The Son of God

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

I have written in "Our Father in Heaven" about the need, if we are to spread peace among believers and non believers alike as well as believers of different denominations and even of different religions, to investigate more symbolically our texts with such apparently earthly meanings and emphasis to see if they can be interpreted in a more heavenly way.

This afternoon whilst testing speakers I walked into the room with Evensong being transmitted on Radio 3 to the text of the New Testament Luke Chapter 8.

To those who hear perhaps only the earthly message and finding that faith fails thereby, the first passage I happened to hear might be relevant:

Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away."

The book continues:

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." But he answered them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it."

What therefore might Jesus' definition of a Son of God be?

Do any of the particular details of the Christmas story have to be a sticking point to anyone being a believer in the teachings of Jesus and the parable of his life and elevation from this Earthly Realm?

Best wishes

David P

[Barry Williams]

Jesus declined to call himself 'Son of God' or even 'Messiah'.  When asked about the terms he avoided the question.  (The exception is, perhaps, Mark chapter 14, verse 62.)  According to Holy Scripture, the chief priests calling to Jesus on the cross (Matthew, chapter 27, verse 43,) must have been lying, for he never used the term.  The disciples only referred to Jesus once as 'Son of God' (Matthew, chapter 14, vers 33,) and that is a very doubtful piece, made even more doubtful by Mark, chapter 6, verses 51 and 52.

It is possible that the phrase had some special meaning to Jews at that time, as did the phrase 'Son of Man', which appears rather more often in the Bible.  Whilst 'Son of Man' appears odd in New Testament Greek, it has a clear parallel in Aramaic and Jesus often refers to himself by that term, possibly as a reflexive pronoun common at the time.

It is difficult to ascertain, therefore, what Jesus' definition of 'Son of God' might be.  As indicated above, we can be certain that he did not apply it to himself.  Possibly, Jesus would have interpreted the phrase in the context of II Samuel, chapter 7, verses 11- 16.  This would give the term as the ultimate fulfillment  in Jesus, but, as indicated above, Jesus himself did not acknowledge that at all.

Barry Williams

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

Perhpas Jesus didn't normally use the term of Himself because it would have opened up the possible charge of Blasphemy at too early a stage in His earthly ministry.

Matthew uses the term "Son of God" of Jesus in his account of the Temptation - information that must logically have come from Jesus Himself - but of course, as Barry has already noted, the term was used of Jesus by other people.  It comes down more to the even knottier problem of the Trinity - and is perhaps no more than a shorthand way of describing Jesus' role.

There are several places where, although not using the term, Jesus claims to be the Son of God, for example Matthew 11:27; Matthew 16 etc.  So we should have no difficulty in using the term.

Every Blessing

Tony

[Barry Williams]

Neither Matthew, chapter 11, verse 27, nor Matthew 16 go anywhere near the term 'Son of God'.  Whilst the general theme (of these and other such passages, such as Mark, chapter 10, verse 15 and Luke, chapter 18, verse 17,) is that God's secrets are revealed to Jesus and through Jesus, it is a huge jump to attribute anything like the term 'Son of God' with all its implications, from these passages.

There is no doubt that Jesus would have undoubtedly attracted a charge of blasphemy, had he used the term of Himself at at early stage in His ministry.  Yet the uncomfortable reality is that he did not ever even imply the term, let alone use it and we simply do not know why not.  (There are interesting parallels with the Essenes, though perhaps not for this forum!)

I prefer the view that the term 'Son of God' is an Aramaic reflexive pronoun whose use is difficult to discern two thousand years on.  That is the only approach that does not lead to a contradiction within the canon of Holy Scripture.  Of course, it leaves the matter open as to whether Jesus, throughout His ministry, realised the full extent of His divinity.  If he did not it does not alter the truth of His message, though the unreformed church disputes that.

Barry Williams

[David Pinnegar]

(There are interesting parallels with the Essenes, though perhaps not for this forum!)

Why not? Isn't it useful to examine the faiths and beliefs that support the instrument of which we find to be the source of great inspiration?

In the Our Father (which art) in Heaven thread I drew an analogy with two films -
Earth to Earth
http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10087417
which bears particular analogy to the earthly interpretation of the bible and
http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10117924
a film about golf in which the other interpretation is as obvious and veiled at the same time as is the other interpretation of our text. The other interpretation of the text is just as shocking to anyone who wishes to see and believe only the earthly story.

Best wishes

David P

[David Pinnegar]

Dear Barry and Tony and anyone else interested in this area,

I'm sorry for possibly having interrupted discussion reverting to what might be seen as an irrelevance. Your discussions and debate on this are most probably of rather general interest and particularly worth pursuing.

It would be great if others might be involved in this because I have heard a lot of fundamentalists talk of Christ being the Son of God, and it is for many a problem in their faith that the fundamental view is that he is God made Man, an earthly son of god in the earthly manner, rather than a metaphysical parable or analogy as indicated by the passage in Luke 8.

I fear that there are many who don't have the faith enough in their "Earth to Earth" interpretation to reveal their faith and explain theor corner, and there are many who don't have the courage of their faith in the more heavenly interpretation to bring it into the light. Luke 8 also refers to the need for those who Christ wishes to see follow him actually bring their faith into the light.

Best wishes

David P

[revtonynewnham]

Hi David

Your second paragraph rather misses the point.  Jesus is both wholly man & wholly God - it's one of those mysteries of the Christian faith.  Whilst here on earth,  Jesus laid aside the attributes of God to become, for a time, wholly man - albeit not exactly conceived in the normal way!

Every Blessing

Tony
(in haste)

[David Pinnegar]

Dear Tony

Yes - I sort of understand this as the, without meaning to be rude, dogma but have difficulties at time in fitting my brain around the issues, especially bearing in mind the lack of "evidence" in terms of what Jesus said and the way in which he refers to his mother and brothers in Luke 8 - implying that the term "Son of God" has much wider heavenly applicability on earth clearly inclusive of other mortals.

Best wishes

David P

[revtonynewnham]

Dear Tony

Yes - I sort of understand this as the, without meaning to be rude, dogma but have difficulties at time in fitting my brain around the issues, especially bearing in mind the lack of "evidence" in terms of what Jesus said and the way in which he refers to his mother and brothers in Luke 8 - implying that the term "Son of God" has much wider heavenly applicability on earth clearly inclusive of other mortals.

Best wishes

David P

Hi David

That's why "faith" is necessary!  There are concepts in Christianity that we just cannot understand with our finite minds - no doubt there are some also in other spheres.

The other references that you allude to fall into 2 categories - firstly the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are a bit of a mystery.  They are often identified as being angels - but I would need to do a lot more research before making a definite pronouncement on that!  Certainly, the usage seems to be limited too that period in the Biblical account.

The second group of uses of the term "sons of God"is only used in the New Testament, specifically Matt  5; Romans 8 & Galatians 3 and in all of these cases, the term is a general term for believers.  Maybe that was another reason why Jesus only rarely used the term of Himself.

The two aspects are obviously different - the joys of inaccurate languages!

Every Blessing

Tony

[David Pinnegar]

Dear Tony

Yes - the point is that it is wholly easier to have faith in the analagous reading of the text in the Heavenly realm which makes perfect rational sense when one understands how to read it whereas the Earth to Earth reading requires "leaps of faith" to overcome difficulties which are actually unnecessary. It's for this reason that I urge people to look at the heavenly rather than the earthly interpretation as by doing so many more people may come to faith and understanding of the biblical message.

The reference to Sons of God in Genesis and again in Job chapter 1 was the very mainspring of the Renaissance when the Christians moved into Toledo in 1180 and discovered the arab libraries which had preserved the Greek myths, with which Genesis was seen to accord.

Celebrating the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version, there is a passage which demonstrates this. From memory without looking it up:

And there were giants in the earth at that time. And also after that when the Sons of God came into the daughters of men their issue were the Men of Renown

Who were the Men of Renown?

Best wishes

David P

[David Pinnegar]

Who were the Men of Renown?

Hi!

Wasn't this post provocative enough to provoke a response? Does not anyone know who the Men of Renown were? Bearing in mind they were of renown enough at the time of the translation of the Authorised Text, shouldn't we know now who they are?

Much more directly applicable, however, to the theme of this post is the report in The Times today are the words of Lord Sacks, Chief Rabbi, who says that he finds the new atheists such as Richard Dawkins "intellectually disappointing" and also criticises a fundamentalist approach to the Torah saying that fundamentalists and today's atheists shared the same approach to religious texts. "They read them directly and literally, ignoring the single most important fact about a sacred text - namely, that its meaning is not self-evident".

It appears that I was in good company therefore when writing on Tony Newnham's facebook page, if not here somewhere as well, complaining of those who reject religion and those who ruin it alike in taking the same literal approach to the texts.

In view of the significant importance of trying to find threads of peace in this world, it's very disappointing that those responsible for literal interpretations of texts have not chosen to take issue here . . . the conclusion being that they know full well how thin the ice is upon which they skate. The importance of escaping the earthly bounds of fundamentalism is once again championed by the Chief Rabbi in saying that
"All faiths must stand together against hatred"
  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5593142.ece

Best wishes

David P