Son or Sons - A theological contradiction?

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi was listening to a Dr Carrier debate on the historicity of Jesus, and they started talking about Jesus being of the line of David going all the way back to Adam.

 

Suddenly I had one of those 'moments of realisation'. Wasn't Adam referred to as the son of God somewhere in the bible? So I had a look, and sure enough: Luke 3:38, listing the lineage: ³⁸ Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

But hang on, didn't John 3:16 say that: "¹⁶ 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."

 

But if Adam is the Son of God, and Jesus is the son of God.... then that's two sons, not an "only" son. All of a sudden it dawned on me as to why Christian theology was full of convoluted doctrine about the relationships between God, Adam and Jesus. Someone had to make this mess make sense somehow!

 

So how do you sort this contradiction out? Is Jesus the son of God through the lineage back to Adam (Remember evolution!) or is Jesus the direct son of God?(So Mary got impregnated by some spooky shit!) How many sons does God have? Are thee any other direct sons we don't know about? No wonder the Christians say we are all sons and daughters of God... apart from those poor sucker's that will burn in hell.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The answer lies in the first 6 verses of Genesis chapter 6.

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks! That was actually a thought that popped through my head while I was deliberating this. It popped out again though.

 

"Genesis 6King James Version (KJV)

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

² That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

³ And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

⁴ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

⁵ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

⁶ And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

 

There is actually a lot of interesting tie in with various doctrines with Genesis 6. Some people say the sons of god refers to fallen angels, others say it refers to sons of Adam mating with the daughters of Cain. (Cain of course being curse by God)

[mwc]

     Well, in the Nicene Creed (which I had to recite quite often but don't recall so well nowadays), it includes a bit about "...begotten, not made..." to equate the two in essence (they were made from the same stuff...god stuff).  This would mean that anyone/thing called a son of god is not the same.  Only one "son of god" was uncreated and is also god stuff.  Yeah, I know.

 

     It gets worse when you look at alternative manuscripts like the LXX or the DSS.  Then you see these references crop up even more.  In the case of the DSS you have something like Deuteronomy 32(?) where YHWH *is* a son of god (El).  That really throws a monkey wrench into the works.  That would make jesus the grandson of god and I don't think that's a thing.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

On 8/8/2017 at 9:59 AM, mwc said:

 In the case of the DSS you have something like Deuteronomy 32(?) where YHWH *is* a son of god (El).  That really throws a monkey wrench into the works.  That would make jesus the grandson of god and I don't think that's a thing.

 

          mwc

 

 

So if Jesus is supposed to be God, then doesn't that make Jesus his own grandpa?

[mwc]

3 hours ago, crazyguy123 said:

 

So if Jesus is supposed to be God, then doesn't that make Jesus his own grandpa?

     Maybe.  Is that what that song is really about?

 

          mwc

 

[padgemi]

On 8/7/2017 at 8:56 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Hi was listening to a Dr Carrier debate on the historicity of Jesus, and they started talking about Jesus being of the line of David going all the way back to Adam.

 

Suddenly I had one of those 'moments of realisation'. Wasn't Adam referred to as the son of God somewhere in the bible? So I had a look, and sure enough: Luke 3:38, listing the lineage: ³⁸ Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

But hang on, didn't John 3:16 say that: "¹⁶ 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."

 

But if Adam is the Son of God, and Jesus is the son of God.... then that's two sons, not an "only" son. All of a sudden it dawned on me as to why Christian theology was full of convoluted doctrine about the relationships between God, Adam and Jesus. Someone had to make this mess make sense somehow!

 

So how do you sort this contradiction out? Is Jesus the son of God through the lineage back to Adam (Remember evolution!) or is Jesus the direct son of God?(So Mary got impregnated by some spooky shit!) How many sons does God have? Are thee any other direct sons we don't know about? No wonder the Christians say we are all sons and daughters of God... apart from those poor sucker's that will burn in hell.

Yeah but Adam wasn't also the "son of man."  Ponder them apples.