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?

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 28 by RedEye]

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

I answered that in post #24. These questions do not appear to be serving any purpose in relation to the subject matter of this thread.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 28 by RedEye]

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

I answered that in post #24.

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?

Emphasis MINE

The act of "sending" may be viewed as an exercise of some degree of authority, it can only be viewed as control if the sendee (the person being sent) has no choice but to obey. What in the text indicates to you Jesus had no mental or physical control over his body and was incapable of making the choice as to whether he would obey or not?

Would you conclude that because a man's wife sends him to the grocery store and he does indeed go this is indicative he has relinquished his free will? (By free will I mean the ability to decide for oneself what one will do in any given situation).

Your conclusion seem to be based on two assumptions

• 1) The the act of obeying an instruction ( being sent) necessitates mind control, which is contrary to what we know about human behaviour and is certainly not supported with scripture.
  
  2) Anything that to quote you "enters somebody" must by necessity result in an overriding of their free will; which gives an inordinate of power to the bacon sandwich I had for breakfast this morning.

Unless I have overlooked an assumption then the premises for your conclusions are logically rather weak.


JW




RELATED POSTS


When did Jesus become a spirit anointed son of God? (This thread)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 041#946041

Why do scholars refer to other scriptures when presenting a hypothesis? (textual analysis)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 889#946889

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 28 by RedEye]
My second question is: Upon what basis do you conclude that being "sent" necessitates mind Control?

I answered that in post #24.

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?

Emphasis MINE
The act of "sending" may be viewed as an exercise of some degree of authority, it can only be viewed as control if the sendee (the person being sent) has no choice but to obey.

• control
  /kənˈtrəʊl/
  noun
  noun: control
  1. the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events.

Your assertion is incorrect.

What in the text indicates to you Jesus had no mental or physical control over his body and was incapable of making the choice as to whether he would obey or not?

A moot question since your definition of control is in error.

[JehovahsWitness]

• control
  /kənˈtrəʊl/
  noun
  noun: control
  1. the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events.

The word control is not in the text, the word "sent" is. If being sent is evidence of a perceived amount of "influence" to directing people's behaviour, as per the definition abpve, can you explain why you extrapolate this to equate that influence to be total (ie the removal of all self will)

If you direct someone, you tell them how you want them to behave, can you explain why you believe following said direction necessitates the loss of ALL decision making capacities, such as with hypnosis?

Does a parent that sends/directs or influences his child take over his mind, remove his free will, control their how their bodies move, denying them the ability of making ANY decisions whatsoever including whether or not they will obey or not?

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?

...from the context, I would say that it is the most plausible interpretation.

Your conclusion seem to be based on two assumptions

• 1) The the act of obeying an instruction ( being sent) necessitates TOTAL mind control, which is contrary to what we know about human behaviour and is certainly not supported with scripture.
  
  2) Anything that to quote you "enters somebody" must by necessity result in an overriding of their free will; which gives an inordinate of power to the bacon sandwich I had for breakfast this morning.

Unless I have overlooked an assumption then the premises for your conclusions are logically rather weak.



JW

[1213]

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.

In Biblical point of view, all children of God are born of Spirit. That is same also with disciples of Jesus, if they are born anew as the Bible tells. However, Jesus is the only one who was born by Spirit as the Bible tells in Luke 1:35.

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

The angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35

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.

The problem with that is, you have nothing to support the claim Matthew was not satisfied and therefore wrote his own version. Also, I don’t think Matthew really changed anything. He may have slightly different view to the matter, but they are about same matter.

The stories are not conflicting, if person remains in truth and doesn’t add own meanings to it.

How could putting yourself in danger both physically and spiritually ever be good and right for a human being?

Firstly, I don’t think Jesus was putting his life in danger.

Secondly, danger can be educational and I think education is good.

In the case of Jesus, I think the reason for the whole thing was to be test for Jesus.

[RedEye]

The word control is not in the text, the word "sent" is. If being sent is evidence of a perceived amount of "influence" to directing people's behaviour, as per the definition abpve, can you explain why you extrapolate this to equate that influence to be total (ie the removal of all self will)

JW, let's try to steer this ship back on course. The OP posed the question of when exactly Jesus was appointed as the Son of God. For the sake of argument and to move this discussion along I am willing to relinquish my claim that it was mind control being described in Mark. We'll call it "guidance" instead. That doesn't change my argument at all. If Jesus had already been the Son of God (ie. an aspect of the Trinity) then he would not have needed any guidance to head out into the wilderness. He would have been God and would have known what to do without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit descending upon him must mark the turning point at which he became the Son of God. It can't have been any earlier. Can we now return to the topic of this thread?

[RedEye]

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.

In Biblical point of view, all children of God are born of Spirit.

I have already explained that this is just metaphor.

The problem with that is, you have nothing to support the claim Matthew was not satisfied and therefore wrote his own version. Also, I don’t think Matthew really changed anything. He may have slightly different view to the matter, but they are about same matter.

I could argue this but since it is off-topic, I will hold my fire.

In the case of Jesus, I think the reason for the whole thing was to be test for Jesus.

How can Jesus/God possibly be tested? It makes no sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 36 by RedEye]

Fair enough. I've already provided the Jehovah's Witness take on this
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 041#946041


NOTE Jehovah's Witnesses are not trinitarians.


JW

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 36 by RedEye]

Fair enough. I've already provided the Jehovah's Witness take on this
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 041#946041

NOTE Jehovah's Witnesses are not trinitarians.

Yes, that rings a bell. You must have all sorts of problems with John 1:1-14 I imagine. From memory you guys consider Jesus/Logos to be an angel. It still doesn't help you much since John 1 explicitly tells us "and the Word was God". Do you just disown the gospel of John?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by RedEye]

Fair enough. I've already provided the Jehovah's Witness take on this
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 041#946041

NOTE Jehovah's Witnesses are not trinitarians.

Yes, that rings a bell. You must have all sorts of problems with John 1:1-14 I imagine. From memory you guys consider Jesus/Logos to be an angel. It still doesn't help you much since John 1 explicitly tells us "and the Word was God". Do you just disown the gospel of John?

Having checked the JW's NWT, it says the 'Word was a god' lower case g.