Scientific Proof of God, A New and Modern Bible, and Coexisting Relations of God and the Universe

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The Real Meaning of the Phrase 'Son of God'

To the Jews, the Son of God is a synomyn for the Messiah, who is anticipated and deliverer of the  Jews at the end.  To the Christians, the Son of God is applied to Jesus, who called God his Father and who comes to deliver the Christians at the end.

However, calling God his Father does not mean that Jesus is a unique person who was created by God. All people who talked to Jesus knew that Jesus was a human being who had special talents. But his talents do not place Jesus into a higher category of human beings because at John 14:12 Jesus says that we will do greater works than he has done.

Scientifically, Christianity had gone too far by saying that Jesus is a unique person, who is the Son of God.  Science says that all things in the universe are finite and in motion. Because of thiese finite motions, I say all of these things must have an rational origin or cause. This means that a not finite (or infinite) thing imust be this rational origin or cause.

Now, if  finite things have other attributes such as colors, this not-finite (or infinite) thing must be the origin of all attributes in the things of the universe.  So, the not-finite (or infinite) thing is One and God.

Since all attributes of any thing in the universe must come from God, all attributes of Jesus must come from God.  This means that all attributes of me, my dog, my sun, my car, etc. come from God. Thus, everything in the universe can be called the 'Son of God.  Here is the real meaning of the phrase 'Son of God.'

I hope that more people come to the conclusion that all scriptures are made by people and thus have errors.

Interest Now: (Click)


  • At 9:38 AM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    I hope that more people come to the conclusion that all scriptures are made by people and thus have errors.

    And the same can be said for your theory.

  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to David S. Wilkinson,

    My theory can never become completed because my God and my creation are eternal. I can only unify a science and theology as much as I can.

    The field of religion is only a practice of a theory of God. I challenge as much as I can.


  • At 12:26 PM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    But George if your theory can never be completed you should not use conclusionary words such as conclude and reject. You say words are important so you should be consistent with your verbage.

  • At 12:47 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to David S. Eilkinson

    But I disagree with you and science. Today's culture is developing just as the followers of Jesus were developing. Jesus expressed himself the best way he could and I am expresing the best way I can. I am a Platonist who is serching for higher anf higher ideas with conclusions.

    We also go forward by learning what we cannot know. This is what Nicholas of Cusa was teaching. St. Paul also taught faith this way.


  • At 7:44 AM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    I understand George, and part of learning is being open to new ideas sometimes abandoning old ideas so saying you have rejected something or you have concluded something says you are no longer open to an opposing idea on the subject. It may not be the case that you're close minded but your language is saying thus.

  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to David S. Wilkinson,

    The process of discovry is quite complex. But I don;t believe that the mind is closed when a discovery is developing. When the discovery has developed the development of proper symbols is another problem that must be solved.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home