951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

Introduction

Jesus is given many “titles”, or “designations”, in Scripture. Most of those titles are well known to Christians. However, from what I have seen, the exact meanings of those titles are not very well understood by many Christians.

In other words, some Christians do not understand the meanings of some of Jesus’ titles – and that can cause Christians to draw inaccurate conclusions about who Jesus actually is.

Of course, it stands to reason that followers of Jesus should want to have an accurate understanding of his identity. So, let’s examine some of the most common titles that are given to Jesus – and then explore what those titles actually mean.

 

Three very common titles

First, here are some titles that the apostle Peter gave to Jesus:

Matthew 16:15-17 (ESV):

15 He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Acts 2:36 (ESV):

36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

There are three distinct titles given to Jesus, in the above passages:

– “Christ”

– “Lord”

– “Son of God”

As it turns out, those same three titles are also given to Jesus by the other apostles, in numerous places. Here are some examples of this, from John, Paul and James:

John 20:30-31 (ESV):

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (ESV):

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Galatians 2:20 (ESV):

20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

James 2:1 (ESV):

1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.

There are many, many other places in Scripture where those same three titles are given to Jesus as well. So, since those particular titles are so common, it appears worthwhile to take a closer look at them.

 

The title of “Christ”

The title of “Christ” is probably the most familiar title of Jesus, to Christians who live in English-speaking countries. In fact, Jesus is quite frequently referred to as “Jesus Christ” by many Christian churches.

Unfortunately, from my experience, many Christians are not familiar with the meaning of the title of “Christ”. In fact, in some cases, Christians are not even aware that Christ is actually a title, at all –  instead, some people think that Christ is simply the last name (surname) of Jesus!

The English word “Christ” comes from the Greek word Christos. The word Christos, in turn, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiyach. (The English rendition of mashiyach is “messiah”.)

In any case, Christos and mashiyach both mean the same thing – their basic meaning is “anointed”; as in “one who has been anointed”. The word “anointed” comes from the Hebrew verb mashach – to anoint.

Here are the basic definitions of mashach (to anoint), mashiyach (messiah) and Christos (Christ), from Strong’s lexicon:

4886 mashach maw-shakh’ a primitive root; to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by implication, to consecrate; also to paint:–anoint, paint.

4899 mashiyach maw-shee’-akh from 4886; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically, the Messiah:–anointed, Messiah.

5547 Christos khris-tos’ from 5548; anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:–Christ.

As shown above, mashiyach and Christos both mean anointed – i.e. Christos is the Greek “version” of mashiyach.

Here is additional information about mashiyach, from Strong’s lexicon:

1) anointed, anointed one

      a) of the Messiah, Messianic prince

      b) of the king of Israel

      c) of the high priest of Israel

      d) of Cyrus

      e) of the patriarchs as anointed kings

So, the title of “messiah” (or Christ) refers to a person who has been anointed – that is, consecrated for service to God. In other words, God chose the person in question for His service; and then He had that person officially “consecrated”.  This consecration usually – but not always – begins with a ceremony involving the smearing of oil on the person.

As listed above, the kings and priests of ancient Israel were all anointed ones – i.e., they were all messiahs of a sort! So, the title of messiah is not unique to Jesus – many other people have held that title as well.

Also note that all of the kings and priests of Israel were literally smeared with oil, as part of their initial consecration to God.

Another item that is very interesting from the above list is that Cyrus – i.e., king Cyrus of ancient Persia – was also given the title of messiah (anointed)! Here is the verse that contains that title for Cyrus:

Isaiah 45:1 (ESV):

1 Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I have grasped,
to subdue nations before him
and to loose the belts of kings,
to open doors before him
that gates may not be closed:

It is quite interesting that Cyrus is given the title of anointed (i.e., messiah) – because Cyrus was not even an Israelite! Not only that, but Cyrus did not have oil smeared on him, as part of his consecration for God’s service. So, evidently there are some cases in which people can become consecrated into God’s service – and therefore, can become messiahs – without going through the “usual channels”.

In addition to the kings and priests, the Hebrew Scriptures also speak about one specific, special messiah, who will save all mankind from their sins. For example, in Genesis 3:15 God states that the “offspring of the woman” shall “bruise the head” of the serpent. In Deuteronomy 18:15, Moses tells the Israelites that “God will raise up a prophet like me from among you, from among your brothers – it is to him you shall listen”. Finally, in Isaiah 53, the prophet describes – in great detail – the sufferings that this special messiah would undergo, to allow all of us to be saved.

Of course, this one specific, special messiah is Jesus – and that is why he is given the title of the Christ (i.e., the Messiah) in the Greek Scriptures. In other words, Jesus was also consecrated into God’s service – just like the kings and priests of ancient Israel were. In the case of Jesus, though, he was given the completely unique role of being the savior of all mankind – something that the ancient kings and priests could never do.

So, from what I can see, Jesus’ title of “the Christ” means: “The one who was chosen by God, and consecrated into God’s service – in order to become the savior of mankind”.

 

The title of “Lord”

Most Christians are also familiar with the title of “Lord” for Jesus. For example, in English-speaking countries, one will frequently see signs that have “Jesus is Lord” on them.

Once again, though, many Christians are not very familiar with the meaning of the title “Lord”, when it is used in reference to Jesus. From what I have seen, the vast majority of Christians believe that the title “Lord” is completely interchangeable with the title “God”. In other words, most Christians think that “Lord” and “God” are synonyms – i.e., that they mean the same thing.

Of course, since most Christians think that “Lord” means “God” – and since Jesus is given the title “Lord” – most Christians conclude that Jesus, himself, is actually Almighty God.

One reason why Christians confuse the meanings of “Lord” and “God” is because of the rendition of God’s personal name, in English translations of the Bible. The personal name of Almighty God is written in the Hebrew Scriptures with the four Hebrew consonants yod, hey, vav, hey, as follows (note that Hebrew is written right to left):

יהוה

Those four consonants are often referred to as the “tetragrammaton” – which simply means four letters.

Of course, there is an enormous amount of debate about how, exactly, the tetragrammaton should be pronounced. Most scholars appear to favor the pronunciation of “Yahweh”. A common Anglicized pronunciation is “Jehovah”.

In any case, there is no question that God does have a personal name – as specified by the four letters above. However, almost all English translations of the Bible do not even try to provide a personal name for God. Basically, most English Bible render the tetragrammaton as the word LORD – with small capital letters. As a result, most Christians are not even aware that God has a personal name – because English translations have replaced His name with LORD!

Not only that, but by replacing God’s name with LORD, most English translations lead Christians to believe that “God” and “Lord” mean the same thing. That, in turn, causes many Christians to conclude that Jesus is actually God, because one of Jesus’ titles is “Lord”.

The Greek word that is rendered as “Lord” in reference to Jesus is kurios. Here is Strong’s lexicon on the meaning of kurios:

2962. kurios koo’-ree-os from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):– God, Lord, master, Sir.

In other words, the term kurios does not necessarily mean God – it simply indicates a person who has been granted a position of authority. Certainly, Jesus has been granted authority by God, as specified by Peter:

Acts 2:36 (ESV):

36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

In other words, God granted Jesus the title of kurios – lord. That is, God gave Jesus authority over us. However, that does not mean that Jesus is actually Almighty God.

After all, consider this – if kurios and God actually were synonyms – i.e., if the tile of kurios always meant Almighty God – then Acts 2:36 would read as follows:

Acts 2:36 (ESV):

36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both God (kurios) and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

In other words, if kurios actually meant God, then the above verse would read “God has made him God“… That doesn’t make much sense, does it?

So, from what I can see, Jesus’ title of “Lord” refers to the fact that God has given Jesus authority over us.  In other words, God has made Jesus our “master”, or “boss”, if you will.

 

The title of “Son of God”

Finally, we come to the title “Son of God”. Generally speaking, most Christians are aware that Jesus has the title “Son of God”. However, from my experience, most Christians do not usually refer to Jesus by that title. Instead, most Christians simply refer to Jesus as “God” – partially because of the confusion over the title of “Lord” (as mentioned above).

Another reason why usage of the “Son of God” title is relatively rare is because of the Trinity doctrine. Basically, the Trinity states that there is just one God; but that He exists as three co-equal and co-eternal “persons”: “God the Father”, “God the Son”, and “God the Holy Spirit”.

As a result, people who are schooled in the Trinity tend to avoid the Scriptural title of “Son of God” for Jesus; instead, they reverse that title to “God the Son”! Note that the phrase “God the Son” does not appear anywhere in Scripture…

The title of Jesus that does appear in Scripture is the “Son of God”, so let’s concentrate on that title. So – what, exactly, does Scripture mean, when it states that Jesus is the Son of God? Fortunately, Scripture explicitly defines what the title “Son of God” means, in reference to Jesus. Take a look at this passage:

Luke 1:26-35 (ESV):

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

A succinct “synopsis” of the above passage is as follows:

– The angel Gabriel told Mary that God will cause her to conceive – in other words, that He will cause one of her eggs to become fertilized.

– Therefore, the resulting child – Jesus – will be called the Son of God.

In other words, God caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus – and as a result, Jesus is called the Son of God. This concept is quite simple – and yet, most mainstream Christians reject it out of hand. Needless to say, I put more trust in what the angel Gabriel tells us, than in the speculation of human theologians.

So, from what I can see, the reason why Jesus is given the title “Son of God” is as follows: God caused Jesus’ mother to become pregnant with him.

Note that a much more detailed discussion about the title “Son of God” can be found at this link.

 

Conclusion

In a few cases in the past, people have asked me who, exactly, that I think that Jesus is. In that type of situation, it is rather tempting to say things like: “Well, he certainly is not the ‘second person of the Trinity'”. However, that type of response does not really serve anyone’s ends – i.e., it does not prompt anyone to try to research – for themselves – the identity of our Messiah.

Instead, it occurs to me that an appropriate response to that type of question would be as follows:

“I believe that Jesus is exactly who the apostles told us he was. For example, I believe – as the apostle Peter said – that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of the living God. In addition, I believe – as Peter told us – that God has made Jesus our Lord”.

That type of response would hopefully allow the questioner to do his or her own research. After all, since none of us is omniscient, the best that we can hope for is that people will approach this issue with an open mind, right?

 

32 Responses to “Three of the “titles” of Jesus”

  1. on 29 Jan 2012 at 8:51 amWolfgang

    Hi

    now, I certainly agree that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, is Lord and is the Son of God ….

    BUT are these really “titles” ? Can it be said that Peter and the other apostles “gave” such “titles” to Jesus ? I mean, Jesus was/is the Christ, Lord and Son of God … if I say so, I am not giving him these titles, am I?

    Is it just my lack of knowledge o the English language which causes me to have those questions about this article
    Wolfgang

  2. on 29 Jan 2012 at 12:07 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Can it be said that Peter and the other apostles “gave” such “titles” to Jesus ?

    God “gave” Jesus whatever “titles” he has [Acts 2.36].

  3. on 29 Jan 2012 at 1:49 pmWolfgang

    hi

    Acts 2:36 says nothing about titles or “titles” …

    God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ … this verse indicates further that “Lord” and “Christ” are most likely not titles.

  4. on 29 Jan 2012 at 7:30 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    guten abend.

    a title is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title

    Jesus=name Christ=title Nazarene = citizenship
    Wolfgang=name KR blogger=title Deutsche=citizenship
    Timothy=name KR blogger=title Floridian=citizenship
    Xavier=name KR blogger=title American=citizenship

    maybe ???

  5. on 29 Jan 2012 at 8:08 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Is it just my lack of knowledge o the English language which causes me to have those questions about this article

    Yes.

    When we say Peter “gave Jesus the titles Christ, Lord”, etc., we do not mean that Peter originally gave him those “titles”.

    The other thing I think you are having problems with is that when we give someone a title, it is who they are. For example, if I call you by the title of “King” it means you are the ruler of somewhere; if I call you a “boss” you are the owner of something, etc.

    Does this help?

  6. on 29 Jan 2012 at 9:47 pmbrando

    I don’t know if you know this but in Judaism and in the OT one of the Messianic titles,that of the DAVIDIC messiah,is NETZER or BRANCH.

    Now the way several passages in the OT are arranged the OT gives the NAME of the NETZER,or Davidic Messiah and it is JOSHUA in Hebrew,which is YESHUA in Aramaic,or Jesus:

    http://www.avraidire.com/2010/04/the-old-testament-says-the-messiahs-name-is-yeshua-jesus/

  7. on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:57 amXavier

    brando

    I don’t know if you know this but in Judaism and in the OT one of the Messianic titles,that of the DAVIDIC messiah,is NETZER or BRANCH.

    Do you know how Jesus can be both “the root” and “the branch” of David [Rev 22.16]? What does this mean?

  8. on 30 Jan 2012 at 11:33 amtimothy

    Xavier,

    i do not know….here are some scriptures….what do you see?

    rev 22:
    16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

    romans 11:
    16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

    17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

    18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

  9. on 30 Jan 2012 at 2:00 pmbrando

    Timothy,it is the first time I see that saying,to be the root would be an obvious metaphor for being the source of something like in “the love of money is the root of all evil”in 1 Timothy 6:10.

  10. on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:12 pmXavier

    timothy

    i do not know….here are some scriptures….what do you see?

    I see verses that are not relevant to my question but thanks anyway.

  11. on 31 Jan 2012 at 6:58 amtimothy

    Xavier,

    do you know the answer to your riddle?

    Isaiah 11:
    1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:….

  12. on 31 Jan 2012 at 1:59 pmtimothy

    Xavier,

    CORRECTION

    I cannot expound your riddle.

  13. on 31 Jan 2012 at 8:59 pmXavier

    timothy

    Hence my question. 😉

  14. on 31 Jan 2012 at 9:11 pmtimothy

    Xavier,

    With GOD all things are possible.

    Matthew 19:
    26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but “with God all things are possible”.

  15. on 25 Oct 2015 at 3:00 pmMichael

    Brian writes- In other words, God caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus – and as a result, Jesus is called the Son of God. This concept is quite simple – and yet, most mainstream Christians reject it out of hand. Needless to say, I put more trust in what the angel Gabriel tells us, than in the speculation of human theologians.

    Response…So God causes Mary to become pregnant with Jesus and as a result Jesus is called the Son of God because this is what Gabriel tells us and told Mary and Joseph and this concept is quite simple, do I have this right?

  16. on 25 Oct 2015 at 8:23 pmJas

    Brian
    Very good presentation on the titles and how they were used sometimes for others.But I am a little disappointed you fell short on the title Son of God as it relates to the Offspring of David in the future Kings of a Whole Israel which Solomon was the last and Jesus the future King of the restored United Kingdom of Israel. Solomon was called God’s Son by God himself and this same entitlement was given to Jesus by being chosen as the next and last King of Israel.
    Just as Jesus is the second Adam he is also the second Solomon

  17. on 25 Oct 2015 at 10:38 pmMichael

    Jas, who has a comment on absolutely everything did not answer the question on whether Brian is correct stating that understanding how Jesus received his Son of God title is a very simple thing explained by the angel?

    Brian writes- In other words, God caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus – and as a result, Jesus is called the Son of God. This concept is quite simple – and yet, most mainstream Christians reject it out of hand. Needless to say, I put more trust in what the angel Gabriel tells us, than in the speculation of human theologians.

    Response…So God causes Mary to become pregnant with Jesus and as a result Jesus is called the Son of God because this is what Gabriel tells us and told Mary and Joseph and this concept is quite simple, do I have this right?

  18. on 25 Oct 2015 at 11:06 pmJas

    Michael
    I does not effect the entitlement to the Son of God title as long a Jesus came in the bloodline of David. Whether God oversaw the conception or cause her seed to multiply or even the myth that he physically put his sperm does not effect the prophecy given to David which found its first fulfillment in Solomon. Even without the birth narratives Jesus would still be entitled to be CALLED The Son of God.
    So why should I answer a question whether Brian is correct why Jesus is CALLED The Son of God because fact is it is the reality of the prophesy to David at most.

  19. on 25 Oct 2015 at 11:33 pmMichael

    Jas writes- Even without the birth narratives Jesus would still be entitled to be CALLED The Son of God.
    So why should I answer a question whether Brian is correct why Jesus is CALLED The Son of God

    Response…Wow, the very foundation of Biblical Unitarian doctrine and the man who comments on everything suddenly feels no obligation, (or any other BU) to comment on what this group calls a very simple explanation of how Jesus received his title the Son of God.

    Anthony writes on this subject exactly like Brian “In Luke 1:35 we have a simple, unifying explanation of how, why and when Jesus is the Son of God. It was precisely because of the biological miracle worked in Mary that Jesus is the Son of God.”

    So I will ask a third time on what Brian and Anthony have stated….So God causes Mary to become pregnant with Jesus and as a result Jesus is called the Son of God because this is what Gabriel tells us and told Mary and Joseph and this concept is quite simple, do I have this right?

    Why does this question frighten you who claim that 99.9 percent of BU doctrine is correct, is this the .01 that is incorrect?

  20. on 26 Oct 2015 at 11:22 amJas

    Michael
    Do you have a reading comprehension problem?Both the 99.9 and .1 are correct ,it is just the .1 is hard to understand so we should use the 99.9 to understand the .1 not the reverse.
    I try to share my understanding while you come here with the same silly questions over and over never adding any understanding .
    So don’t demand answers till you first answer the many questions ask you.

  21. on 26 Oct 2015 at 12:07 pmMichael

    Jas writes- Do you have a reading comprehension problem?Both the 99.9 and .1 are correct ,it is just the .1 is hard to understand so we should use the 99.9 to understand the .1 not the reverse.

    Response…Oh good, so how Jesus is the Son of God must be in the 99 percent of what you know because Brian and Anthony have deemed the explanation to be quite simple so how Jesus is the Son of God can’t be in that pesky .01.

    Jas writes-I try to share my understanding while ….

    Response….I can almost hear the violin music as you write….anyway, the one who comments on everything will not even acknowledge Brian and Anthony’s assertion that the explanation on how Jesus became the Son of God was explained by Gabriel and is quite simple and better and pretends that he ignores this truth for some noble reason.

    as writes- I try (violin) to share my understanding while you come here with the same silly questions over and over never adding any understanding.

    Response…And there you have it, if anyone challenges the 99 percent of what BU’s know then that is a waste of their time. BU’s don’t want to add to their understanding they simply want to hold on to their version of it like some fragile egg which it is.

    So again, to the one who comments on everything, the defender of the BU faith, the one who tries (violin) to share their BU understanding cannot acknowledge Brian and Anthony’s explanation on how Jesus became the Son of God which according them is quite simple as given by the angel to Mary and Joseph.

    Jas hides behind some noble cause for this silence but that is a lie and not the reason at all is it?

    Acknowledge Brian and Anthony’s assertion and your understanding will be furthered but at a cost to your precious 99 percent which no BU can tolerate.

    Sean writes-The text is emphatic in making the point that the child will be called the Son of God precisely because his conception resulted from God’s miraculous involvement (Luke 1:35).

    Response…Luke 1:35 folks, that’s the answer, please, no questions on it, move along, nothing to see here.

  22. on 26 Oct 2015 at 12:33 pmJas

    Michael
    I ask again do you have a reading comprehension problem?
    The 99.9% and .1% are just what was prophesized and wrote about Jesus not about any doctrine. I have my reasons for questioning the validity of the birth narratives which people here already know .
    I only made a comment to Brian because he was very thorough in explaining the use of 2 titles but fell short on 3rd. They can believe what they want because my belief is not dependent on theirs and the conclusion of the person of Jesus it basically the same.
    You on the other hand are afraid to fully explain your belief .
    Do you even know how to explain your belief?

  23. on 26 Oct 2015 at 12:55 pmMichael

    Enough games with noble Jas who won’t answer for the same reason every BU will not answer any question on Luke 1:35 because under any scrutiny it completely falls apart and if it falls apart then it can’t be the truth and you would think that if it’s not the truth then BU’s would be the first to want to know this but that is not the case, what does that say about this group and their God?

    Brian writes- Brian writes- In other words, God caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus – and as a result, Jesus is called the Son of God. This concept is quite simple.

    Simple, God causes Mary to become pregnant making Him the father, Mary becomes pregnant and gives birth to Jesus and becomes the mother and Jesus who was begat by God and given birth to by Mary becomes the Son of God because of these actions right?

    Well, it appears that the Biblical Unitarians and the Christadelphians understood Gabriel’s simple explanation but low and behold Mary and Joseph did not, even twelve years after Jesus was born!

    There are only four in on this plan of how Jesus was to become the Son of God in the beginning, God and Gabriel who delivered this simple explanation and Mary and Joseph, making Mary and Joseph in a way, the first two BU’s with the one exception that they had no idea the God causing her to become pregnant made Jesus the Son of God.

    Looking at Luke 2:46-49 we see twelve year old Jesus who has been missing for three days before being found by a sorrowing Mary and Joseph who then ask him why he had dealt with them in this way and

    Jesus answers “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”

    Luke 2:46-49 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?

    According to your interpretation of Jesus becoming the Son of God because of the conception in Mary which makes Mary and Joseph advocates of this belief then Jesus’ answer makes perfect sense. Jesus’ mother finds her son in his Father’s house talking about his Father’s word which is his Father’s business, end of story.

    But then there is Luke 2:50-51 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

    Jesus spoke eighteen words to Mary and Joseph and they didn’t understand any of it so the very couple you use as proof for your interpretation of how Jesus became the Son of God do not support your interpretation.

    Either you are wrong on how Jesus became the Son of God or Mary and Joseph are brainless.

  24. on 26 Oct 2015 at 1:31 pmMichael

    I wrote to Anthony and asked him why Mary and Joseph did not understand how Jesus became the Son of God when in fact they were the first two people to receive the quite simple explanation of it from the angel and he responded that “Mary did not grasp it all at one time”
    .
    Twelve years after receiving the simple explanation they had not grasped any part of it!

    The BU interpretation of Luke 1:35 is either correct or Mary and Joseph are stupid.

  25. on 26 Oct 2015 at 1:46 pmJas

    Michael
    When do you believe Jesus became aware that he fulfilled the prophecy given to David ?
    When do you believe his Father,Mother and Brothers realized this?
    Don’t dance around the questions just be honest for once.

  26. on 26 Oct 2015 at 2:02 pmMichael

    Jas writes-When do you believe Jesus became aware that he fulfilled the prophecy given to David ?
    When do you believe his Father,Mother and Brothers realized this?
    Don’t dance around the questions just be honest for once.

    Response… Noble Jas who can’t explain the contradiction between his groups interpretation of Luke 1:35 and the story in Luke 2 so he accuses me of dishonesty, is that tactic of heaven or hell?… Sorry Jas, quid pro quo.

  27. on 26 Oct 2015 at 2:12 pmMichael

    The waiting period for the next response from Jas is so that he can think of another way appear to be noble and high minded while avoiding like the plague his groups foundational belief.

  28. on 26 Oct 2015 at 2:17 pmJas

    Michael
    What gives you the right to scrutinize someones understanding while you are afraid to explain your own?
    My understanding is easy to contrast theirs because I do not accept the validity of what they use but if I did I would also question Why Joseph and Mary seem to have forgot what the Angel spoke to them.
    I also have questions because of valid verses which state his family thought him mad and his own brothers did not believe him.
    BTW There are many others Unitarian groups that also question the validity of birth narratives .

  29. on 26 Oct 2015 at 2:24 pmJas

    http://torahofmessiah.org/the-birth-of-yeshua-messiah-jesus-christ/

  30. on 26 Oct 2015 at 2:50 pmMichael

    Response…So you are not a Biblical Unitarian at all and reject their interpretation of Luke 1:35 which is surprising since you started by writing that Brian’s teaching was good but that he fell a little short in his explanation on how Jesus became the Son of God.

    You wrote-Very good presentation on the titles and how they were used sometimes for others. But I am a little disappointed you fell short on the title Son of God

    How can their explanation fall a little short for you when you completely reject it?

    Jas writes-My understanding is easy to contrast theirs because I do not accept the validity of what they use but if I did I would also question Why Joseph and Mary seem to have forgot what the Angel spoke to them.

    Response…Why do you exist on a desolate blog where you are in direct disagreement with their foundational belief?….if you question how Mary and Joseph forgot then you cannot become a BU.

    Jas writes- I also have questions because of valid verses which state his family thought him mad and his own brothers did not believe him.

    Response…No one knew how Jesus was the Son of God before the resurrection, not his family or the disciples that left him high and dry when he was arrested.

    Luke 24:44-45 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

    No one can understand how Jesus is the Son of God without understanding Psalm 2 “this is my Son, this day I have begotten thee’ and the disciple did not have this understanding until after the resurrection.

    Jas writes- BTW There are many others Unitarian groups that also question the validity of birth narratives.

    Response…And what groups are these?

  31. on 26 Oct 2015 at 3:13 pmJas

    Michael
    I was disappointed because Brian did not mention the Prophecy to David which Made Solomon receive the title Son of God.
    You are equating being chosen to be The Son of God with the reality of becoming .It was known to many that Jesus met the requirements to be CALLED The Son of God long before the resurrection by none probably did not realize the reality that came by the resurrection of the firstborn.
    Are you not a unitarian if you believe he became the Son of God at his resurrection therefore could not be God or the eternal second person of trinity.

  32. on 26 Oct 2015 at 3:33 pmJas

    Michael
    I discuss on this blog because there are many topics discussed here. While the belief in One God is probably the most important which espouses me here there are other things I could use a better understanding of which I feel discussion is a great means.

  

Leave a Reply