One of his other principles reflects how Christ, being God's son, would not come to the people without having the authority of the King as he is Son of the Almighty. He believes that God's Son is Israel's King, and faith should not be fixed on Christ only, but upon his power and divine right to the (Calvin, 1949)
They form an explicit self-identification with Yahweh who had also used similar terms to reveal himself to men (see esp. Isa. 43:10-11) (Carson, 2001)
They form an explicit self-identification with Yahweh who had also used similar terms to reveal himself to men (see esp. Isa. 43:10-11) (Carson, 2001)
According to John Chrysostom, Peter confessed Him as the 'The Son of God' and Nathanael as the mere man. The evidence of this fact becomes clear when he declared Him as the Son of God after these words and yet again declared him as the King of Israel, who is meant for the entire world and not for Israel only (Chrysostom, 2004)
With this last critical 'witness' the evangelist finishes a circle and proceeds to his preface. If God has exposed himself in the time of Christ that in this life the entire completeness of the heavenly glory had become obvious (John 1:14ff), then Jesus should have also been God's disclosure to men and so from the very start when someone thinks of the God he should also think of Jesus Christ (Cullmann, 1963)
According to Ellis (1999), "Son of God" can be interpreted as reflecting the Synoptic, either the kingship of Jesus, or his divine nature. The latter represents being equal to God, which the Jewish Churchmen claim to be blasphemy which does not differ from the Synoptic (Ellis, 1999)
According to Ellis (1999), "Son of God" can be interpreted as reflecting the Synoptic, either the kingship of Jesus, or his divine nature. The latter represents being equal to God, which the Jewish Churchmen claim to be blasphemy which does not differ from the Synoptic (Ellis, 1999)
According to the other Gospels there is no sign of Jesus being in existence before the humans. Many authors along with Erickson (2000) believe that the purpose behind all the Gospels has always remained the same, but Erickson (2000) further adds by acknowledging that only John's Gospel contains facts regarding the divinity of Jesus (Erickson, 2000)
Therefore, this all concluded that we should agree what Nathnael had to say about Jesus that he is the 'Son of God' as well as the 'King of Israel'. This gauges and sums up that the introductory chapter, the book and the perception of Nathnael do coincide at one point showcasing that it was preexistent God who became man (Fennema, 1985)
Only in John's Gospel, the signs are used for remorseful purposes, i.e. For the eternal life of Jesus (Harrison, 1962)
Only in John's Gospel, the signs are used for remorseful purposes, i.e. For the eternal life of Jesus (Harrison, 1962)
Only in John's Gospel, the signs are used for remorseful purposes, i.e. For the eternal life of Jesus (Harrison, 1962)
In 19:7, the Jews' appeal to Pilate for Jesus fatality was based upon His declaration to be the ultimate Son of God, not just the Messiah and even Jesus had called himself the Son of God in 5:25 and 10:36. Jesus educated that it was his one and only privilege to award everlasting life and to act as eternal judge, as bestowed by the Father (Hengel, 1976)
He cited the Old Testament texts of Kings 4:25; Zechariah 3:8-10; Micah 4:4; and Maccabees 14:12. Koester believed that Nathanael interpreted Jesus as the one claiming the Davidic Messianic Branch as "King of Israel" refers to an Old Testament term used for Messiah (Koester, 1990)
One portion of the New Testament that was edited by late Sir Edwyn and the late Davey, stated that no matter what one perceives or believes regarding this topic, gospel tradition could not be properly analyzed without the factor of divinity existent in it. Dissection here would rather imply murder, as the divinity is inseparable (Moule, 1977)
These included the Baptist John (1:34); Nathanael (1:48); Peter (6:69); Lord Himself (10:36); Martha (11:27); Thomas (20:28); and the one who wrote this Gospel (20:31)." A total of 8 specific signs were mentioned by the author of the Gospel of John regarding Jesus (Niemela, 2003) that were meant to create belief in Jesus as being divine, a Messiah, and God's son
" Both titles considered Messiah as certain and considered them equivalent on the lips of a Jew in the Lord's day. However, the concept understood by Nathanael regarding the designation of "Son of God" needs to be distinguished from the one which involved the concept of Son's pre-existence and necessary relation to the Father, afterwards (Reith, 1889)
This purpose has not been claimed by any other Synoptic Gospels. Theophilus was a believer who needed most accurate knowledge about the life of Jesus and he even believed Christ as God's personified (Luke 1:3-4; Acts 1:1) (Robinson, 1916)
Significantly, the attention is pulled down to one concept that why has Nathanael declared 'Jesus as the heir to the God' and 'King of Israel?' Various studies have proven that Nathanael has studied about Jesus to the core of it than any other modern authors have actually done. An unbeliever like Nathnael should not have cried out loud the proclamation of a messiah which has been resulted in seeing a vision and the character of him was been judged by such a man who he had never met before (Schnackenburg, 1982)
Jesus explains particularly that he has been provided with the authority to give life and the authority to judge and these authorities are most traits of God the Father himself. Although not as important to a Jewish person, the previous logos with omniscience and omnipresence will actually plea to a Greek reader (Smalley, 1998), and also being understood by a Jewish person