No. But thanks for playing our game. Read the Bible. Believe the Bible. You can't go wrong that way.
2006-12-24 04:32:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by firebyknight 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus is the Son Of god As well As the son of man. He was in the God Family in the Beginning then he came in the flesh and was born into the man family, died, then raised from the dead and now he's on the right hand side of the father born back into the God family.
2006-12-24 04:35:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by poetified2 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, Jesus is the Father's natural Son - as God begets God - as Light begets Light.
For those baptized, they become God's *adopted* children, as that baptism infuses sanctifying grace into the soul (which is God's own life), so that it can be worthy of eternal life in being *like* God.
---
2006-12-24 04:39:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Catholic Philosopher 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
According to the bible which I do not believe. Jesus was/is the first son of god. Those who are resurrected to eternity would also be the "sons" of god. The bible states that Jesus was the first of many.
2006-12-24 04:33:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i remember i was told that Jesus as the Son of God is 100% divine in that sense and on the other hand also 100% human as our brother in this world. it is ironic though that Jesus is 100% divine and at the same time 100% human. Jesus is divine because he was conceived by the holy spirit. He is human too because he suffered and sinned.
2006-12-24 04:33:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by rain_s_ong 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think He meant it both ways depending on to whom He was speaking, and the type of question He was responding to. When asked outright if He was the Son of God, He said yes, but He assured us we were all God's children.
2006-12-24 04:38:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by The Gadfly 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes that was what he was saying.
Many Christian groups in the first century right after his death did not see Jesus as anything more than a human messenger.
It was only when the Catholic with its pagan influences took over that things changed.
2006-12-24 04:44:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Gamla Joe 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that was the meant meaning personally.
2006-12-24 04:30:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by jackiedivineca 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Id agree, if it werent for all the verses otherwise.
2006-12-24 04:31:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by sweetie_baby 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah, but that would disillusion a lot of people.
2006-12-24 04:31:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Atlas 6
·
0⤊
0⤋