Jehovah`s Witness/Does the words "Son of God" show the deity of Jesus
Dave wrote at 2013-11-20 12:36:58
***"Apparently, in the biblical culture it [Son of
God] means to be equal with God."***
◆How is that conclusion supported? The statement is
not backed up by any Scriptural grounds. However,
in true "Biblical culture" the phrase "son of God" is
used many times in the Bible in reference to many
individuals. Again Psalms 82:6, the men are called
"sons of the Most High" that is God, and are called
gods because of it. The angels and even Satan is a
"son of the true God" in Job 1:6. Adam himself was
called "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Did it mean they
were all equal to God? So really what does that
phrase mean? Recall when Adam was created, God
said there was something different about this
creation (man), he was going to be created in "our
likeness," thus "in the image of God." Saying "our
likeness" indicates others like God were already in
existance. This is in harmony with the phrase, "son
of God" or "sons of God." No other creature on earth
had this given to them, namely being created in the
image of God other than humans. Namely any
creature with the "image of God" within them were
called sons of God. Would make sense right?
Now that we have cleared that up, what was different
about Jesus that made him an even more special
"Son of God"? The fact that he was the only begotten
Son of God. (John 1:18, 3:16, 1 John 4:9) As we
know, everything was created through Jesus (Col.
1:15-16), but he was the only one begotten by God
himself. No other "son of God" is called "only
begotten Son" in relation to God himself.
Finally with that same faulty reasoning that was just
cleared up, some still claim that if we deny that the
phrase "Son of God" means he was God, then we
must also deny that the phrase, "Son of Man" means
Jesus was man.
There is a major problem with this, and this is why
we do not accept this line of thought. It is
unfortunate that there is a need for such an
explanation of such a simple thought given to us by
the Bible, but yet some twist meanings; so we must
uphold truth. "Man" is not a person, it is a specie.
"God" the Almighty is a person, he is also our Father
and his name is Jehovah. The problem is this, "God"
in the expression Son of God is not a mere specie or
"substance" it is referring to, it is literally talking
about the person of God himself, the Almighty--thus
son of the Most High God.
Let the reader decide: As it is used of Jesus, how is
the word God in the phrase "Son of God" to be
understood? As: A) a specie , or B) a person (his
Father and God)?
keith wrote at 2015-04-08 18:38:49
I read this old post of yours and it strikes me there is something you did not discuss. I don't know how one could talk about what it means to say the Jesus is the "Son of God" without discussing the notion that he is the "only begotten" Son of God. This is what distinguishes him from those who are sons and daughters of God in title only or, as is sometimes said, by adoption. As I understand it, the WTS teaches that "only begotten" means "only directly-created." But as you probably know, "begotten" does not mean "directly-created." Birds beget birds, cattle beget cattle, human beings beget human beings. Hence our ancient creed says, "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" in speaking of the Father and the Son as one God. God made all things from nothing. But the Son was not "made" -- he was alone begotten. And since he is begotten "of God," he is begotten not at a point in time (time is a creation of God) but in eternity. He is eternally begotten by the Father, and eternal with the Father, in the same sense that a flame is never without the light which comes forth from it. He is begotten,not made. We are "of nothingness." God created us from nothing. The Son is "of God." He comes out from the Father, eternally, and is of the same substance as the Father and therefore God with the Father, since there is only one God. You state that all creatures in Heaven (and apparently God himself) share one and the same nature, and you define this nature as their being "spirits." You suggest the only thing that distinguishes these "spirits" is their powers, which can vastly vary. God the Father is most powerful, followed by the Son, etc. But otherwise their natures are the same. In what sense then, can the Son be called "only begotten"? That which is begotten, is by definition of the same kind as that which begets it. Birds can only beget birds, and God can only beget God. A man "makes" a house, but he "begets" a son. If a man makes his first house with his own hands, and and subsequent houses with the help of others, we do not say he "begat" the first house. He made it, just like the others. If you dilute or change the meaning of the word "begotten," you are taking away the Son of God's true sonship with God the Father. You are no longer aknowledging his sonship is "of God," and declaring it to be "of nothingness." You are denying in a very real sense that he is the Son of God. What would you say to this?