You are here:

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?  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Brenton Hepburn


I AM one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I am always learning. I am NOT an expert in the full sense of the word but I can answer questions on the reliability of the NWT - the so called mind control problems-so called prophecies - how being a JW affects the individual and relatives and general practices and history of Jehovah’s Witnesses. >>WARNING<< Please be aware that there are people here who ARE NOT practicing JWs. By all means ask these ones questions. Depending on the question you will get an honest answer, but, generally the answer you get, will mislead you as to what we believe, often because, they do not give ALL the relevant details. These ones will, have an agenda against JWs., and will at times give answers that are not correct in regard to JW teachings and practices. If you are after a answer from one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, please read some of the answers that the various experts have published before choosing someone. If you want to ask one of the NON JWs a question, that is fine, BUT if you want a balancing view after asking one of the NON JWs, ask a JW the same question. PLEASE ALSO NOTE: There(have been)and are, some "experts" here who are NOT always the most courteous and polite, at times are actually quite rude, that applies to both JW's and non JW's and their answers may offend, especially when they get personal and attack the character of the person and not the message. Unfortunately some here that have done that. So it IS IMPORTANT to chose an "expert" that YOU feel will best suit YOU by reading some of their past answers . . . . .


I have been a publisher since 1964. When I first went on the internet I found a lot of negative information dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses covering prophecy, mind control and what many said was a very bad translation of the Bible known as the NWT. It shook my faith. After may hours researching these topics I could see why some felt that way, but, I was also able to explain why there were these misleading views. I can now set matters straight for anyone that has negative information about Jehovah’s Witness to show them that such information is at best misleading and at worst dangerous lies.

I have been a student of the Bible for many years, am trying to teach myself Biblical Greek. Was a public tax accountant for many years untill SEP 2009 when I gave it up due to health problems.

©2016 All rights reserved.