What does it "REALLY" mean that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

We all know that when one ask the question, "Who is Jesus Christ" the inevitable answer will be, "He is the Son of God." Okay, but what does that really mean? Does it mean Jesus is the Son of God just like Christians are called and identified as the sons of God? No, Christians are "adopted" sons of God, we are not "THE" Son of God in an exclusive sense as pointed out at John 3:16.

The Jews have what is known as "idioms" just like all nationalities have idioms. One of the idioms they have is "the son of" idiom. For example in the Old Testament you will read various phrases like, "Sons of prophets," refer to men belogning to a prophetic band. (1 Kings 20:35). Sons of the goldsmiths refers to a goldsmith (Nehemiah 3:31). How about "Sons of affliction are afflicted ones. (Proverbs 31:8). Sons of valor, is simply a brave man. (1 Samuel 14:52.) There are literally thousands of these idioms throughout the Bible.

The idiom also demonstrates one posse3ssing a certain nature. The idiom, "son of man" clealy exhibits the use of the word "son" to show the possession of a certain nature. This is brought out at Numbers 23:19. "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." The "son of man" idiom is used throughout the Bible. Ezekiel 2:1, 3:3,4, 10:4. Job 25:6, Psalm 8:4 and in the book of Daniel. Jesus Christ often referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" and as the "Son of God."

The idiom is also present in the New Testament. Sons of peace refers to a peaceful person. (Luke 10:6). Sons of Abraham are those like him in the exercise of faith. (Galatians 3:7). Son of perdition is the lost one. This refers to two persons, Judas and the antichrist. (John 17:12) (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

At this point I want to explain how all of this applys to Jesus Christ. But first let me say I am not going to explain the terms "Firstborn" or the term "Only Begotten," (although I could) as it pertains to Jesus Christ. I am not going to get into the weeds about explaining the Trinity either.

The most important question for me is the one that Jesus ask His disciples at Matthew 16:13, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" Notice what Peter says at vs16, "Thou are the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God." How did Peter know this? Verse 17, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, BUT MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN."

Now, I'm going to address the argument from the "anti's" that the Jews misunderstood, or did not understand their own scriptures, or the reasons why they hated Him as it pertains to the claims of Jesus. Here's the question? Whether or not the Jews are correctly or incorrectly understood Jesus is NOT the isssue. The issue is "What was it that Jesus said that caused them to accuse Him of blasphemy resulting in His death/crucifixion?

John 5:17-18, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." Vs18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because (or why), He not only was breaking the Sabbath but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Jesus knew who He was even at an early age. Luke 2:48-49, When His mother and father were looking for Him He says at vs49, "Why is it that you were looking for Me. Did you not know that I had to be in MY FATHER'S HOUSE?"

John 8:56-59, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham? vs58, Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you before Abraham was born (or sprang into exitence) I am." Vs59, "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

John 10:30-37. "I and the Father are one." There is more to this verse than Jesus just saying He and the Father are one in purpose. Of course they are one in purpose otherwise there would be no reason for them to say at vs31, "The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him." Jesus ask why are you stoning Me? Vs33, "The Jews answered Him, for a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out God." At verse 34-36 Jesus brings up Psalm 82:6, why?

Notice that it is Jesus who brings up the subject of God and not the subject of Him and the Father being one in purpose. At vs36 Jesus says, "do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, (Jesus was not a created being, He was sent into the world by God His Father). "You are blaspheming because I said, I AM THE SON OF GOD." So again, why did Jesus bring up Psalm 82:6?

At John 19:7 the Jews appeal to Pilate and Pilate says (vs6) "I find no guilt in Him" the Jews say, Vs7, We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He make Himself OUT THE SON OF GOD." So again, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus why did they bring up the law at John 19:7? The law that Jesus supposedly broke is at Leviticus 24:16.

Now we come to the complete trial record at Matthew 26:57-68. I'm not going to quote all the verses but explain the main points. At vs59, "the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain FALSE testimony against Jesus, in order to PUT HIM TO DEATH." at vs63, the high priest Caiaphas says, " I adjure You (he wants Jesus to swear as to His identity), "I adjure you by the living God, that You tell us whether (Whether means in either case). So the high priest is asking the one person of Jesus Christ are You (1) the Christ/Messiah and (2) THE SON OF GOD."

In Luke's account Jesus says, "Yes, I am." Then at vs65 of Matthew 26:65, "Then the high priest tore his robes saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have heard the blasphemy;" So, why would Jesus be accused of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God since the Jews themselves claim to be sons of God? It is not blasphemous offense to claim to be the "Messiah/Christ. In fact all through history people have come along claiming to be the Messiah even including today and none of them have been put to death for making the claim.

In summing up, please read what the Apostle John's authorial intent was at John 20:30-31 right after Thomas made his declaration to Jesus Christ that He/Jesus was his "Lord and God." "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; vs31, but these have been written that you may beleive that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD; and that believing you may have life in his name."

So we went full circle from Jesus asking, "Who do people say that I am" and Peter saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" to the conclusion by the Apostle John that "you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, The Son of God." To me, it's "inconceivable" that Jesus Christ is "a son of God" just like the rest of us.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

I’d like to respond to the OP by establishing the historical orthodox trinitarian belief of the two natures of Jesus, quoting from two trinitarian sources. I may later introduce additional quotes from trinitarian sources in my defense of trinitarianism.

“The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ - This is a difficult point, but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity.“

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church)

”The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, and is therefore divine. He is not a human person... There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

(William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”)

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/is-worship-of-jesus-idolatry

There is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’”

I completely agree with what is stated by Schaff and William Craig. I have also used Schaff in the past for reference material and the same holds true for Mr.Craig. In fact, I attended Biola college (located in La Mirada CA) in 1971 for two years but did not graduate.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Then we are in agreement that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person.

I’m curious about something. You said a couple of days ago,

Since you agree with Schaff and Craig (and historical orthodox trinitarianism) why do you say “Jesus was God who became a human person”?

How do you resolve “Jesus is not a human person” with “Jesus was God who became a human person”?

How about this? And the Word became flesh/a human being which would "technically" be precise. (John 1:14). I am also curious, you typed at the end of one your post, "In The Son of God," Would it be okay with you to type, "IN GOD THE SON?"

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Yes.

It still isn’t clear to me why you believe “Jesus is not a human person” but say “Jesus was God who became a human person”.

From the trinitarian perspective, yes. From the Jewish monotheism perspective, no.

So which is it Mattathias, you said in one of your post, "Then we are in agreement that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person." Now you say your not clear as to why I beleive Jesus is not a human person? So tell me, is this statement true or Biblical? Jesus Christ, is God who became a human being when He incarnated/became flesh according to John 1:14? Frankly, I don't understand what your "hangup" is with the word person?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

I’m not unclear why you believe Jesus is not a human person. That’s a fundamental tenet of trinitarianism.

I’m unclear why you say “Jesus was God who became a human person” when you say that you agree with Schaff, Craig and orthodox trinitarianism that “Jesus is not a human person”.

No.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe scripture presents Jesus to us as a human person. There is a human person named “Jesus of Nazareth”.

Trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person. There is no human person named “Jesus of Nazareth”.

Any other stupid comments you'd like to make? You're smart enough to understand Craig's comment in its context, and not argue the semantics of his words. At least, I thought you were.

I ask you the following question? "So tell me, is this statement true or Biblical? Jesus Christ, is God who became a human being when He incarnated/became flesh according to John 1:14?" You said, "No."

Can you please give me a Biblical reason/or reasons why your answer is "No?"

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Yes, but first I’d like to finish our discussion on why you say “Jesus was God who became a human person“ when trinitarianism teaches us that “Jesus is not a human person“.

”In my experience as a catechist, I have found there is a desire to know Christ more but also that there are many misunderstandings about what has been revealed. As an example, some people are shocked to learn Jesus Christ is not a human person.”

https://stphilipinstitute.org/2020/02/07/the-incarnation-of-jesus-christ/

Shocked and, I would add, in denial.

On what basis do you claim, "trinitarianism teaches us that “Jesus is not a human person“?

It's a fallacy, for starters. Trinitarianism doesn't teach anything; it's a thing, not a person. One person's summary of trinitarianism is not necessarily representative of the views of all trinitarians.

If Jesus were not a human person, then Christianity is a false belief, the New Testament is a lie, and we are hopelessly lost in our sin.

Evidence from Catholic sources is rejected automatically. They don't speak for Christians.

Ok Mattathias, I read everything at the Catholic site you provided and I actually agree with what is stated. However, at the second paragraph this is stated as an example of what many people may not know? "As an example, some people are shocked to learn Jesus Christ is not a human person."

I cannot figure out how this statement can be true and yet the rest of the article goes ahead and "DEFENDS" the one person of Jesus Christ has two natures, human and divine. How do you explain that?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Hey Dino, please read the article Mattathias provided and give me your take on it. I think he's a little mixed up. Thanks!

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Jesus, in trinitarian thought, is only one person, a divine person, not a human person. The divine person assumed impersonal human nature.

“The perfect human is not a human person; the perfect human has no specific human self...Jesus is the Divine Logos; in his assumption of humanity he emptied himself, never taking on a human selfhood, so that he could become the Perfect Man.”

(“God Became Man Without a Human Self (Hypostasis)“)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/henrykarlson/2017/10/jesus-christ-god-son-without-human-person/

He is confused; he doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Regarding the article, he took the quote out of context. He's playing games with you, trying to manipulate you to agree with his position.
This is a non-Christian site that happened to include an article, which is one person's (erroneous) views on the nature of Jesus Christ.

Get some integrity and start quoting people who actually believe Jesus is Lord. Everyone else's opinions about Jesus are irrelevant.

I particularly enjoyed the article linked in this post because my experience with trinitarians has been the same as that of the Catholic author.

“Is Jesus the Christ a Human Person?
Think before you answer that question.

I asked that question of so many of my friends recently and almost all, save for only one, gave me the wrong answer. Some even became indignant for my even asking the question. Why they became indignant, I have no clue. Nevertheless it is an important question about the person of Jesus Christ...”

https://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/human.htm

It's one of his favorite strawmen.

That and his whole obtuseness about the God of Jesus where he pretends we aren't arguing that Jesus considered Himself to be God.

But it's no surprise since his whole schtick is twisting the Bible to such a degree to deny Jesus' divinity.