Solo

Actually, there appears to have been a fierce debate on the singular nature of Jesus in the early communities. The gnostics generally believed one could attain spiritual perfection equal to Jesus.

Hell, he could even change some people into a braying asses to make their intellectual nature obvious to everyone.

It's not as much an "obsession" as a kind of realization that when you truly love someone (or an abstract), you are usually loved back. It's kind of a feel-good strategy. Basically works like Prozac and the chances of serotonin poisoning are much smaller.

Looks like to whom ?

Jiri

Masorah613

Hi guys,

I'm new here. And I have no idea how well I'll be received; especially with my weird and conflicting ideas.

Well, from what I learned on the Jewish application of things, the term "son of G-d" means one who is a judge who learned from another judge. Also, the term "God" in Judaism means a judge, i.e. a Kohen-Priest, or a Rabbi.

Judaism also explains that "the sons of G-d" who fell in love with the women, as recorded in Genesis, were the judges (i.e. judicial leaders) of the day and that Noah himself was also one of these "sons of G-d" (but that he was the only one that didn't sin like that)...and this doesn't go without evidence from the Hebrew Bible that the leaders of the people are called "gods" yet goes translated into English as "judges".

As far as the idea that is known as "the only son", Judaism also has its explanation. In the Jewish Bible, we notice a few places where G-d specifically calls someone his son, or his firstborn.

They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim [is] my firstborn.
(Jeremiah 31:9)

Here, we not only see that G-d is a father to Israel, but that His firstborn son is Ephraim. This shows us that "Ephraim" is synonymous with "Israel" making them interchangeable.

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...He shall cry unto me, Thou [art] my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth."
(Psalms 89:1-27)

Isaac, the father of Israel (Jacob and his sons), is called "only son":

(Genesis chapter 22)

In fact, to be a "son of G-d", or even more a "firstborn" is an allegory to being a chief, a leader (i.e. a rabbi judge) of the people of Israel. We can see something alluding to that here:

And the head of Ephraim [is] Samaria, and the head of Samaria [is] Remaliah's son. (Isaiah 7:9)

From this we see that when G-d calls Israel (or Ephraim) his firstborn or 'only son', he is saying that 'out of all the nations, Israel is chief'. (please don't confuse this with Zionism, I'm not for it nor endorse it.) And concerning Remaliah, he is the chief- leader of both Samaria and Ephraim (the northern tribes called 'Israel').

And then when G-d speaks to King David as being His son, He is not forgetting that He already said Israel was His son, only that G-d is distinguishing David as King of Israel, as the Chief above chiefs (higher than other kings) as its explained in the Psalms.

Also, King David wrote this about himself, which years after the Rabbis interpreted as a meaning to the people of Israel and the Messiah.

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
(Psalm 2:7)

If all that we have read is true, (in which I was very brief in explaining- I don't want to bore anymore more than I have), then if what Jesus said hadn't considered those passages, he wasn't so learned in his Torah (word) that John in chap.1 v.1-14 said that Jesus himself was in flesh.

So, if we reinterpret John 3:16 according to what the Jewish Bible says in light of all those Scriptures above it should read something like this...in three different interpretations, all of which can be valid (in light of the verses above):

Translation 1:

For G-d so loved the gentile nations, that he gave to it His 'firstborn' and 'only son', Israel, that who ever believes in G-d through Israel, shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Translation 2:

For G-d so loved the gentile nations, that he gave to it His 'firstborn' and 'only son', the chiefs of Israel (i.e. the Rabbi's), that who ever believes in G-d through them, shall not perish but have everlasting life.

(of course, because when a person wants to convert to Judaism, or reside with the people of Israel, they have to go to the Rabbi's...this makes sense, especially in a historical context that when a non-Jew wanted to learn about the G-d of Israel, he would not only go to the people of Israel to learn about them, but he would go to Israel's teachers and judges in order to make himself a citizen and civilian of that people...its like Naturalization laws of the U.S. or any country- if you want to go to the U.S. legally, you have to go to the courts, not only to the citizens of that country.)

Translation 3:

For G-d so loved the gentile nations, that he gave to it His 'firstborn' and 'only son', the Messiah, that who ever believes in G-d through Messiah, shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Translation 3 is only a rehash of translation 2 but with a different word and a different understanding.
In the Hebrew Bible, many people can be 'messiah's' at one time. This is the King, prophets, levites and kohen-priests, rabbis and judges. all of these in the Hebrew Bible are called "messiah".

And if Jesus knew hebrew, and the aramaic translations (of which there were 2 or 3 circulating at the time) then he would have known this and applied it to what he thought and taught.

Jesus wasn't exclusively the 'son of G-d' nor exclusively the 'firstborn', but he was part of the collective called 'son of G-d' and 'firstborn'. And I think in understanding Judaism will help in actually understanding Jesus.

these are just my tid-bits though

Weird_princess13

God did know, that was why it was such a big sacrifice! Did i imply he didnt know? anyway, i do agree that for us Jesus' death was a good thing, however the Jews + Romans were attempting to kill a 'pretender' or a 'heretic' when actually they were killing the son of God. Many of the religious teachers were doing it because they felt threatened by Jesus' teachings, it wasnt an act of Love, it was caused by hatred. Basically they did something wrong which had a beneficial outcome. And to be fair, it was necissary to Gods plan, so they can be easily forgiven.

Chili

No way! Jesus was an imposter and needed to die to set free the son of God here under the name of Bar-abbas (son of the father).

That Jesus was an imposter is clear form Matthew 28:64. '"This final imposter will be worse than the first."'