Do You Believe that Jesus Was the “Son of God”?

TaborBlog ^ | March 18, 2013 | James D. Tabor

[trebb]

Always was and always will be - part of the eternal “I Am” coalition...

[Grateful2God]

" Yes I believe Jesus Christ is the Son Of GOD. I’m thankful that by faith I can accept it. I’m thankful I don’t have to fully understand it. And I can imagine how perplexed the ones he chose as Disciples must have been. "

C: That was such a beautiful response! I always get a smile out of St. Philip when he asks Jesus at the Last Supper to show them the Father... You're right, even they didn't get it sometimes- and they were there! We have to believe 2000 years later! God bless you, and keep you in your faith!
V: You were right, the author did dance around the issue! Funny the guy's name was Tabor... Sad that he overanalyzed it, so objectively, without appearing to see for what it really is. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing- as can be too much.
N: Bishop Sheen was a man who was brilliant, yet able to speak with the heart, as well as the head. He spoke with love, faith and an intense zeal, with words that continue to ring true. He had a great gift, that lives on after him.

[Grateful2God]

" As most FReepers do, I note you replied without gaining full understanding of the context. Your attention is directed HERE.
Thank you. "

Then check out my post #71, FRiend, I was being facetious. Relax! 😉

[Grateful2God]

Lol! Funny thing, I couldn't remember Bishop Sheen's first name. Second, when I tried to look it up, I got one article from Wikipedia (excerpt below); the rest were about Charlie Sheen changing his name back to Carlos Estevez!

Sheen was born in El Paso, Illinois, the oldest of four sons of Newton[8] and Delia Sheen.[9] Though he was known as Fulton, his mother's maiden name, he was baptized as Peter John Sheen.
Bishop Fulton John Sheen

Even stranger, Emilio Estevez Sr. took his ersatz surname from Fulton, and became Martin Sheen... Makes me dizzy!

[Grateful2God]

I was referring to Luke’s Gospel, as I stated. Not complicated at all.

[cva66snipe]

Almost. For Jesus to be Jewish and for Jesus to come from the line of Judah and Jesse he had to come from Mary's womb. It was the mother's genealogy which by law determined if someone was Jewish. Luke {the physician} wrote Mary's bloodline and Matthew {tax collector} wrote Josephs. To answer the Roman census they traveled to Josephs place of birth. Luke ch 2 starting at verse 22 gives an interesting perspective on the laws of Moses. A sacrifice of purification was required of Mary.

Paul was a good example of a legal Jew before The Temple according to the Laws of Moses. His mother was Jewish so in the eyes of the Temple Priest he was a Jew. Paul was also a Roman legally in the eyes of Rome because of his father being a Roman.

Jesus father is GOD as Mary was overshadowed by The Holy Spirit. Something I don't think at this time it is for us to fully understand but rather accept by faith. Thus the laws of Moses and the prophecies about Him were fulfilled with Mary being Jesus mother.

[terycarl]

Because... There was no other way.

Sure there was.....God....the almighty one could have merely willed it to be and it would be...

[imardmd1]

Almost. For Jesus to be Jewish and for Jesus to come from the line of Judah and Jesse he had to come from Mary's womb.

For all purposes, yes, but his flesh did not have to derive from Mary's sin-stained flesh. Today, doctors can implant a fertilized egg from other persons into a host mother for gestation and birth. If human doctors can do it today, certainly God/The Holy Spirit could have done it then; and the whole issue of "Immaculate Conception" of Mary would become a non-issue. The lack of faith was the basis why religionists of early Christian history found it necessary to invent the whole Mariology/Mariolatry scenario. All they had to do was to instead say, "We do not now know the mystery. In due time God will reveal it, but it may not be in our lifetimes. For now we will just exercise true faith and trust in the Holy Scriptures alone, and not try to rationalize plausible explanations which are not found in the Word of God."

It was the mother's genealogy which by law determined if someone was Jewish.

Her genealogy did not determine a Jewish child's heritage, but it did certify it. But Jesus' claim to royalty did not come from Mary. It came from His birth into the home of Joseph, who by primogeniture was the lawful kingly descendant of David through Solomon and was counted as the lawful father of Jesus in the transfer of the title "King of the Jews.".

Paul was a good example of a legal Jew before The Temple according to the Laws of Moses. His mother was Jewish so in the eyes of the Temple Priest he was a Jew. Paul was also a Roman legally in the eyes of Rome because of his father being a Roman.

I am sorry to have to inform you, but I don't think your assumption here is quite correct. If your thrust is that Saul's father was or could have been a born Roman by Latin descent, there is no indication whatever that his father was a Roman Gentile rather than what he was, fully Hebrew and Benjamite, as well as being a Roman citizen, passing all these attributes to his son, Saul (Philippians 3:5, Acts 22:27-29).

Greeks and Romans were so averse to circumcision that if Saul's father had been Roman, he most certainly would not have allowed his son to be circumcised.

Tarsus was a cosmopolitan city, with its own university, and in this city the Jews had a preferred status. They were conferred Roman citizenship because of their outstanding and special services for assisting the prevailing emperor, so they were both Jews and Romans.

A couple of sites discuss the peculiar state of Tarsus:

http://www.bibleplaces.com/tarsus.htm

"Tarsus was the hometown of the apostle Paul (Acts 9:11), a city of great importance (21:39) as a learning center of the ancient world, alongside Alexandria and Athens. Notably, Jewish citizens of Tarsus were granted Roman citizenship. As a child, Paul was raised in Jerusalem and properly educated under the tutelage of Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin. Paul’s trade, tentmaking, fits well with Tarsus, a city well-known for making a certain type of felt cloth from the wool of shaggy black goats."

https://www.academia.edu/3793625/Paul_the_Roman_Citizen_Roman_Citizenship_in_the_Ancient_World_and_its_Importance_for_Understanding_Acts_22_22-29

"In light of this discussion, Paul’s claim of Tarsian citizenship poses no interpretive problems because they are functioning on different levels with Roman citizenship superseding all other forms of citizenship.

The Tarsian citizenship would have been granted to Paul upon birth from a family who were residing in and a member of Tarsus, and would imbue Paul with particular rights and responsibilities to this town and to its members. In addition, Paul would have also been granted Roman citizenship at birth if his father was a Roman citizen. This would not only act within the local area, ensuring him certain privileges, but would also avail him of rights and protection while traveling within the Roman Empire that Tarsian citizenship would not provide."

It is also extremely doubtful that Saul would have been accepted by Gamaliel as a student training for the Sanhedrin, had he not been a Pharisee of Pharisees. Furthermore, it is my impression that Saul/Paul would also have to have been married and had a child to qualify being on the fast track for the Sanhedrin as a ruler of the Jews. If that was so, we do not know what happened to them, but it could not have been divorce. That aspect of his life is merely conjectural.

This is something not at all palatable to the authors of the Jewish Encyclopedia, however, and they have tried every way they could find to discredit Paul and his theology. I hope that's not your view.

Paul was also a Roman legally in the eyes of Rome because of his father being a Roman.

Paul was also a Roman legally in the eyes of Rome because of his father being a Roman citizen..