When Exactly Did Jesus Become The Son of God?

[RedEye]

There seems to be a massive conflict between the gospel authors as to when precisely Jesus attained the status of "Son of God".

The gospel of Mark has Jesus becoming Son of God upon his baptism:

• Mark 1
  9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.� 12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

In this version the human-born Jesus is a victim of body invasion and his brain is taken over by the Spirit of God. (So much for human free will). The gospel of Matthew echoes this view.

Then we have Paul who has Jesus becoming the Son of God only after his resurrection:

• Romans 1
  1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Next we have the gospel of Luke which has Jesus being appointed as the Son of God at his birth:

• Luke 1
  35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Finally, we have the gospel of John which has Jesus as the Son of God right from the very beginning of everything:

• John 1
  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
  ...
  14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So there we have four wildly conflicting versions of when Jesus attained the status of being the Son of God in the New Testament. They can't all be correct. So, if you are a Christian, which of these "divinely inspired" writers is correct and how did the others get it so badly wrong?

[Tcg]

Yeah, it does. How else did it control where Jesus was to go next?

I don’t think Bible means it controlled Jesus. I have understood it led and Jesus followed.

• Mark 1:12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

Where are the words "led" and "follow" in the text?

Do you interpret the text to mean that Jesus body and mind were under the control of an an external force over which he (Jesus) had no control, and as of that moment, much like a subject of hypnosis, Jesus had no way to exercise his own will or make any decisions for himself?

Let's see the question RedEye asked. It was, "Where are the words "led" and "follow" in the text?".

Perhaps you can take time to answer that very clear and very straightforward question.

[1213]

• John 3:16 ESV
  “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
  
  1 John 4:9 ESV
  In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
  
  John 1:14 ESV
  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
  
  John 3:18 ESV
  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

You pick your translation wisely for your propaganda use. If we look for example King James translation, it says:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

King James has the word “begotten� in it. And that is the difference, Jesus is the only begotten son. Others can be God’s children, but not in the same way.

Yeah, it does. How else did it control where Jesus was to go next?

I don’t think Bible means it controlled Jesus. I have understood it led and Jesus followed.

• Mark 1:12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

Where are the words "led" and "follow" in the text?

Good question, almost as good as, where is the word “controlled�.

But, the word “led� is in Matthew 4:1.
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
Matt. 4:1

I think it was not controlled so that Jesus was against his own will going there, because there is not enough support in Bible for that.

[RedEye]

Yeah, it does. How else did it control where Jesus was to go next?

I don’t think Bible means it controlled Jesus. I have understood it led and Jesus followed.

• Mark 1:12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

Where are the words "led" and "follow" in the text?

Do you interpret the text to mean that Jesus body and mind were under the control of an an external force over which he (Jesus) had no control, and as of that moment, much like a subject of hypnosis, Jesus had no way to exercise his own will or make any decisions for himself?

It's certainly one possible interpretation. In fact, from the context, I would say that it is the most plausible interpretation.

[RedEye]

• John 3:16 ESV
  “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
  
  1 John 4:9 ESV
  In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
  
  John 1:14 ESV
  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
  
  John 3:18 ESV
  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

You pick your translation wisely for your propaganda use.

I'm to blame for how Christians have translated the Bible?

If we look for example King James translation, it says:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

You pick your translation wisely for your propaganda use.

King James has the word “begotten� in it. And that is the difference, Jesus is the only begotten son. Others can be God’s children, but not in the same way.

Exactly. Jesus was the one and only actual Son of God. When other humans are called children of God, it is only a metaphor. Thank you for clearing that up nicely.

Yeah, it does. How else did it control where Jesus was to go next?

I don’t think Bible means it controlled Jesus. I have understood it led and Jesus followed.

• Mark 1:12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

Where are the words "led" and "follow" in the text?

Good question, almost as good as, where is the word “controlled�.

If something enters your body and "sends" you out into the wilderness for 40 days to be tempted by Satan I would call that exercising a form of control. What would you call it?

But, the word “led� is in Matthew 4:1.
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
Matt. 4:1

Different author, different agenda. The author of Matthew also inserts that the Spirit alighted on him rather than entering him as implied in Mark (because the author of Matthew already had Jesus as the Son of God from birth instead of at baptism). So what? I was discussing Mark's position on when Jesus became the Son of God.

I think it was not controlled so that Jesus was against his own will going there, because there is not enough support in Bible for that.

Would you willingly put yourself in the wilderness among wild animals for 40 days where you knew Satan was going to sorely tempt you?

[1213]

King James has the word “begotten� in it. And that is the difference, Jesus is the only begotten son. Others can be God’s children, but not in the same way.

Exactly. Jesus was the one and only actual Son of God. When other humans are called children of God, it is only a metaphor. Thank you for clearing that up nicely.

I think it is not good to add the meaning “actual son�. Others can also be “actual�. Bible uses the word “begotten� and I believe there is good reason for that.

Different author, different agenda. The author of Matthew also inserts that the Spirit alighted on him rather than entering him as implied in Mark (because the author of Matthew already had Jesus as the Son of God from birth instead of at baptism). So what? I was discussing Mark's position on when Jesus became the Son of God.

All scriptures are in the Bible so that we can have better and right understanding of the whole matter. Matthew helps us to understand it should not be understood as controlling someone against his own will.

Would you willingly put yourself in the wilderness among wild animals for 40 days where you knew Satan was going to sorely tempt you?

If I would understand it is good and right.

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you interpret the text to mean that Jesus body and mind were under the control of an an external force over which he (Jesus) had no control, and as of that moment, much like a subject of hypnosis, Jesus had no way to exercise his own will or make any decisions for himself?

It's certainly one possible interpretation. In fact, from the context, I would say that it is the most plausible interpretation.

Upon what basis do you conclude that being "sent" necessitates mind Control?

Can you present any scriptures (outside the passages in qustion) to support your conclusion?






JW

[RedEye]

King James has the word “begotten� in it. And that is the difference, Jesus is the only begotten son. Others can be God’s children, but not in the same way.

Exactly. Jesus was the one and only actual Son of God. When other humans are called children of God, it is only a metaphor. Thank you for clearing that up nicely.

I think it is not good to add the meaning “actual son�. Others can also be “actual�. Bible uses the word “begotten� and I believe there is good reason for that.

There sure is. Basically "begotten" means fathered or parented by, ie. an actual son rather than a metaphorical one (not actual as you assert). You yourself made the same distinction when you wrote "Others can be God’s children, but not in the same way". Now you seem to be backpedaling.

Different author, different agenda. The author of Matthew also inserts that the Spirit alighted on him rather than entering him as implied in Mark (because the author of Matthew already had Jesus as the Son of God from birth instead of at baptism). So what? I was discussing Mark's position on when Jesus became the Son of God.

All scriptures are in the Bible so that we can have better and right understanding of the whole matter. Matthew helps us to understand it should not be understood as controlling someone against his own will.

No, Matthew is in the Bible because the author of it was not satisfied with Mark and wanted to make numerous additions and some small changes. Different authors, different audience and different agenda. The fact of four gospels does not aid in understanding but often hinders it because of the conflicting stories and events as each author tried to put his own spin on the tale and "improve" it from its predecessor.

Would you willingly put yourself in the wilderness among wild animals for 40 days where you knew Satan was going to sorely tempt you?

If I would understand it is good and right.

How could putting yourself in danger both physically and spiritually ever be good and right for a human being? You are being glib on the issue because you realize that it makes no sense. In fact it makes no sense either way, if Jesus was fully human or if he had been invaded by the Holy Spirit. In the latter case Jesus as God could come to no harm (he had to meet his rendezvous as a crucified sacrifice) and he could not be tempted by Satan since he was God. Therefore the excursion into the wilderness was completely pointless. (Yet another plot hole in this fictional story).

[RedEye]

Do you interpret the text to mean that Jesus body and mind were under the control of an an external force over which he (Jesus) had no control, and as of that moment, much like a subject of hypnosis, Jesus had no way to exercise his own will or make any decisions for himself?

It's certainly one possible interpretation. In fact, from the context, I would say that it is the most plausible interpretation.

Upon what basis do you conclude that being "sent" necessitates mind Control?

Can you present any scriptures (outside the passages in qustion) to support your conclusion?

The passages in question suffice for me to draw my conclusion. Why would I need to go outside of them? That would be the opposite of understanding things in the context they were written.

[JehovahsWitness]

Can you present any scriptures (outside the passages in qustion) to support your conclusion?

... Why would I need to go outside of them? That would be the opposite of understanding things in the context they were written.

Because comparisons of usage of keywords or content is academically considered a basic component of textual analysis.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 28 by RedEye]

My second question is: Upon what basis do you conclude that being "sent" necessitates mind Control?