Talk:Son of God: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
ChessPlayer (talk | contribs) == No citations? == |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
== No citations? == |
|||
The sources used in the creation of the article should be cited in the article. - [[User:ChessPlayer|ChessPlayer]] 01:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:27, 13 May 2004
Removed from article: In Greek Mythology you will find many Sons (and Daughters) of God, but apart from mythology it was very common to call a wise and holy person Son of God. The early Cristians named Jesus a Son of God, to say he was a wise and holy person indeed. This all within Roman Civilisation, with many many Gods around, in the Helenistic melting pot. Later, when Cristians were in power, they said Jesus is the only Son of God, so the Christians were very human indeed.
Is any of this true? ---rmhermen
- Well, there were many sons and daughters of Zeus, but calling him "God" seems a confusion of the issues. As for the conclusion that Christians were very human indeed--can one person be more human than another? The last sentence seems like a candidate for the scrap heap. "Christian" does indeed have an "h" between the C and the R. And "Hellenistic" has two l's. I can't speak for the content, though. It sounds like filler for bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, though it may just need considerable expansion and citation. --Koyaanis Qatsi
- The bit about Christians calling Jesus "a Son of God" because he was "a wise and holy man" is tripe. Jesus was recognized as the only Son of God by his followers (see John 3:16, Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9, and 1 John 5:5 for examples), and his enemies in the Jewish power base plotted his death because Jesus claimed equality with God (see John 5:18, for example). <>< tbc
- Well certaintly that was what they came to believe at some point; whether they always believed that or whether the belief was a later development is an open question, as is whether all of Jesus' followers believed that or whether it was only some group. The New Testament was written several decades after Jesus' death, and certaintly its authors did not represent the full range of thought in earliest Christianity (otherwise, why is it filled with warnings about 'false teachers'?). So exactly what the earliest followers of Jesus believed we don't know. -- Simon J Kissane
- so the only candidate for restoral is "[In Greek society] it was very common to call a wise and holy person Son of God"? Hm. What was intended by this article, anyway? A historical examination of people claiming to be the Son of God? Or a partisan screed about Jesus Christ? Regardless of what was originally intended, what should it be? Has anyone other than Jesus claimed to be the son of God? --KQ
- yay, another opportunity for a LIST O' LINKS - Son of God, the List! Actually, I vote that this was a partisan screed, and personally suggest a deep breath, a quick edit to remove the worst parts, remembering the idea of sonship (in which all Christians become Sons of God), and moving on to other articles. --MichaelTinkler
There are several fairly obscure references to sons of God in the Old Testament. e.g. Genesis (6:2) writes about sons of God marrying daughters of men. In the New Testament, John (1:12) says of Jesus "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". The Lord's prayer begins with the words "Our Father", suggesting that according to Jesus we are all sons or daughters of God. In contrast, however, there are many passages where Jesus is referred to as *the* son of God, or as the *only begotten* son of God. This suggests that there are two distinct traditions being melded in the gospels, or perhaps two distinct phrases both being translated as "son of God". --Martin Gradwell.
No citations?
The sources used in the creation of the article should be cited in the article. - ChessPlayer 01:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)