How many sons does God have?

I am limited on time at present, but briefly:This seems to be Greatest I Am's latest attempt to introduce his personal pet peev of 'no Hell existing', an objective that seems fruitless when coupled with Biblical background, because anyone can tell you that Hell is Biblical.If we talk about being born again, we may as well include the next verse 'of WATER' and the Holy Spirit. Now, these are the very words of God, but I don't see any of the Biblical Christians emphasizing them. Being Catholic, I emphasize Baptism as per Jesus' words, and I am not deluded about the ability to lose salvation after Baptism. It is NOT a one time deal. IF we are born again as sons of God, we may lay claim to an inheritance, but only IF we are sons do we get it, and only IF we are sons can we screw it up. Simply being a son guarantees nothing, and by golly, I don't think all the analogies of the Bible should be wasted when they were put there in the first place so that people could understand inheritance based on real life. In real life, people lose inheritance, sons or not.I may have to disagree with jar, because I do believe the Bible is explicit about staking a claim upon sonship, I do believe that we call God 'Our Father', but only once we have staked that claim.Ultimately, the question only has to do with whether we were created or begotten. It is not complex. I say God has only One Begotten Son until I see Biblical evidence that other Beings WERE Gods. GIA mentioned these giants. Where can I find Biblcial evidence that they were to be worshipped, that men were to be worshpped, or that angels were to be worshipped? For that matter, can I even find proof that Jesus was to be treated as a God, or that sons of God must BE Gods?I find that the way we use 'Son of God' in relation to Jesus is based on extra-Biblical conjecture...it is True for me, but not for all Christians who use the Bible. Therefore, the question of the sons of GOd is not pertinent or important to those who feel that Jesus was not unique, but only supreme or first, and the specific question asked by GIA is geared towards those who feel Jesus is unique...which again, I answer by saying that He is believed to be God Himself, either with or without Biblical support, whilst the other 'sons of God' are taken to be creatures and NOT worshipped.Perhaps, then , we could look for support of this theory which would propose to seperate a creature from a son. If it is not directly in the language, which may be figurative, it should be in the context...and the context of the Bible does not show that any OTHER being can be called a son of God in this sense of BEING God.

So, in other words, God is sexist? I am not being a feminazi, but there is really no other meaning to what you have said. The only child who is not a son is a daughter.

double post, lost my quotes first time 'round.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Having been Catholic at one point, I am sure you are aware that forgiveness implies contrition.From what you have written I could also conclude that the sins of humanity are forgiven, on a general level, but perhaps not the individual accountability.

Ringo, honestly, with Jesus being both God and human, He COUlD refer to men as brothers of the flesh, without making men sired sons of God. I am not trying to be nit-picky, but, well, it's just one of those weird theological questions that pop up.

I don't care if God called children 'sons' to satisfy some sexism on the part of a culture, but it's kind of irrelevent.The question was 'How Many Sons Does God Have?' and I suppose you are saying that 'sons' includes women, bit it doesn't answer the question.

You are worrying too much about the whereabouts of the brethren. I don't see that it matters.To you, a brother of Christ is one who is born again. What you need to do is question whether Jesus was speaking about 'born again' people of any location. Now, I don't think one needs to be born again in order to receive the aid of a Christian, or that Jesus desires that we help only those 'born again'. The parable of the Good Samaritan would indicate otherwise.Rather, I find it clear that Jesus speaks of ALL men as brothers in this case, because to suggest that He was rewarding only those acts performed upon other Christians is ludicris.Besides, doesn't the word 'these' mean those here?I am not disagreeing with you straight up, I believe it is more of a theological issue concerning the 'brothers of Jesus' in the flesh.

I hope you got my point, ICANT.What I mean to say is that there is a fundemental theological difference when one asks:How many sons does God have?orHow many brothers does Jesus have?There many be no discrepency depending on denomination, but there is enough reason to declare either question completely open to interpretation.

So are you saying that Jesus was not the unique progeny of GOd?

So how do you tell who is and who isn't?