Fate
I'll let the insult go. But I am curious. Which "original audience" are you referring to exactly? And maybe that's a good place to start.
By "original audience" do you mean..
1. Eye witnesses to Jesus during his lifetime?
2. Or perhaps, those who were not eye witnesses to his ministry but who experienced the resurrected Christ?
3. Or those subsequent generations who neither witnessed his ministry nor experienced the resurrected Christ but, who came to believe based on others' testimony?
It's an important clarification for understanding this title.
The Christological title "Son of God" is a self disclosure title. Jesus did not use the term to refer to himself in the biological sense. The term was used to describe his unique relationship with God and by "the early church" to teach who they believed him to be.
This is not an "attack" on scripture as you suggest. On the contrary, clarity on this particular title comes from the best scripture scholars to emerge from the late 19th century Protestant Germans at Tubingen. Their work laid the foundation for modern scripture study.
We can continue this discussion if you like and maybe learn from one another. But my energy levels will not endure any more vitriol from you, especially when discussing matters of faith.
Go ahead. Here's what I know, unequivocally: you don't know what you're talking about. The original audience did.
I'll let the insult go. But I am curious. Which "original audience" are you referring to exactly? And maybe that's a good place to start.
By "original audience" do you mean..
1. Eye witnesses to Jesus during his lifetime?
2. Or perhaps, those who were not eye witnesses to his ministry but who experienced the resurrected Christ?
3. Or those subsequent generations who neither witnessed his ministry nor experienced the resurrected Christ but, who came to believe based on others' testimony?
It's an important clarification for understanding this title.
The Christological title "Son of God" is a self disclosure title. Jesus did not use the term to refer to himself in the biological sense. The term was used to describe his unique relationship with God and by "the early church" to teach who they believed him to be.
This is not an "attack" on scripture as you suggest. On the contrary, clarity on this particular title comes from the best scripture scholars to emerge from the late 19th century Protestant Germans at Tubingen. Their work laid the foundation for modern scripture study.
We can continue this discussion if you like and maybe learn from one another. But my energy levels will not endure any more vitriol from you, especially when discussing matters of faith.