with both of those definitions.
The first would include Muslims, who believe that the Messenger Isa was conceived in exactly that way by Maryam, a virgin of the Jewish people.
The second has so much slack in it as to be virtually meaningless. Eg., it could be applied to me (though most definitely not by me) because I see Jesus and Mary as avatars of the divine masculine and the divine feminine, but my spiritual practice includes them only tangentially.
And probably neither one of them would have been accepted by Jesus himself and his Jewish followers, for whom "Son of.God" was a title of the King of Israel. (See Psalm 2, one of the "coronation psalms, : "You are my son; today I have begotten you."
In fact some variants of the gospels have those words in place of the better-
known "This is my beloved son. . . " in the
baptismal narratives.
And then, of course, thete are those who believe your first definition but don't follow through on putting Jesus's teachings into practice. Neither Jesus nor his brother James thought that was adequate.
It's a thornier question than it seems to be, isn't it?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read