"Neither does he [Jesus] state that the Son of God is anything less than God", this statement made by you is ridiclous and hardly proof that Jesus being the Son of God meant he was God. Jesus never stated many things, he never stated he wasn't a homosexual, or that he doesn't lives in a cave on the moon, or that he likes picking his nose and eating the produce. You using the "never denied" argument proves nothing and means nothing.
Your logic is backwards. Jesus had
specifically been accused of saying that
he made himself God. Thus, if this was not the case it was imperative for him to deny it.
He did not deny it, rather, he gave them a passage that combined with how he had already identified himself in his ministry,
further equated himself with God. Thus, this is applicable, not like the random "did not deny living in a cave" things that you made up. Had they accused Jesus of living in a cave, and it been a serious enough crime to warrant stoning, and THEN had he not denied the charge,
then you could also assume that the charge of cave-dwelling had merit.
Thus, your claims of "ridclous" (sp) and "hardly proof" and "proves nothing and means nothing" are without merit.
Jesus stating he was the "Son of God" by definition means he was NOT God, since you cannot be the Son "of" something and yet be the "of" that you are the Son to, this is contradictory, Jesus was never contradictory. You, rosenritter, are the Son of your Father, thus you are not your Father. Jesus was the Son of God, thus he was not the God to whom he is a Son to.
Your claim of "contradictory" shows that you need biblical education.
First, the new Testament usage of "Son of God" is defined in the Bible, and it is not defined in a way to exclude God. Rather, it is defined in a way that defines "the Son of God" as God. What do we know about God, that is uniquely God? God is immortal? Without beginning and end? Uncreated? Has eternal life and lives for ever? Then for your education, seek out Paul in the book of Hebrews, for Paul tells us what he understands it means to be made like "the Son of God" in our New Testament context.
Heb 7:3
(3)
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Since you want to talk about "by definition" - where are you getting
your definition? Yours seems like something you made up.
Second, Jesus is not simply "the Son of God"
but he is the only begotten Son of God. See John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 3:18, 1 John 4:9. There are others that are called "Sons of God" including Adam (Luke 3:8), rebellious angels and Satan (Genesis 6:2-4, Job 1:6,2:1), loyal angels (Job 38:7), and Christians (John 1:12, Romans 8:14,19, Php 2:15, 1 John 3:1-2). All other applications of "Sons of God" are created beings, whereas we are told that Jesus is not created, but rather their Creator (John 1:3, Col 1:16). There is One Creator of the ends of the earth (Isaiah 40;28) and that Creator is the everlasting God, the LORD, and Jesus, whom we called the Son of God.
Clearly, your limited understanding of the word "son" as "engendered from your loins" is not the application here. When God creates sons, they are not him. But when the Son of God steps into this world, that is one of the names that was used by our CREATOR for that specific purpose.
I never said Jesus denied being God in John chapter 10. What John chapter 10 does show however is Jesus stating the reason why the Jews wanted to stone him for blashmey, Jesus said "do you say to me..‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son.."
Again, the blasphemy the Jews were stoning Jesus for was because Jesus called God is Father, not because he said he was God. Nowhere in John chapter 10 do we find Jesus once saying he was God, repeatedly we find Jesus claiming that God was his own Father, then we have Jesus himself saying that they wanted to stone him because he said he is God son.
You actually have
to know the Psalm that Jesus referenced to see where he called himself God. That, and you also need to be at least a little bit aware of the claims Jesus had already made that led to this point. An argument that depends on ignorance isn't very convincing.
As I mentioned before, someone being called the "Son of God" and someone being called "God" are two completely different things, for you to cheekily claim they are synonymous is dishonest.
Please show us where you find "the only begotten Son of God" defined in scripture then, oh "honest" one. Because besides Hebrews, where Paul says the Son of God is without beginning or end of days, or end of life, without father or mother, here's what John says:
Joh 1:1-14
(1)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3)
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
(4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
(5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
(6) There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
(7) The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
(8) He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
(9) That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
(10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
(12) 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:
(13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(14)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
* Bam *
What's the point of continuing here really? Black and white, couldn't be that much more clear or direct or to the point. The apostle John equates the Son of God with God, if you have a complaint,
take it up with John and call him dishonest as well!
You don't have a biblical definition of the Son of God (as Jesus applies it to Himself) that "by definition" says the Son of God is not God. That's what you've been making up (and it's what your Watchtower background mandates) So if you wish to continue, please desist from making up imaginary definitions and expecting them to be accepted without challenge.
