How many sons does God have?

So you are calling Jesus a liar because He said: "ye are of your father the devil". He was not speaking in a parable, He was not using an allegory, He made a point blank statement. There can be no misunderstanding of what He said.Jesus said: Just because you exist does not make you a son of God.If you are serious about debating Matt. 25 I suggest you start a thread to discuss the different judgments of Christ.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yes, you have said this several times, and Ringo has made similar comments. But repeating it hundreds of times will not make it true. Note that the words "creator" and "father" are two different words with two different meanings. He is Creator of all, but not Father of all.Your Deut passage shows that he is father of Israel in a figurative sense. But as I pointed out earlier, the OT does not view Gentiles the same way:

quote:

---

Deut. 14:1 "sons of the LORD your God". This is used of Israel in contrast with the Gentiles, implying that the Gentiles were not "sons of the LORD your God".
Hos 1:10 "sons of the living God". This phrase was to be used of Gentiles in the future, reversing their then-current position as "not God's people".

---

Look at these verses in context; they clearly imply that the Gentiles are/were not sons of God.You and Ringo seem to share a very strange, unusual hermeneutic. It's almost as if you are approaching the Bible as a codebook rather than as literature. You establish a correlation in one place, then carry it to every occurrance of the same word. E.g. you want to use the prodigal son parable as a "lens" in which to view father-son relations everywhere else in Scripture (maybe even the OT, which is blatantly anachronistic). You want to set up equations, such as "child" = "son", "creator" = "father", "created"="son of God" and to substitute these terms willy-nilly throughout Scripture without first establishing that each individual author uses these terms as equivalents (hint: they don't).This would be an irresponsible hermeneutic for any type of literary interpretation, but is especially so for an anthology written by multiple authors over hundreds of years (i.e. the Bible). Each passage needs to first be understood in light of the grammar, context, and historical-cultural mileau of its individual author.Are we really interested in discovering "What does the Bible really mean?" (the subtitle of this Bible Study forum)? Or are we trying to make it mean what we like?

I have asked you twice now to back up your claim that Jesus was not speaking to "all nations" when He spoke of "these my brethern". If ya got anything, roll it out. We don't need a whole new thread to cover one small point.I've made my case pretty clear. You have said nothing to refute it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, I am not sure what more can be said. I have provided passages from the Old Testament and New Testament, from Gospels and Epistles, from the Creeds, where GOD is referred to as Father. I have shown examples from the Bible and from the Creeds where GOD is referred to as the creator of all and where that is directly linked to being Father. I have shown where Jesus asserts that all men of all nations, believers and non-believers are brethren, which again supports the Father Son relationship.The best I can see is to let the readers of the thread make up their own minds.As I said: to which you replied:

quote:

---

Yes, you have said this several times, and Ringo has made similar comments. But repeating it hundreds of times will not make it true.

---

Well, until you can show some reason why the issue of salvation is relevant or the issue of "Born Again" is relevant to the very simply question of "How many sons does God have?", it is true.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, and I and others have provided passages where "son of God" is used more restrictively. Good idea. So you declare what is true, and it remains true until someone can convince you otherwise? It sounds like you have become God. (Truth is not contingent on what someone can or cannot show, and truth doesn't change when someone can convince you of it.)A few of us have already pointed out how these things are relevant to the number of sons God has. John wrote (Jn 1:12-13):

quote:

---

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:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

---

He clearly implies that only those who recieve Jesus (believe on His name) become God's sons. He then says that these people are sons of God because they have received a new birth from God (note: not merely because they have been created by God). Two chapters later (Jn 3) he will elaborate on this "new birth" idea and use it as a figure for salvation, as you have noted. These concepts are all tied together in Jn 1-3.You keep trying to put words in John's mouth and to change his meaning, instead of understanding what he's saying. I agree with you that there is a sense in which all people are "children of God". But there is another sense in which only Israel (in contrast to the Gentiles) and only saved, born-again individuals (in contrast to the unsaved) are "sons of God". There is another sense in which angels are "sons of God" (Job, and maybe Gen 6). And there is yet another sense in which Jesus is the only unique "Son of God".So there are at least five different ways that the phrase "child of God" or "son of God" is used in the Bible. (The OP noted two of these different uses.) It doesn't always mean the same thing in every passage. We've got to study each passage and figure out what the author means in that instance, letting him tell us through context, setting, grammar, etc.Back to the question "How many sons does God have?" There are different biblical definitions and different answers; it depends on how one understands and uses the word "son".

Both general and individual.
Jesus does not do half measures.
I know that if you read the Bible literally, it shows a fumbling bumbling God but the reality is far from the literal view.God is better than that and so is His prophet Jesus.There is no good reason for God to ever let anything blemish His original Perfect universe. No evil. No failure on the part of God.
No Hell to store His failled attempts at creating Perfect souls.We are Perfect believe it or not.
But if there is a God, which makes more sense perfection or imperfection of the systems we see about us?Regards
DL

A person might say "my children" in the sense of "my biological children" - as opposed to "my second husband's biological children". Or she might say "my children" in the sense of "all the children I have raised" - biological, adopted and foster.The context is relevant in individual statements, but if we want to know who the person really counts as her children, we have to look at the broadest statement.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The fact that someone can use restrictive language does not change the relationship. Even disinheriting does not change the fact of Sonship.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree that Jesus was speaking to all nations.I never said Jesus was not speaking to all nations. It is in fact the judgment of all the nations. How could He not be speaking to all nations?What I said was that He was speaking to all the nations about "these my brethren", and that those spoken too was not in the "these my brethren".Analogy:
You are driving down the road, you see a car parked on the side of the road, two people are there. You see they have a problem and stop and give assistance. They thank you and you leave. Later you and I meet and these two people are with me.
I say hi, I want to reward you for helping "THESE" my brother and sister the other day. Does that make you one of "these"?In no way would that make you a son of my father.Just as Jesus saying to the nations "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" did not make anyone of the nations the Sons of God.How do you get the ones being spoken to and the ones spoken about to be the same people?It makes no difference how hard you try to make all people the sons of God it won't happen.To be a son of God you either have to be Jesus or be born the second time as Jesus told Nicodemus by the spirit, a spiritual birth.This determines the number of sons that God has.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Jesus is speaking to the individuals that He is judging. When He speaks about "these my brethern", there is no other "these" that He could be referring to. There is no group singled out from "all nations".No matter how exclusive you want to be, the text simply does not support your notion that "these my brethern" are different from "all nations".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sorry kbertsche, I disagree with you, jar, and Ringo.
The first man sold us into slavery to satan when he wilfully disobeyed God and ate the fruit.Jesus came to buy us back out of slavery. He paid the price required by God to reunite man with God. Isai. 53:11To be a son of God you must become one. Jn 1:12, 13.To become one you must be born again a spiritual birth. Jn 3:6Enjoy

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It does not support your theory that the nations being spoken to are "these my brethern".If Jesus had meant that He would have said: This is how it would read to say what you say it says.But that is not what it says.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You're being silly.Jesus said, "these my brethern". He didn't say, "this group, starting with this guy and ending with that guy - all the others are excluded."When there are no specific exclusions the word "these" applies to all present.Unless you can actually point out in the passage which group is excluded from "all nations", you have no case.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The group that came with Jesus.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

What part of "point out in the passage" do you not understand?There is no "group that came with Jesus". There is only "all nations" and "these my brethern". No distinction is ever made between the two - there is one group only.Your horse is dead. I see no reason to pulverize it further.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC