tanya

"Explicit", ought not be confounded with translucency. Here is the dictionary definition:
However, the topic of conversation here, cher Diogenes, is verse 7, not 10:
I agree with you: I should read some Jewish commentary. I am both uneducated, and prejudiced against my own heritage, it is not correct. On the other hand, if a Chinese, or Zulu, or Eskimo were to write about this verse, Psalms 2:7, I hope that I would not be so stupid as to reject their opinion, simply because they were not Jewish, without reflecting on the content of their analysis. In other words, there is nothing to prevent any human from reading any text, and forming one's own opinion, about the content therein. Consider Dao de Jing. Must one be from HeNan to comprehend the text, because the original author came from LuoYang? Being Jewish doesn't confer wisdom in comprehending written Hebrew text. I write as one obviously, not wise, to confirm this generalization.

I am not commenting on a text I haven't read (in English). I am commenting on a text, Psalms 2:7, which I have read, in English.

I don't consider my comments belligerent or bellicose. I am emphatic, and remain emphatic, that the topic, interpretation of Psalms 2:7, does not depend upon some other text, including, other verses in Psalms, or Dao de Jing, or any other bit of text, if one is discussing this particular verse, EXPLICITLY.

The word explicit, conveys, at least to me, text which requires no supplement to be understood.

The topic, is "son of God", not Israel, not Kings, and this bit of text is quoted in the context of understanding that "son of God", or "Son of God", in either version, can be understood not in a chromosomal inheritance moyen, but simply as a means of affirming comradeship, "come on my old boy, let's get moving, back home", doesn't mean that the tired horse is the offspring of the farmer.

You err. You have no idea, nor do I, nor does anyone else, know what someone thought in writing this, or any other verse from Psalms or Dao de Jing, or anything else....

Pull any novel off the shelf. Can you honestly write that you know what the author's motives were, in putting pen to paper? Why must authorial intent be revealed in the text on the page?

sotto voce

'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. Why do they do so?

'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.

Chili

If a distinction is to be made between 'Son of God' and 'son of God' it lies in the originative cause of Sonship and so contains a 'worthiness' to be called Son of God or not. The difference between these two is that the Son of God necessarily attains to heaven while the son of God does not . . . if indeed God deserves a capital G as designated in our creation history where both 'God' and 'Lord God' have the capital G but 'like-god' of Gen. 3 does not.

So then if to have sonship with Father God it deserves a Capital S, it would follow that to have sonship with 'like-god' instead Father God it does not deserve a capital s.

In John 1:13 this difference in distinction is made clear: "Those who are begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it, BUT by God." From this passage it follows that both kinds of 'begotten' are possible and so both 'Son of God' and 'son of God' have cause 'in being' as begotten from God but not in causation wherein only 'but by God' is genuine as "Son of God" and the other three ways of begotten by 'man's willing it, blood and carnal desire' are not of God and so deserve only a mall s to make this distinction known.

The consequence here is that both son of God and Son of God are distinct possibilities and here now return to 'like-god' as the incipient cause for 'begotten' as son of God also known as begotten from 'below' as opposed to from 'above,' or just casually are from 'his mother's womb untimely ripped.'


So the difference then is not in the capitalization of God but our sonship with God in which case only the designated Son of God will reach heaven, while the son of God does not, obviously so, I say.

It also explains what 'begotten' actually means, which has nothing to do with 'fathering' as humans know it, but is about 'incarnation' wherein the Son is born inside the nucleus of the Father to have Sonship there instead of the lower case in 'sonship by desire' and have 'like-god' as Father, who so then is said to be 'from his mother's womb untimely ripped.'

We see this in both Matthew and in Mark while in Luke and John the Son of God is genuine but notably is reborn from the netherworld [or soul] as John, for whom the Lamb of God was manger, in effect, to so first validate and later continues to perpetuate it's destiny until fully Man as identified below the cross by Jesus from the cross.

And no, God has no daughters as all were created androgy in the 'Image of God' and daughters can only be as 'womb of man' after the formation of God as Man in Gen.2, but before the creation of 'like-god' in human 'idealization' of the same, wherein here now God finds his own perpetuity in the ideal, and so is where woman is the mainstay of this God as the womb of Man yearning in desire to remain, so that He can Be.

Diogenes the Cynic

It was an honoric, not an official "title," and in Herodian times it was an allusion to the Jewish Messiah.
Damned if I know, you'd have to ask a Christian that. It never made sense to me either. The phrase "son of God" did not imply any kind of supernatural origin, or divine identity, though.
Jews don't. You are misinformed.
There you go. It wasn't literal, and it implied nothing unique or supernatural about a person. It was also used as an allusion to Davidic kings and the Messiah.

Another example would be "son of man," which is more literally "son of Adam," and referred to human beings in general. The book of Daniel makes reference to a "son of Adam" who will come down from the sky and kick ass. In context, Daniel was just saying the Messiah would be a human, but the phrase became a way to refer elliptically to the Messiah. It's roughly analogous to how we might use the phase "the Man" to refer to somebody important or even to God.

Diogenes the Cynic

Great. Now that you know the definition, you should have no problem understanding the author explicitly says he's talking the the "kings" (collectively, plurally) of Israel.
Excuse me, but no. The topic is the meaning of the phrase "son of God," and what it's meaning is within that Psalm.You can't isolate a verse from context and then insist that it be analyzed outside of it. That's complete nonsense.
Anyone can form an opinion, but if they are not informed opinions, then they aren't worth much and are not going to be accurate assessments. This is a Jewish text, so if you want to know what it means ask the people who wrote it, don't just make stuff up.
if you are commenting on verse 7, you are commenting on verse 10. You don't honestly think you're making any kind of a valid point here, do you?
I will remind you that I'm the one with the "moderator" title after my name, and I am warning you that you were close to the line.
That is a correct interpretation, and this particular Psalm requires no "supplement." Your attempted incision of a line from the rest of the text does not turn its context into a "supplement." Perhaps you;re unaware of thise, but those chapter and verse divisions don't actually exist in the original texts. bible publishers put them in as a convenience to the reader. The authors didn't put them in there. There is no actual division or separation of verses 7 and 10 in the original text. It's all one, undivided piece.
No. This Psalm is a call to Kings of Israel, period. That's what the phrase alluded to in its Herodian context. That's how the phrase was used in Hebrew scripture.
Try reading it. YIn particular, read the part where he tells us what he thinks.
Sure. All the time. Especially when they TELL you.

tanya

Of course not.

The whole of Mark is one uninterrupted text in Codex Sinaiticus. What? Are you saying that we cannot analyze the significance of Mark 1:1, without considering the WHOLE of Mark?

The issue is whether or not "son of God" is distinct from "Son of God", with the implicit understanding that true believers of Christianity accept the notion that Jesus is the actual offspring (upper case) of a supernatural being, as opposed to the broader concept that we are all (lower case), including Jesus, children of God. (Jewish/Muslim position, if I have understood correctly)

The quotation from Psalms 2:7 has, in my opinion, relevance to this question. It shows, I maintain, that for several centuries before the gospels, Jews were already referencing a "son of God".

In my opinion, all of your palaver about "Israel", and "kings", and so on, is just background noise, off-topic nonsense, that detracts from the focus of this thread. This thread is not based on analyzing Psalms to assess whether or not one or more verses support the illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine, by ethnic Jews.

You are the belligerent one, threatening, and arguing meaninglessly about transparency, when the meaning is crystal clear from the quoted text. I do not have any obligation to examine some other verse, to understand the meaning of Psalms 2:7. The meaning is evident from the text, there is no need to drag into the conversation some nonsense about "the Davidic line".

Where we need your help, you have thus far ignored the question raised, implicitly:

Does this distinction between "Son of God" and "son of God", which we observe in contemporary versions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, ostensibly dating from 4th century, appear in the original Latin texts, or, has the original Latin text been changed, to accommodate the more recent English versions?

If the capitalization of "Son" is original, dating from the 4th century in the oldest manuscripts attributed to him, then, why did Jerome capitalize "Son of God", since the Greek does not provide such a discriminant? From which monarch, did the political pressure to change the text originate? Are there any other examples, of translations of ancient Greek manuscripts into Latin, where a particular word, of rather innocuous significance, is highlighted in the Latin, by capitalization or any other means, even though, the original Greek text does not offer distinction to that particular word?

In my opinion, to unravel the mystery of why the English write "son of" versus "Son of", we must first comprehend Jerome's motives, if in fact, he did write his text this way...

Diogenes the Cynic

Well duh. That's how it works. You can't analyze a text without reading the text. Have you ever taken a college class?
These are not distinctions which exist in the original text, so they mean nothing. The original texts, both Greek and Hebrew do not have lower case letter. They all say "SON OF GOD.",
You have not understood correctly. There is no "lower case" version at all.
Yes, as a reference to Jewish kings.
Sorry, but no. Any discussion of the meaning of the phrase "son of God" to 1st Century Jews has to examine the meaning of that phrase in Hebrew Scripture. What any of that has to do with modern Israel or the Palestinian conflict is beyond me.
This angle is too ludicrous even to pursue.
There aren't "original Latin texts." The texts are Hebrew and Greek. Your question makes no sense, and the Vulgate has no relevance to the topic.
Irrelevant. Jerome's opinions have no bearing on the discussion. There isn't any mystery. The meaning of that phrase in the Hebrew texts is clear and explicit.

Chili

It is not hard to figure out that 'son of God' and 'Son of God' are opposite to each other in sonship of God (wherein they are related to God who so is real for both of them), it would follow that if the Son of God goes to heaven and the son of God goes back to Galilee, that should tell us where hell on earth is at and that immediately points to heaven on earth as well.