The "son of God" propaganda
Christian error sadly exemplified
Introduction
It is impossible to truly comprehend the enormity, glory, wisdom, power, or any other attribute of God. He is beyond full human understanding. The Eternal One presents His Truths and ways in the language of man using terminology common to man’s understanding. Using such common sense terms we can get a basic grasp of the otherwise infinite and eternal way and Truth of God.
However, the fact that it is impossible to fully comprehend God should never be used as an excuse for distorting what we can comprehend. That deceitful tactic is precisely what Christianity does with the "trinity" and other "God in the flesh" idolatrous pagan error. Christianity takes obvious, easily understood common sense truths and deforms them into utterly false doctrines. A couple of classic examples of exactly that type of truth-deformity is the just mentioned "God in the flesh Christ" and the incorrect understanding of "son of God", both of which they explain away as one of the "mysteries" of the "godhead" .
Within this discussion I will focus upon the simplicity of the easily understood true definition of "son of God".
I plead with Christians and Messianics to use common sense while considering the issue of Yeshua’s deity, in this instance with respect to the term “son of God” and how a perfected person was obviously at one time imperfect until such time as his perfection occurred. I discuss elsewhere how the need for Yeshua to become perfect is irrefutable proof that he is not "God in the flesh".
many
It is truly astounding how Christians ignore and flippantly excuse away that clear truth as if there is a preprogrammed hypnosis induced automatic deactivation switch in their brain that turns off their common sense thinking processes whenever the issue is discussed. But then, the same can unfortunately be said for many of Christianity's errors. Other Christians, however, readily admit the truth but simply don't care to change their defective belief.
Emotional feelings, the friend of bias and enemy of truth
There are a handful of fundamental Christian teachings that engender intense emotion and passion among Christians. Unfortunately, those emotional feelings create a situation in which reasonable discussion or debate with regard to such topics is impossible because Christians are incapable of laying aside their emotion so as to allow such discussion. Their emotional investment in the issue prevents them from ever being able to sensibly and objectively consider anything other than their emotionally biased perspective.
The "son of God" issue is one such topic, and that is largely due to it being an integral part of the "virgin birth" doctrine, which may be the most emotion-based of all Christian dogmas. The "virgin birth" also happens to have woefully limited support within the New Testament since, with the exception of the questionable birth accounts in two of the four gospels, it is never, ever mentioned again anywhere within the entire New Testament.
That is suspiciously puzzling given that Christianity so forcefully promotes it as a required belief. Oddly, however, the New Testament provides no hints whatsoever that it is a mandatory belief. For instance, you will not find a single mention of it within the numerous instances in which the message of the faith of and in Yeshua is expounded upon in the book of Acts or the epistles. NOT A SINGLE MENTION.
It is rather obvious to the unbiased observer that there were no consistent guidelines or teams of scribes who translated the copies of copies of copies of New Testament manuscripts and whose work, regrettably, resulted in thousands of generally negligible variations and differences within their finished product. If there had been, the "virgin birth" issue would perhaps be more prevalent within those writings.
Additionally, the biased rendition of the alleged birth accounts would have somehow been manifested or mentioned elsewhere in order to provide support for their distorted presentation of the "son of God" Biblical concept. I provide arguments against the alleged "virgin birth", or its unreasonable level of importance within Christianity, elsewhere and will not detail those arguments here.
If possible, put aside your emotion and let us apply common sense to the study of the phrase “son of God”. Let us also admit that the capitalized "S" in the term "Son", which is always present in any New Testament verse referencing Yeshua, is a blatantly obvious act of unsubstantiated bias. Admit it or prove yourself to not care about truth. Such brazen examples of bias by New Testament translators and Christian leaders exposes their deceit for all to see.
Yeshua is called a "son of God", but why ... really?
First, I may need to alert the reader that Christianity explicitly requires a reversal of the phrase "son of God". Indeed, it is required within Christianity that you believe in "God the son".
"God the son" does not , never has, and never will exist!
If you deny the unmistakable truth that "God the son" is nowhere found in the Bible, then please read no further since your preprogrammed hypnosis induced automatic deactivation switch has been triggered and your mind has shut down. Your common sense and objectivity have been temporarily suspended. Goodbye. Go in peace.
But if you instead recognize and openly admit that "God the son" is found nowhere in Scripture, then please continue reading.
9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. … 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.
There has never been a time in recorded history where a man and his son were one and the same being. It is impossible. I will confidently state that there is no possible way that proof can be provided to show how a man and his son are the same person. In fact, there is no animal in existence whose father is himself or son is himself. Such a thought is the product of a broken brain. If Christians were not so tragically brainwashed by their leaders into believing that an entity and it's son were one and the same entity, the mere suggestion would be instantly rebuffed as the product of an insane mind.
Also note in the verses quoted above how distinction is shown by Yeshua being sent by God. Such distinction between Yeshua and God is continuously presented all throughout the New Testament. A separate article discusses that in greater detail.
The Scriptures generally describe all things relative to God using human terms. This literary technique, called anthropomorphism, is a primary means used in Scripture to lead us into an understanding of God. It is also an example of the use of "the language of the branches" - a phrase I define at length in the article in which I discuss oral Torah.
Anthropomorphism:There is another term that refers more specifically to emotions:Anthropopathy: ascription of human passions or feelings to a being or beings not human, especially to a deity. A large percentage of the work, The Guide of the Perplexed, is devoted to how to properly interpret such anthropomorphisms. It is a literary classic written by the highly revered Torah master, RAMBAM (rabbi Moses ben Maimon, otherwise known as Moses Maimonides). RAMBAM's genius is and has been recognized for over fifteen centuries by those who revere Torah. His magnum Opus (masterpiece) is the multi-volume, Mishneh Torah, which intends to greatly simplify comprehension of Talmudic principles.
Anthropomorphism is commonly practiced within the Bible with, for instance, reference to God's “heart”, “hand”, “finger”, etc. Attributes of personality such as “jealousy”, “will” or “desire”, “hate”, and many other “emotions” are anthropomorphic or anthropopathic terms which were never intended to be taken literally. The reason for utilizing this technique is so that mankind, who is incapable of truly understanding the infinite Almighty, can grasp the basics of what is actually beyond our ability to understand.
The reference to Yeshua as God's “son” is one of these anthropomorphic techniques.
Solomon was referred to as God's son
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
Proof of this referring to Solomon is found in 1 Chronicles 28:6
6 And he (God) said unto me (David), Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
It should be noted that verses regarding Solomon (and many other passages) are sometimes assumed to refer to Messiah. I agree; however, I feel the correct standard method of interpreting Scripture is to first look for a direct application and then to expand it to encompass other potential meanings since a passage may and often does contain multiple truths. Some verses of Scripture may have a “near – far” dual interpretation. They have both direct (near) and indirect (far) meanings.
Christianity often spiritualize and allegorize potentially Messianic Tanakh passages (irreverently called the "Old" Testament) to fit their pagan Roman empire understandings. Judaism, on the other hand, seems to sometimes get too literal and disregard the possible allegorical/spiritual (far) interpretation of Messianic verses, which is very odd since the writings of Jewish Sages are so filled with deeper spiritual interpretations of Scripture (the “sod” or “hidden” meaning).
We must all admit that we are not at a level of spiritual oneness with The Eternal One to know for certain, but I feel – as previously stated – that it is wrong to do as most Christians do, which is to make the Tanakh into an allegorical jumbled mystery from which they devise various beliefs to fit their Torah illiterate bias. We should also not become too attached to our near-far understandings unless they are implicitly obvious, since they are – by definition – beyond our ability to perfectly understand.
The entire nation of Israel is referred to as God’s sons.
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Note that Israel is even called the firstborn son of God!
Adam was the “son of God”
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
The Bible identifies well over 600,000 "sons" of God!
Therefore it is accurate to say there are references to well over 600,000 “sons of God” in the Bible, since the nation of Israel is a "son" of God. That is a fact Christian teachers hate to have revealed.
37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
All true followers of God’s Holy instructions (Torah) are called sons of God
The clear and undeniable fact is that the term “son of God” is always used in an anthropomorphic sense to refer to God’s representative(s) or devotees.
Yeshua is the ultimate tzaddik, or pious and righteous servant and representative of God. Virtually all Christians believe that Yeshua is called the “son” of God solely because of the virgin birth. If that is so, why are so many others also called God’s “son”?
As I show in the "virgin birth" article, the teaching that Yeshua was conceived of a virgin actually threatens Yeshua’s claim to being the Messiah. Additionally, if being born of a virgin makes him God’s “son”, then he ranks third in the list of miraculous births since neither Adam nor Eve had a mother or father. Adam was born from dirt, and Eve from Adam’s side. That is yet another bit of trivia Christian leaders would prefer Christians to not ponder for too long.
The exact moment when Yeshua (Jesus) became the "son of God"
A hint: It was not at his birth.
The New Testament actually suggests to us the exact moment that Yeshua was “begotten” of God, and it was not at his birth. Yes, believe it or not we can know the precise time of the final “begetting” of Messiah Yeshua.
In Acts 13 Paul is speaking to those gathered in a synagogue of Antioch. In this single chapter the entire gospel is summed up in one of the most concise presentations to be found anywhere in Scripture. During his sermon Paul reveals the exact moment that Yeshua’s “begotten” status was completed.
33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”
The Psalm to which he refers is:
7 I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”
The announcement of the angel Gabriel in Luke’s gospel presents in the future tense the fact that Yeshua “will be called the Son of the Highest.” This prophecy from Gabriel had it’s fulfillment at Yeshua’s resurrection.
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
As usual, I appeal to common sense. Someone who is “begotten” is not eternal but has a beginning; therefore, the “begotten one” (Yeshua) cannot be the “Eternal One,” (God).
I would argue that the resurrection is the completion of the process of Yeshua’s becoming God’s son. He was already His son as defined previously in term’s of being God’s perfect representative, agent, Servant, and Anointed One. For the reasons I discussed in the virgin birth article previously mentioned, I seriously question the virgin birth and consider it to be an attempt by those lead by the spirit of error (spirit of antichrist) to usurp Yeshua’s rightful claim to be the Messiah of Israel since it eliminates the primary importance of him being of the literal seed of David through his father as Scripture demands for "Messiah ben David". It also threatens Yeshua's being "Messiah ben Yosef", which is an essential element of the "Messiah" doctrine and which he actually was 2000 years ago. His "Messiah ben David" fulfillment has yet to occur but will upon his return.
So, upon his resurrection, Messiah Yeshua became the son of the Highest due to the fact that Yeshua was the very first man resurrected to eternal life. Further evidence which proves Yeshua’s “begotten of God” status occurred at his resurrection and not at his birth is shown below. Likewise, a quote from Luke’s gospel shows Messiah himself implicitly defining “son of God” as being those birthed by resurrection.
3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
So, there you have it. I have presented a straight forward, easily understood, Bible supported definition of "son of God".
May God open hearts and minds to truth.