son of God refers to a NON-HISTORICAL character and Paul claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews we can say without contradiction that the Pauline Jesus was NON-HISTORICAL based on Galatians 1.1, 1.10-12, 2.20, and 4.4.

Job 1:6 KJVGalatians 2:20 KJV There can be NO argument made for an HJ at this present time-- the Galatians Jesus was a Son of a God.