Did Jesus ever claim to be the son of God?

[TonyChanYT]

Yes, John 10:

36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God”?

Jesus was talking about himself in John 3:

17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Luke 22
66 When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying,
67 “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
68 and if I ask a question, you will not answer.
69 “But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.”
70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”
71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”
.

 

[Papa Smurf]

MERRY CHRISTMAS TONY, et al

Luke 2​

8 There were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. ​

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. ​

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. ​

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. ​

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. ​

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,​

​

14 Glory to God in the highest,​

And on earth peace,​

Good will toward men.​

.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, John 10:


Jesus was talking about himself in John 3:

In the Scriptures from the very beginning it was understood that Man would die because of his sinful nature. That is, all men were sinners--therefore, all must die. And yet, God showed His attitude towards the loss of people prematurely.

Gen 4.25 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.

So God was concerned that Adam be given a replacement son when an earlier one was taken away prematurely. It shows that Adam, the son of God, also dies prematurely because God wanted him to partake of the Tree of Life and live forever. And so, God provided a replacement son, Jesus, who would not be taken away ever, and who would also become a source of eternal life for all those who derive from him their righteousness.

To be this kind of son required that Jesus be, like Adam, a son of God. But it also required him to *be God,* ie the unique Son of God, the Word of God made flesh.

Luke 3.38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[Aunty Jane]

John 10

John 10:31-36...in context....
“Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” [theos]34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? [theos]35 If he called ‘gods’ [theos] those against whom the word of God [ho theos] came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the son of God [ho theos]?”

If you read this in Greek, the definite article identifies Jehovah in these verses. Reference to “god(s)” without the definite article is not talking about Jehovah, so the Jews were not accusing him of being “ho theos” (Jehovah) but of being “theos”....a divine son of God.

When the Jews emoved God’s name from their speech, it meant that the translators of scripture who came later followed the Jewish tradition of substituting a title for the divine name, hence Christian scripture is confusing because both Jehovah and his son are called “Lord” and “god”. Addressing someone as “Lord” in the Bible is simply a title of respect, it is not a name. Calling someone “theos” (god) does not mean a deity necessarily either because it can also refer to those who had Jehovah’s divine authority. The judges in Israel for example, Jehovah himself called them “gods”, not meaning that these were deities, but that they had an office of divine appointment. Jesus too as Messiah could rightly be called a “god” in the same sense. He was the divinely appointed Messiah.

John 1:1 in Greek identified both Father and son in that verse simply by the use of the definite article, which is conveniently ignored by biased trinitarian translators.

Jesus was talking about himself in John 3:

Jehovah “sent” his son into the world.....the very fact that they identify themselves as “Father and son” means that this is their relationship from a human standpoint.....it is one that humans are familiar with and there is no ambiguity in knowing what it means. A father always exists before he produces a son. Jesus is “begotten”, a term that means he had a ‘begetter’ who existed before him.

Why is there a need to make this relationship into something it never was?

 

[Randy Kluth]

John 10:31-36...in context....
“Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” [theos]34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? [theos]35 If he called ‘gods’ [theos] those against whom the word of God [ho theos] came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the son of God [ho theos]?”

If you read this in Greek, the definite article identifies Jehovah in these verses. Reference to “god(s)” without the definite article is not talking about Jehovah, so the Jews were not accusing him of being “ho theos” (Jehovah) but of being “theos”....a divine son of God.

When the Jews emoved God’s name from their speech, it meant that the translators of scripture who came later followed the Jewish tradition of substituting a title for the divine name, hence Christian scripture is confusing because both Jehovah and his son are called “Lord” and “god”. Addressing someone as “Lord” in the Bible is simply a title of respect, it is not a name. Calling someone “theos” (god) does not mean a deity necessarily either because it can also refer to those who had Jehovah’s divine authority. The judges in Israel for example, Jehovah himself called them “gods”, not meaning that these were deities, but that they had an office of divine appointment. Jesus too as Messiah could rightly be called a “god” in the same sense. He was the divinely appointed Messiah.

John 1:1 in Greek identified both Father and son in that verse simply by the use of the definite article, which is conveniently ignored by biased trinitarian translators.



Jehovah “sent” his son into the world.....the very fact that they identify themselves as “Father and son” means that this is their relationship from a human standpoint.....it is one that humans are familiar with and there is no ambiguity in knowing what it means. A father always exists before he produces a son. Jesus is “begotten”, a term that means he had a ‘begetter’ who existed before him.

Why is there a need to make this relationship into something it never was?

I would make Father and Son into a divine relationship because that's what they always were, just as God the Creator was co-equal with God the Word. God was His own Word and also the originator of that Word.

It was necessary that Jesus be more than just a person with a title of respect because he had to represent divine forgiveness for fallen mankind. Only God can forgive sin in this way, bringing about resurrection from the dead and eternal life. We mortals may forgive those who have sinned against us, but we can't thereby grant them resurrection and eternal life.

I'm not a Greek scholar so I can't comment on how important it is to have "the" there before God or not. Since in other places in the Scriptures Paul indicated the full deity resided in Christ, I don't need to guess. Everything Jesus did, in terms of miracle, was exponentially greater that those done by the mortal saints before him.

He was, quite simply, not merely a mortal, but more, God made flesh. He was the revelation of the eternal God, and the expression of His Divine Person in human form.

 

[Angelina]

This thread is closed.

Please read: Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB