Ierrellus

Sign Related,

You are right! Jesus never professed to be God: and as for implying that he was the son of God, he also implied we could be as he is. He noted he was one with the Father. I'm one with anyone who shares my right to exist as who I am. Jesus said, "Follow me" ,not "worship me". He said he was the way, the truth and the life. The way is also found in Confucious' doctrines, Buddhist doctrines or any doctrine that values life above ideas.

The Pauline myth that placed Jesus into personalized idolatry has no reference to any Gospel rendering of Jesus' own words.

Mageth

I think it's important to look at John 10:36 in context. Here's verse 29-38 (KJV):

(Emphasis mine). In verse 34, Jesus apparently refers to the rather enigmatic verse from Psalm 82:6: I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

So what exactly is Jesus saying here? That He is the "Son of God" alone, or that everyone upon "whom the word of God comes" is "god", in a sense, so therefore he is not wrong for him or anyone else to claim to be "in God" if his works show that he is in the Father, and the Father is in him?

Soul Invictus

See, this is language chicanery. What does "the" mean in Greek then? Does it hold exclusivity how it does in English?

Sign Related

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

^^"I said" surely is reffering to someone else that's doctrine of God/religious related. And even Jesus surely isnt quoting himself because we would have read near by Jesus saying "I am the Son of God". So clearly Jesus is not referring to himself as the Son of God at all.

And it is interesting because now the reader of the gospel books has to get the term "I" straightened for every time Jesus even used such the term, if you ask me. For all you know, in certain part Jesus could be speaking in 3rd person in a sense you at first wouldnt grasp.

As for the Son of Man... Concerning what I learned... Jesus out right reveals that aint him in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 17 because he foretold the coming of the Son of Man. The Son of Man is not yet till the fulfillment. But! But there are days of the Son of man which already be here. And again, those sons of men who are as days themselves are not Jesus.

Clue you all in on the fulfillment of the Son of Man with one quote:

Mark 13:34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

^^Once the particular kind of who leaves it is then that the Son of Man is here alone without an ounce of who doesn't belong here. "; the one shall be taken, the other left." Who all ever is left will make up the Son of Man.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not really in the same way, no. Koine doesn't really have the same convention of emphasizing the definite article to denote exclusivity or specificity. So in the phrase Ho Nios tou Theou (literally "the son of the God"), "Ho" does not have any particular emphatic significance, it's just grammatically correct.

Even if we allowed for some kind of exclusive or more titular intent, though, it would only be a claim (or a question by the Sanhedrin) about whether Jesus was "the" heir to the throne of David, not whether he was "the" only literal biological offspring of God.

jbernier

It is quite possible (even probable) that the Son of Man references in the canonical gospels are allusions to the Son of Man figure in Daniel (who, btw, is not presented as the Messiah). There seems to have been a general tendency within certain forms of Judaism towards identifying such figures as aspects of God.

Mageth

Note that "I said" is part of the quote from Psalms. You can read it "Is it not written in your law, "I said, Ye are gods"?" Just for clarification.

jbernier

Quite right, although the definite article could be added where there was not one previously. However, one needs to demonstrate that this is the case using textual evidence - not just assume that it is because it fits one's position better.

jbernier

Quite the opposite. Someone put forward the hypothesis that "the" and "a" were transposed in the Greek (without any textual support for said hypothesis). If there is any chicanery, this would appear to be where it lies. Diogenes simply observed that this is impossible as there is no word for "a" in Greek. There are definite articles which are often best translated as "the" and then there is the absence of a definite article in relation to noun (in which case one can often supply an "a" or "the" in translation).

Short version: No, "a" and "the" did not get 'transposed' in Greek as there is no Greek word for "a." This is not chicanery; it is the citation of evidence to refute a hypothesis.

jbernier

And this is the real question, grammatically: Is this a proper title? The definite article in Greek has an usage that never shows up for the definite article in English. One would never refer to Jesus as "the Jesus" or to Herakles as "the Herakles." You see it all the time in Greek: Proper names and titles being given the definite article.

The question about what it means to be "Son of God" is, properly speaking, not a grammatical question at all but rather a semantic one: What did that term mean in a first century Jewish context? I think that seeing it as a heir to the throne of David is probably accurate for the synoptics. It works less well for the Gospel of John, though. In this Gospel you have no Davidic imagery whatsoever (Jesus is depicted not as a successor to David but rather to Moses) yet you still have a tradition that says that he is the son of God.