sotto voce

What is the difference?

'The title, "Son of God" was an honorific for Jewish kings (i.e "Messiahs").'

Was it ever a title? Is 'son of God' not more accurate?

'It was not used literally'

What is a literal son of God?

'and to claim that title was not a claim to literal, supernatural parentage, but to the throne of David. It was not a blasphemous claim.'

Jews and Muslims think it is.

'By the way, Luke even calls Adam "the son of God" (3:28).'

In the sense that he was the creation of God, which implied that every man is the creation of God, and every woman his daughter.

Iskander

You ask if there is difference between,”Son of God” and “son of God”. It is my understanding that many ancient languages did not have a capital letter and a small letter in the alphabet.

The surviving gospel manuscripts were written in what we now call capital Greek letters, always SON OF GOD in this case.

Some modern languages have only one form. It would be very difficult to ask your question in Hindi, I believe

What do you think the Israelites meant when they said, son of god?

sotto voce

This is correct. However, capitalisation has particular meaning in English, that is relevant to this thread.

Iskander

Are you inviting English speakers to invent a grammatical theology for the exclusive use of the English speaking peoples?

Chili

That was not Luke 3:28 but 3:38 on the parthenos side of Adam that so renders Luke's Jesus the second Adam to the ever Virgin called Woman in sonship of the Father and so undo the Original sin of Adam.

So the final transition then is from Adam back to God without any solidarity with Jewish faith except as the only way to arrive at God himself.

Edit to let me be clear again that Man was created in Gods image and to this the Adam image was added by conjecture in Gen.3:10 after their eyes were opened as 'like god' ('little god' with a mind of their own (wherein they are co-creator with God as the efficient cause of evolution)).

Note here that 'Imago' now belongs to Man and 'image' belongs to 'human' as earthly man (if I understand language right). So now we can say here that 'imago' belongs to 'woman' and 'image' was the maid he married when he was banned for Eden (and these then are the 2 serpents of Gen. 3:15).

This gets increasingly more interesting if you consider that for the female (as we know them), the distinction between 'imago' and 'image' can not always be made since she 'as woman' in her own womanity was never banned from Eden and so her heart is always [or most often] in her argument (daily life), and notice then that 'the women' never shouted "crucify him" either.

sotto voce

'"I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron sceptre; you will dash them to pieces like pottery." Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.' Ps 2:6-12 NIV

David and Solomon?

Chili

In our image we can be kings in all that we projest to be, but in our imago we can be 'king in the hereafter,' and that will smash all our prior earthliness to smithereens simply because we encounter the woman who contains it as our very own soul that we as earthly king are stepping on to elevate in fantasy.

Sheshbazzar

What is wrong with this? What is it that has been altered? What is it that has been lost in the 'translation'?

ידע את־האלהים׃






.

GakuseiDon

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...912-son-of-god), the title “Son of God” belonged not only to the Messiah, but also “to any one whose piety has place him in a filial relation to God”:

It is through such personal relations that the individual becomes conscious of God's fatherhood, and gradually in Hellenistic and rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race (Abot iii. 15, v. 20; Ber. v. 1; see Abba)... The application of the term "son of God" to the Messiah rests chiefly on Ps. ii. 7, and the other Messianic passages quoted above.

The phrase "the only begotten son" (John iii. 16) is merely another rendering for "the beloved son." The Septuagint translates ("thine only son") of Gen. xxii. 2 by "thy beloved son."... the "only begotten" thus reverts to the attribute of the "servant" who is the "chosen" one.

Some references in the NT:

Phl 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons [teknon] of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons [teknon] of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God [huios].

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons [huios] of God.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son [huios], today have I begotten thee... 8 Though he were a Son [huios], yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him

Chili

Sure, all are sons of God including females (sic), although a Buddhist may say we call him Buddha, but God in all just the same in our prior nature and therefore 'redeemable' as the most human right of all, since our second human nature was just an add-on for us to gain a personality either as Buddhist, Christianist or Jewist believer in that same ideal.