There are two popular metaphorical references to 'sons of God' found in the Bible. The first of which I was speaking of is that of the Angels, like that mentioned in Job 1:6. The latter was a reference to those who are obedient to God, and thus become metaphorical sons of God. This can not be emphasized enough when for example looking to the 1st letter of John chapter 4 onward. Really, are the sons of dis-obedience any more originating with the Devil then that of God?
Good or Evil the Almighty God is the Creator of both. What is more Satin can not create anything of his own accord, except by God's leave.

Metaphorical references? Who's speaking metaphorically? When one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, they are "born again". They become a new creation and the old is left.

2 Corinthians 5:17

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

When we become this new creation, we then are sons and daughters of God.

Galatians 3:26

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

You aren't literally born again are You?
Thus, this too must be a metaphor.

You aren't literally a new creation are You?
Thus, this too must be a metaphor.

If I said, "Some So and so has turned over a new leaf." Then I don't usually imply they started writing something different in a book.

The Bible is full of metaphors and superlatives.
Everybody must use their intellect to know the difference.

Most early Xians were Arian in orientation:

Arius taught that God the Father and the Son of God did not always exist together eternally.[5] Arians taught that the Logos was a divine being created by God the Father before the world. The Son of God is subordinate to God the Father.[6] In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a "creature", in the sense of "created being". Arius and his followers appealed to Bible verses such as Jesus saying that the father is "greater than I" (John 14:28), and "The LORD/Yahweh created me at the beginning of his work" (Proverbs 8:22).[7]

Controversy over Arianism arose in the late 3rd century and persisted throughout most of the 4th century. It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests and monks to bishops, emperors and members of Rome's imperial family. Such a deep controversy within the Church during this period of its development could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines.[8] Some historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging in heresy;[citation needed] but others recognize Arius as a defender of 'original' Christianity,[citation needed] or as providing a conservative response against the politicization of Christianity seeking union with the Roman Empire.[citation needed] Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only two bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed, which condemned Arianism.[9] Two Roman emperors, Constantius II and Valens, became Arians, as did prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Lucian of Antioch had contended for a Christology very similar to what would later be known as Arianism[citation needed] and is thought to have influenced its development.[citation needed] (Arius was a student of Lucian's private academy in Antioch.) After the dispute over Arianism became politicized and a general solution to the divisiveness was sought—with a great majority holding to the Trinitarian position—the Arian position was officially declared heterodox.

Arianism continued to exist for several decades, even within the family of the emperor, the imperial nobility, and higher-ranking clergy.[citation needed] But, by the end of the 4th century it had surrendered its remaining ground to Trinitarianism in the official Roman church hierarchy.[citation needed] In western Europe, Arianism, which had been taught by Ulfilas, the Arian missionary to the Germanic tribes, was dominant among the Goths and Lombards (and, significantly for the late Empire, the Vandals); but it ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th century, as the rulers of these Germanic tribes gradually adopted Catholicism, beginning with Clovis I of the Franks in 496. It was crushed through a series of military and political conquests,[citation needed] culminating in religious and political domination of Europe over the next 1,000 years by Trinitarian forces in the Catholic Church. Trinitarianism has remained the dominant doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church and later within Protestantism.

Catholism is the Mother church. Many churches claim they do not follow Catholic Doctrine but this shows they do.Whatever they choose to say they do. It is easy all u have to do is do away with the beginning

Whateverrr.. call him a king, a creator, whatever we call him, whoever we are, we all need one..
#just saying.

Yes we all need one. If we can call him whatever we want, then why do we need him in the 1st place? He listens to everyone then because of belief their should be no Doctrine of Hell. Yet all teach a fiery place for the unbeliever. The problem is the same now as it was before. The ones in power teaching us the word tells us we r to stupid to understand it ourselves. We need them and needing them denies the Power of the Creator. It is all custom but we love custom. We love to go to our churches and believe we r saved. Our Minister says so. As long as u follow what he says. Yahshua did not so they plotted to kill him from the beginning after his Baptism John says. Why did they plot to kill him? Because he did not g along with their customs. He did not follow them he followed the words of his Father which is the Scriptures. Choose who you will follow. Man or Life

None of the above..i will follow what stated in the bible..for bible s the manual n our life..example when buying gadget, the first thing u do s read the manual before u use it..same thing n using ur life must read the manual first..

Why did they plot to kill him.?
I think it has something to do with freedom..the bible starts with the fact that God built free choice into human race n the beggining..therefore, there would have to b the possibility of misuse of that freedom..

They killed him because he threatened the Religious leaders authority. He taught the people the scripture and told them to believe Yahweh his word that The Religious leaders were teaching Tradition over the commandments of Yahweh. This is very true today that is why he is coming again. Yahshua also ate with the poor. He was Homeless, he taught hardly a rich man would make it to the kingdom. we see ministers who preach a Health and wealth ministry. This is not following Yahshua. Even Paul did not get a Salary for preaching. He worked as a tent maker for his living. Religion is power and wealth . Fight against Power and they will do everything they can to get rid of you. To discredit you. Yahshua lived with the Poor ate with those the ones in Power did not want to lift a finger to help. the poor. We are the Temple what do we see churches in their Glory. Men in their Robes and fancy clothing. come as you are with a Humble and contrite spirit and The Spirit of Life will give you True Riches not of this world But of Peace from above

you need help

Bishop Arianus of Alexandra Egypt was not an advocate of the Trinity at the counsel of Nicea. Emperor Constantine desperately wanted something hammered out, as he found the subject of the One God having an offspring or 'son' a source of contention. It was at this time the clerical class of 322 A.D. thought it would be a good idea to just annex Father, Son and Holy Ghost into the One Entity. What was forgotten by those clerics of old was these were only ever metaphors to describe the Almighty, His First Creation, and His Emissary. Sadly, Bishop Arianus was assassinated by the new 'would-be Christians' of that era and they've held reign ever since.

TB Rich, never ceases to amaze me !
For an Atheist, he incredibly knowledgeable about these subjects.

I never claimed to be an Atheist, what I am is:

nder"

Doctors have come from distant cities
Just to see me
Stand over my bed
Disbelieving what they're seeing

They say I must be one of the wonders
Of god's own creation
And as far as they can see they can offer
No explanation

Newspapers ask intimate questions
Want confessions
They reach into my head
To steal the glory of my story

They say I must be one of the wonders
Of god's own creation
And as far as they can see they can offer
No explanation

O, I believe
Fate smiled and destiny
Laughed as she came to my cradle
Know this child will be able
Laughed as my body she lifted
Know this child will be gifted
With love, with patience and with faith
She'll make her way

People see me
I'm a challenge to your balance
I'm over your heads
How I confound you and astound you
To know I must be one of the wonders
Of god's own creation
And as far as you can see you can offer me
No explanation

O, I believe
Fate smiled and destiny
Laughed as she came to my cradle
Know this child will be able
Laughed as she came to my mother
Know this child will not suffer
Laughed as my body she lifted
Know this child will be gifted
With love, with patience and with faith
She'll make her way
- Natalie Merchant

My apologies TB Rich, Your obviously one of God's wondrous enigmas.

As-salamu alaykum, my friend

Wa Alaykum As-Salaam... Okay, maybe You'll make a great Muslim yet.

Probably would tend toward Sufi

Sufi, means 'Mystic'

Some have referred to myself as such, but I also decline.

Heck...! I'm not even a Sheihk. The fact is I've only been a Muslim for the last 14 years. I don't have the whole Quran memorized. I've only ever been able to read it in English and I can't speak in Arabic at length at all. I do try to read the entire Quran at least once a year though. (It's only about three-quarters the length of the New Testament) Reading the Quran is a modest goal.

Everybody whom I meet, I tell them, for as often as we may get on the subject of religion, "Islam is not so much a format for a religion, as a minimum prerequisite of faith."

The Quran teaches, that every original format of Judaism and Christianity is a form of acceptable worship. It's apostasy that invalidates their format. Even modern Islam has its apostate factions too.

You, (Everybody In General) must make 'submission to God' their own obligation of faith firstly.

The Quran's purpose is to reiterate God's original minimum prerequisites for humanity.

First, and foremost among those prerequisites, is You must not believe in or worship any other gods other than the One True God.
Polytheism or the worship and belief in 'many gods' can not be tolerated... And yet the majority of humanity can't seem to evade that simple prerequisite. Christendom for the most part would not only advocate that You worship the Heavenly Father, but also Saints, the Virgin Mary, the Holy Ghost or Spirit, Jesus along with Icons, Statues, and Crucifixes.

No disrespect in intended for those whom the True God has sent, but He hasn't wanted His worship to be redirected to others without His leave. This would be an insult to the Almighty's majesty.

Once more, Jesus with all modesty, never asked to be worshiped. To the contrary, he reproached those who did. [Mark 10:18]

I like what you have to say. You seem very grounded in your belief.

I know a few muslims but not many. Because of not knowing what or who I might be dealing with I do not go out of my way to get to know them.

I wonder and maybe you could answer this for me.

The Govt's of Muslim Nations I believe have the power to get rid of the people who want to kill people who do not agree with their way.

If Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, ect would come together and say we will work together and take care of this extremism ourselves I believe that it would end soon.

Am I wrong or why can't Muslim Nations who condemn these action not bring these criminals to justice?

In Reply To Milesofheusa...


This is actually a common question and I'm glade You've asked it.

The fact of the matter is the Quran also obliges Muslims to offer as a reprisal, 'measure for measure' even when it comes to warfare.
It's very much like the, 'eye of an eye and tooth for a tooth' rule.

Islam's objective is not to obliterate absolutely every single person who happens to disagree with the faith, but rather it obliges leniency at every opportunity it presents itself. Truces and deserters from opposing sides have always been accepted with caution initially. Then, when former enemies have come to full understanding of Islam's purposes, they can ether become Muslim themselves or return to their people with the understanding it's not an option to continue fighting. The rules are much different if combatants have been incarcerated in battle, and all to often are still very hostile. Slavery is actually tolerated for an indefinite period of time or until that person actually displays a heart-felt change in the course of time. This is at the discretion of Muslim who's in charge of the captive. If there's an over-abundance of 'hostile male fighters', they can be sent back to their own people or country, but only after one hand and one foot on the opposing side of their person has been amputated. (Usually, the foot that went in the stirrup and the hand that swung a sword) This is viewed as a remedy for those who'd likely just come back to wage war another day.

Thankfully through history, the gradual progress of the borders of Muslim based society have not needed that much duress to advance Islam's cause. Not to say that there isn't coming a day when the best efforts of the faithful will be hindered to the point that only a very grand intervention on the True God's part will need to be imparted, and is prophesied to eventually occur.

When the Gog of Magog people surround the Holy City, then the end will come.