Talk:Son of God

History of the development of the term in the New Testament
The history of the development of the term in the NT, as Pico alluded to, may need to be developed in the body of the article. I have not actually looked that in detail, but can do. Let us see what a section on that may look like, agree on it, then see how it may be summarized in the lede. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What is "Son of Man"?
Strangely enough, Jesus doesn't ever directly claim to be "Son of God" at all in Matthew or Luke, and only once in Mark (Mk 14:61-61), although He often permits others to call him that. His most frequent way of referring to himself is as the "Son of Man", a phrase which he uses much more often than "Son of God". Even in the Gospel of John, Jesus uses devices such as putting his declaration in the form of a question as in John 9:35-37, or referring to Himself in the third person as at John 11:4.

Seemingly the most direct and unambiguous declaration by Jesus, is at John 9:35-37, already referred to. But there again the older manuscripts don't use "Son of God" but "Son of Man".

Moreover, the words of John 3:14-17 do not appear to be the words of Jesus to Nicodemus, but a comment by the evangelist – compare it’s style, diction and meter to that used in John's opening discourse.

I don't claim either that this could or should change our understanding of Jesus, but it's actual meaning escapes me and provides food for thought.

Of course there is the Nicene Creed, which as a member of a conforming church, I can't get around - nor would I want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.45.197 (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Son of Man article is in hopeless shape. But that is a different article. History2007 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note how Jesus conflates the phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" at Mark 14:61-62.

Article Section "New Testament References"
I believe that Matthew 26:63-64 and Luke 22:70 should be stricken from the subsection "Attributed to Jesus Himself" and added to "Humans, Calling Jesus Son of God"; since in both cases Jesus merely comments that "You said it" or "So you say", and He neither admits nor denies the attribute.

Attributions in NT statement analysis
I think the new material about the analysis of the statements of Jesus in the NT is interesting reading, but I am rather uncomfortable in it not having attribution, and presented without references that indicate it as the "widely accepted opinion" among the majority of experts. Some of the material comes from highly respected scholars such as O'Collins and Dunn, but not all scholars may agree with the details those two may write in specific books, and per WP:RS/AC if those statements would need direct attribution. These analyses seem to be in the "voice of Wikipedia", but there are other scholars whose views diverge. An example may be "Jesus' (human) consciousness of such divine sonship is one thing, whereas such (human) consciousness of divine pre-existence would be quite another thing." which would probably lead to somewhat heated debate give that the term human consciousness pivot appears therein and may even give rise to denominational debates.

So my suggestion would be less detail on each individual scholar, more breadth and direct attribution unless the issue is simple enough not be subject to debate. Else we will get all kinds of flags and tags within 6 months saying the article runs against WP:Due because it is biased towards 2 or 3 scholars and others need to get equivalent amounts of real estate here. This is good material, just needs to be presented in context with attribution and due weight. History2007 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Demigod
In the "See also" section. Can the article for Demigod be included? Isaac Fermin 08:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supyloco (talk • contribs)

Ideas for possible future reorganization
I broke the previous section “Historic Context” into two sections. “Usage by rulers” and “Usage for gods, demigods and angels”

This article is kind of an impenetrable wall of text but maybe that is the nature of the subject. Currently we have a kind of longish rambling section on “Imperial titles” Parts of that could probably be moved into the new sections or to other pages. That would be a start. Parts of the introduction could be moved as well.

The introduction current feels over specific. It currently mentions Augustus, Julius Caesar, Jesus and Domitian in a very specific and detailed ways.

Jonney2000 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for future rewrite.
The Christian part of this article currently jumps straight into the modern Christian understanding of the title. Philo's Logos the Transfiguration of Enoch and how it related to Gnostic views. How the title evolved both In relation to itself and the title son of man could be covered better. Views from the early church should also be covered.

The whole Abba part, used throughout the article, is POV and should also cover the other side. I think most scholars believe that "Abba-consciousness" is simple reading into the original Aramaic text and that Abba does not have special significant beyond say the usage of father. One idea is replace Abba with father in a few places.

These are areas I noticed while researching the Jewish literature section. Jonney2000 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Challenge in Islamic Section Sounds Like Personal Bias
Just a word to the wise, the "challenge" in the article sounds like it reflects a personal prejudice. I don't find it coincidental that it was made regarding the Islamic section but nowhere else in the article. There are some people who just refuse to acknowledge that Muslims or The Qur'an speak highly of Jesus as a servant of God. It doesn't use the term "son of God" because in some sects of Christianity, this implies that God has a "begotten", divine son but its discussion is not in conflict with the theme of the article or explanation of the term in a Jewish, Christian and Islamic sense, including comparisons with other uses of the term in the ancient world, specifically in the near and middle east.MARK VENTURE (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the quote provided? "Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son." I'd say "challenge" is among the more ambivalent terms one could use to describe this passage; "deny", "denounce", "condemn", and "anathematize" (in a very non-technical sense) would probably be more accurate descriptions of how this passage treats the proposition of Allah having a son. Furthermore, the passage is directly addressing Christian belief in Jesus' divinity and sonship when it says "The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger [i.e., not a/the son] of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him [i.e. not begotten]." It also denounces the Trinity explicitly: "And do not say, "Three"; desist".  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 16:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

blah jesus  live fail  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.44.31 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Son of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002734/http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1986%2018/Younger18.pdf to http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1986%2018/Younger18.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819141040/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/facts to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/facts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://tellmeaboutislam.com/90-verses-jesus-is-not-god.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 14:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead section
The WP:LEAD section does not reflect the content of the article. Editor2020 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Jesus est t'il fils unique de Dieu?
Je veux savoir pourquoi satan est le prince de ce monde et Jésus est le fils unique de Dieu 190.115.183.108 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)