• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How Many Humans Are Recognized As A Son Of God?

rhinefire

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,388
Reaction score
3,002
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Is Jesus the only man to call himself the son of god and have people believe him or her?
 
 
rhinefire said:
Is Jesus the only man to call himself the son of god and have people believe him or her?
Click to expand...
No, there have been hundreds throughout history who have claimed divinity.

For Christianity -- there were at least 10 sons of gods running around ancient Judea in the first few centuries that were healing the sick, walking on water and raising the dead: Jewish Messiah claimants.

It's also important to note that the term Messiah means "savior of the Jewish people." If you are aware of the fact that Jews have had a history filled with violent struggles, you have to understand that at almost every point in history, there has been a famous Jewish leader (wartime leaders, saintly people, heroe, etc.) that was considered to be the Messiah by notable portions of the population.
 
Romulus

Heracles

Dionysus

Osiris

Horus

Mithra

Tammuz

Attis

Krishna

Alexander the Great

I'm sure there were others...
 
I have just started this book (again) and am about 50 pages into it. Seems there were lots, even back in Jesus day. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan
 
mak2 said:
I have just started this book (again) and am about 50 pages into it. Seems there were lots, even back in Jesus day. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan
Click to expand...
Does Reza go into the explanation of it all? I've had it lectured at me that it's explainable within the context of the ancient Hellenistic period. The ancients considered the world to be an incredibly mythical place. Think of the Greeks and Romans, because their exact ideas and customs are the most familiar to us. They believed that the "divine" and the human world interacted on every level. There were high Gods, local gods, mythical monsters, demigods, spirits and sprites, divine humans, heroes and finally us normal humans and animals. These beings carried the sun, threw lightning, won wars, haunted the dark and became leaders of us humans -- there was no science or advanced technology yet. You could interact with these divine beings through worship or supernatural experiences.

Those Roman/Greek mythical ideas of the world were common throughout the Hellenistic world including Egypt, Persia, Rome, Israel/Judea, Turkey and the rest of the Mediterranean. Important people were considered divine and holy. (People weren't defined by their experiences. A person's parentage and character were formed at birth and were immutable). These heroes were considered to be in touch with the gods and the divine for their great achievements, and some were even considered to be the progeny of philandering gods. It's no small coincidence that Jesus, Hercules, Alexander the Great or Perseus were all labeled as divine sons of gods. These men were important and changed the face of the ancient world. In such a time as the Hellenistic period, this engendered the divinity claims -- why wouldn't it?
 
I am just 50 pages into it. It is the most interesting book I have read about Jesus in the way it sets the world Jesus lived in. The Roman soldier in the temple, and the trek to work, etc. and what the Jews thought about their world at the time. There was a movement at before and after Jesus to come along and claim to be the Messiah. I plan to read it by this weekend. I will report back.
brothern said:
Does Reza go into the explanation of it all? I've had it lectured at me that it's explainable within the context of the ancient Hellenistic period. The ancients considered the world to be an incredibly mythical place. Think of the Greeks and Romans, because their exact ideas and customs are the most familiar to us. They believed that the "divine" and the human world interacted on every level. There were high Gods, local gods, mythical monsters, demigods, spirits and sprites, divine humans, heroes and finally us normal humans and animals. These beings carried the sun, threw lightning, won wars, haunted the dark and became leaders of us humans -- there was no science or advanced technology yet. You could interact with these divine beings through worship or supernatural experiences.

Those Roman/Greek mythical ideas of the world were common throughout the Hellenistic world including Egypt, Persia, Rome, Israel/Judea, Turkey and the rest of the Mediterranean. Important people were considered divine and holy. (People weren't defined by their experiences. A person's parentage and character were formed at birth and were immutable). These heroes were considered to be in touch with the gods and the divine for their great achievements, and some were even considered to be the progeny of philandering gods. It's no small coincidence that Jesus, Hercules, Alexander the Great or Perseus were all labeled as divine sons of gods. These men were important and changed the face of the ancient world. In such a time as the Hellenistic period, this engendered the divinity claims -- why wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
 
brothern said:
No, there have been hundreds throughout history who have claimed divinity.

For Christianity -- there were at least 10 sons of gods running around ancient Judea in the first few centuries that were healing the sick, walking on water and raising the dead: Jewish Messiah claimants.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in your link that shows wanna-be 'son of god' Messiahs (apart from Jesus) who healed the sick, walked on water, and raised the dead. Can you provide some compelling evidence of these alleged miracles to back up your claim?
 
Logicman said:
There's nothing in your link that shows wanna-be 'son of god' Messiahs (apart from Jesus) who healed the sick, walked on water, and raised the dead. Can you provide some compelling evidence of these alleged miracles to back up your claim?
Click to expand...
Lol - there's no evidence that anyone can do miracles. Magic, the supernatural or talking to the dead doesn't happen in this world. You've got to be kidding me if you believe otherwise. :mrgreen:

Anyhow, there are many books written about the other Messiahs and their cult followings. See 50 Jewish Messiahs: The Untold Life Stories of 50 Jewish Messiahs Since Jesus, or other resources. Almost all of them (including Jesus) were deemed to be heretics by later religious leaders and were persecuted / destroyed. Literally same thing goes for Christianity. Christians were persecuted, deemed heretics and had their Holy Books burned. In fact there's several billion people that dispute Jesus' divinity today, because there's no evidence beyond the Gospels that back up Jesus or his followers' claims either.

You already know that the Gospels were written by non-witness, non-contemporary anonymous authors; and that the later Gospels (farther from Jesus' death) make more miraculous and grandiose claims. Same happened for these other Messiahs.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
Lol - there's no evidence that anyone can do miracles. Magic, the supernatural or talking to the dead doesn't happen in this world. You've got to be kidding me if you believe otherwise. :mrgreen:

Anyhow, there are many books written about the other Messiahs and their cult followings. See 50 Jewish Messiahs: The Untold Life Stories of 50 Jewish Messiahs Since Jesus, or other resources. Almost all of them (including Jesus) were deemed to be heretics by later religiuos leaders and were persecuted / destroyed. Same goes for Christianity.
Click to expand...

You said there were "at least 10 sons of gods running around ancient Judea in the first few centuries that were healing the sick, walking on water and raising the dead."

Now it appears you have nothing to back up that claim. The others (outside of Jesus) led rebellions. I don't see any historical writings they did miracles.

brothern said:
In fact there's several billion people that dispute Jesus' divinity today, because there's no evidence beyond the Gospels that back up Jesus or his followers' claims either.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There's various epistles in the New Testament that confirm Jesus' resurrection, etc. Plus there are extra-biblical writings that also allude to different aspects of Jesus' life.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

brothern said:
You already know that the Gospels were written by non-witness, non-contemporary anonymous authors; and that the later Gospels (farther from Jesus' death) make more miraculous and grandeous claims..
Click to expand...

Nope. The early church fathers verified the traditional Gospel authors, and there are miracles in all the Gospels.
 
Logicman said:
You said there were "at least 10 sons of gods running around ancient Judea in the first few centuries that were healing the sick, walking on water and raising the dead." Now it appears you have nothing to back up that claim. The others (outside of Jesus) led rebellions. I don't see any historical writings they did miracles.
Click to expand...
... because neither they nor Jesus performed miracles? Miracles don't exist? "Sons of God" don't exist? Or, are you asking for cult literature?

For example, there's Peter (yes, that Peter) and Simon Magus who are described in the Acts of Peter. Both have a battle of miracles in Rome, where Peter makes dogs talk and dead fish come alive again. Simon Magus raises the dead and flies around Rome. The Gospel was apart of early Christian history before being deemed heretical.

There's Apollonius of Tyana, who was foretold by angels and born of a virgin mother -- he raised the dead, cured the blind and read the mind of strangers. See The Life of Apollonius of Tyana.

There's Onias the Rain-maker and Eleazar mentioned by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XIV, 22-24. Josephus is also the first historical contempory non-Christian to mention Jesus of Nazareth, as well as about 20 other people named Jesus. (That's mentioned in your article)

Logicman said:
Wrong. There's various epistles in the New Testament that confirm Jesus' resurrection, etc. Plus there are extra-biblical writings that also allude to different aspects of Jesus' life. Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries
Click to expand...
Well, yes. The Epistles were mostly written by Saint Paul. He believed in Christ's resurrection ... if he didn't, he wouldn't have been included in the Bible by the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century now would he? I'm not arguing that a historical Jesus didn't exist -- I'm arguing that no one performs miracles or is the "son of god."

Logicman said:
Nope. The early church fathers verified the traditional Gospel authors, and there are miracles in all the Gospels.
Click to expand...
I'm certain the early church fathers used their excellent 4th Century grasp of science, technology, history and archeology to verify this. My favorite miracle that they verified is the turning of water into wine. Water (H20) doesn't turn into ethyl alcohol (C2H6O) without the creation of two carbon atoms, which would have required nuclear fusion, and would have resulted in a massive release of energy (wiki says net energy release of 1.166 pJ, or 18x the power of the atomic bomb in Nagasaki) that would have instantly vaporized Jesus and the entire wedding party at Cana, plus half of the countryside.

I've always found that Jesus miracle hilarious.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
... because neither they nor Jesus performed miracles? Miracles don't exist? "Sons of God" don't exist? Or, are you asking for cult literature?

For example, there's Peter (yes, that Peter) and Simon Magus who are described in the Acts of Peter. Both have a battle of miracles in Rome, where Peter makes dogs talk and dead fish come alive again. Simon Magus raises the dead and flies around Rome. The Gospel was apart of early Christian history before being deemed heretical.

There's Apollonius of Tyana, who was foretold by angels and born of a virgin mother -- he raised the dead, cured the blind and read the mind of strangers. See The Life of Apollonius of Tyana.

There's Onias the Rain-maker and Eleazar mentioned by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XIV, 22-24. Josephus is also the first historical contempory non-Christian to mention Jesus of Nazareth, as well as about 20 other people named Jesus. (That's mentioned in your article)


Well, yes. The Epistles were mostly written by Saint Paul. He believed in Christ's resurrection ... if he didn't, he wouldn't have been included in the Bible by the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century now would he? I'm not arguing that a historical Jesus didn't exist -- I'm arguing that no one performs miracles or is the "son of god."

I'm certain the early church fathers used their excellent 4th Century grasp of science, technology, history and archeology to verify this. My favorite miracle that they verified is the turning of water into wine. Water (H20) doesn't turn into ethyl alcohol (C2H6O) without the creation of two carbon atoms, which would have required nuclear fusion, and would have resulted in a massive release of energy (wiki says net energy release of 1.166 pJ, or 18x the power of the atomic bomb in Nagasaki) that would have instantly vaporized Jesus and the entire wedding party at Cana, plus half of the countryside.

I've always found that Jesus miracle hilarious.
Click to expand...

The earliest church fathers who confirmed the traditional Gospel authors lived in the first century (Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus), and probably wrote late first century or early to mid second century. Not the 4th century, although there were writings from that period also.

The four Bible Gospels are all first century works, according to a majority of scholars. The Acts of Peter is a late 2nd century work, and was not authored by Peter.

As for the others you mentioned, there's always impostors, and then there's the real thing. Jesus is Lord, and if you want to try to falsify Jesus, you're going to have to falsify the resurrection. And good luck with that, since no one in 2,000 years has even made a serious dent in it.
 
Kreton said:
We are all children of God. Therefore any male can call himself the son of God and be truthful and people should believe him.
Click to expand...

Not all are children of God. Jesus said the corrupt Parisees were of "their father, the devil" (John 8:44). There's also a ton of people who will be winding up in Hell after their Judgment, so not all folks are going to have a happy eternity.

John 8:24
 
Logicman said:
The earliest church fathers who confirmed the traditional Gospel authors lived in the first century (Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus), and probably wrote late first century or early to mid second century. Not the 4th century, although there were writings from that period also.

The four Bible Gospels are all first century works, according to a majority of scholars. The Acts of Peter is a late 2nd century work, and was not authored by Peter.

As for the others you mentioned, there's always impostors, and then there's the real thing. Jesus is Lord, and if you want to try to falsify Jesus, you're going to have to falsify the resurrection. And good luck with that, since no one in 2,000 years has even made a serious dent in it.
Click to expand...
Good thing we've discussed this already! :) You cannot base your entire theological views on the beliefs of the early church fathers. These men relied solely on word-of-mouth (like the Gospel authors) and the writings of previous church fathers, which makes their thoughts prone to mischaracterizations and fact-changing due to the high illiteracy of the time period. In order for us to discern the truth, we have to rely on MANY verifable and empirical sources which include archeology, non-Christian sources and the actual Bible itself.

The Acts of Peter stars Peter as a character. It'd have to be written in the first person, if we were going to claim it was Peter's writings.

The Resurrection story differs greatly from Gospel to Gospel. In the Christian tradition, we would have to assume these accounts are written by eyewitnesses or historical contemporaries, but that's despite the fact that the accounts can't even agree on when or how the resurrection happened (see the chart in the picture). In addition you have stated that you believe, for example, the reason that the Synoptic Gospels (Mark/Matthew/Luke) contain copied word-for-word language is NOT because those texts were read and rewritten by anonymous, nonwitness authors decades after Jesus' death; but because the traditional authors "sat around a campfire" and traded stories. For that to make sense, the traditional authors would have literally copied word-for-word 76% of Mark, but in the course of those fireside conversations managed to not resolve the most important detail -- the Resurrection!?

That's absurd! No competing police reports, news article or religious text agrees on the exact type and color of phone the driver was chatting on, but differs on how the car cashed happened or even which day of the week the crash occurred. Actual eyewitnesses agree on significant details, and differ on minor details. The situation where minor details completely agree and major details completely disagree does not happen.

I'm not trying to falsify Jesus. I'm building an alternative explaination of the historical events that occurred 30 AD - 150 AD, that tries to rely on actual evidence rather than spoken tradition. It probably will challenge your beliefs if you adhere to traditional ONLY.
 
Last edited:
rhinefire said:
Is Jesus the only man to call himself the son of god and have people believe him or her?
Click to expand...

Although many had claimed to be I suppose, only one fulfilled the prophecies in the OT, and had shown through His miracles, works, and Resurrection that He truly is the Son of God: Jesus Christ.

I don't know if there were any other claimants who were believed by masses of people.
 
brothern said:

Good thing we've discussed this already! :) You cannot base your entire theological views on the beliefs of the early church fathers. These men relied solely on word-of-mouth (like the Gospel authors) and the writings of previous church fathers, which makes their thoughts prone to mischaracterizations and fact-changing due to the high illiteracy of the time period. In order for us to discern the truth, we have to rely on MANY verifable and empirical sources which include archeology, non-Christian sources and the actual Bible itself.
Click to expand...


Sorry, not buying it. The New Testament has always been the basis for Christianity and to this date has never been shown to be wrong about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. And what archaeological artifact can you possibly expect from a resurrected individual?

brothern said:
The Resurrection story differs greatly from Gospel to Gospel. In the Christian tradition, we would have to assume these accounts are written by eyewitnesses or historical contemporaries, but that's despite the fact that the accounts can't even agree on when or how the resurrection happened (see the chart in the picture).
Click to expand...

Well, I have my own "picture," so to speak, and it effectively makes null and void your 'picture,' and the queries within.

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

brothern said:
In addition you have stated that you believe, for example, the reason that the Synoptic Gospels (Mark/Matthew/Luke) contain copied word-for-word language is NOT because those texts were read and rewritten by anonymous, nonwitness authors decades after Jesus' death; but because the traditional authors "sat around a campfire" and traded stories. For that to make sense, the traditional authors would have literally copied word-for-word 76% of Mark, but in the course of those fireside conversations managed to not resolve the most important detail -- the Resurrection!?
Click to expand...

Most of the passages are not "word for word." Similar, but there's scores of examples where they're not 'word for word." How do you account for that discrepancy?

brothern said:
Actual eyewitnesses agree on significant details, and differ on minor details. The situation where minor details completely agree and major details completely disagree does not happen.
Click to expand...

Nope. The color of a car, for example, can appear different in different lighting conditions. Offenders can masquerade in different looks, etc. But one thing ALL OF THE GOSPEL WRITERS AGREED ON IS THE RESURRECTION. Don't miss seeing the forest for the trees.

brothern said:
I'm not trying to falsify Jesus. I'm building an alternative explaination of the historical events that occurred 30 AD - 150 AD, that tries to rely on actual evidence rather than spoken tradition. It probably will challenge your beliefs if you adhere to traditional ONLY.
Click to expand...

The New Testament we have today is based on the earliest extant manuscripts, and I've seen nothing to date that provides a reasonable alternative for what the traditional Gospels say occurred with Christ.
 
brothern said:
No, there have been hundreds throughout history who have claimed divinity.

For Christianity -- there were at least 10 sons of gods running around ancient Judea in the first few centuries that were healing the sick, walking on water and raising the dead: Jewish Messiah claimants.

It's also important to note that the term Messiah means "savior of the Jewish people." If you are aware of the fact that Jews have had a history filled with violent struggles, you have to understand that at almost every point in history, there has been a famous Jewish leader (wartime leaders, saintly people, heroe, etc.) that was considered to be the Messiah by notable portions of the population.
Click to expand...

Messiah does not = "Son of God" ....
 
The Bible calls a lot of people a "Son of God"

Angels, King Solomon and others .... the point is the context, what is it trying to say. Jesus called himself the "only begotten son of God"
 
brothern said:

Good thing we've discussed this already! :) You cannot base your entire theological views on the beliefs of the early church fathers. These men relied solely on word-of-mouth (like the Gospel authors) and the writings of previous church fathers, which makes their thoughts prone to mischaracterizations and fact-changing due to the high illiteracy of the time period. In order for us to discern the truth, we have to rely on MANY verifable and empirical sources which include archeology, non-Christian sources and the actual Bible itself.

The Acts of Peter stars Peter as a character. It'd have to be written in the first person, if we were going to claim it was Peter's writings.

The Resurrection story differs greatly from Gospel to Gospel. In the Christian tradition, we would have to assume these accounts are written by eyewitnesses or historical contemporaries, but that's despite the fact that the accounts can't even agree on when or how the resurrection happened (see the chart in the picture). In addition you have stated that you believe, for example, the reason that the Synoptic Gospels (Mark/Matthew/Luke) contain copied word-for-word language is NOT because those texts were read and rewritten by anonymous, nonwitness authors decades after Jesus' death; but because the traditional authors "sat around a campfire" and traded stories. For that to make sense, the traditional authors would have literally copied word-for-word 76% of Mark, but in the course of those fireside conversations managed to not resolve the most important detail -- the Resurrection!?

That's absurd! No competing police reports, news article or religious text agrees on the exact type and color of phone the driver was chatting on, but differs on how the car cashed happened or even which day of the week the crash occurred. Actual eyewitnesses agree on significant details, and differ on minor details. The situation where minor details completely agree and major details completely disagree does not happen.

I'm not trying to falsify Jesus. I'm building an alternative explaination of the historical events that occurred 30 AD - 150 AD, that tries to rely on actual evidence rather than spoken tradition. It probably will challenge your beliefs if you adhere to traditional ONLY.
Click to expand...

Differing accounts on the details ARE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'D EXPECT from independant eye witnesses .... No one things that the ressurection accounts had a common source, Mark was for some of the stories, Q was for some of the sayings, but the cross and ressurection accounts are independant.

I'm not giong to defend Logicman's pretending the apostles wrote down the gospels themselves, (which is rediculous since he appeals to "most scholars," I challenge him to find ONE that believes the apostles literally wrong the gospels, at least matthew and John, and that the synoptic problem can be solved by saying "they sat around a campfire," find me one.)
 
Logicman said:
You said there were "at least 10 sons of gods running around ancient Judea in the first few centuries that were healing the sick, walking on water and raising the dead."

Now it appears you have nothing to back up that claim. The others (outside of Jesus) led rebellions. I don't see any historical writings they did miracles.



Wrong. There's various epistles in the New Testament that confirm Jesus' resurrection, etc. Plus there are extra-biblical writings that also allude to different aspects of Jesus' life.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries



Nope. The early church fathers verified the traditional Gospel authors, and there are miracles in all the Gospels.
Click to expand...

There's various epistles in the New Testament that confirm Jesus' resurrection, etc
Click to expand...
The Bible's stories are true because the Bible says they are true!!.....and you call yourself Logicman?!!

As for
Plus there are extra-biblical writings that also allude to different aspects of Jesus' life
Click to expand...
I don't think so!
 
Last edited:
brothern said:

Good thing we've discussed this already! :) You cannot base your entire theological views on the beliefs of the early church fathers. These men relied solely on word-of-mouth (like the Gospel authors) and the writings of previous church fathers, which makes their thoughts prone to mischaracterizations and fact-changing due to the high illiteracy of the time period. In order for us to discern the truth, we have to rely on MANY verifable and empirical sources which include archeology, non-Christian sources and the actual Bible itself.
Click to expand...


If you compare them to modern man.
However, in those ancient days, people do heavily rely on memory. They've honed their skills at memorization since that's how they pass information.

Actually, even today...Jews are said to have good memory!

Furthermore, what's illiteracy got to do with witnessing?
Would the testimony of an illiterate man be any different from a literate if they witnessed the same event?
If they both witnessed an accident involving two camels....would it matter if they're illiterate?
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
Not all are children of God. Jesus said the corrupt Parisees were of "their father, the devil" (John 8:44). There's also a ton of people who will be winding up in Hell after their Judgment, so not all folks are going to have a happy eternity.

John 8:24
Click to expand...

I think that was rhetorical. If not, he was contradicting the omnipotence of God by suggesting that He didn't after all create all living things, claiming the Devil created a few pharisees.
 
Andalublue said:
I think that was rhetorical. If not, he was contradicting the omnipotence of God by suggesting that He didn't after all create all living things, claiming the Devil created a few pharisees.
Click to expand...

Here is the particular section from John 8, and how it should be read and understood by its context.



John 8
34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Click to expand...



In this context, children of God are referred to as those who believe in Christ. They belong to God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom