Did Jesus Redeem Mankind? — Page 99
99 word, God, and sons of God, carried in the case of these people. . The Christians generally mislead people into believing that the words, God and son of God, have been used in respect of the Messiah in a different sense. But the reference from. John clearly stresses the point that he was wont to call himself. Son of God in the same sense as others had been described. God or sons of God. If the term carried any other sense, the explanation offered by the Messiah (peace be on him) becomes nullified. The Messiah says that he did call himself Son of. God but that did not make him a claimant to godhead for the simple reason that others before had been termed gods and sons of God. If it is said that the Messiah's claim was in a different sense, his whole argument fails. The. Jews could have put it to him that the people of yore had been called sons of God in a sense different from the sense his claim implied. But the quotation of the above reference by the Messiah (peace be on him) shows clearly that he agreed that he claimed to be the Son of God in the sense in which the men of preceding generations had been described. And when the Messiah (peace be on him) is Son of God in the same sense as others before him were called sons of God, the Prophets of Israel and their devoted followers were as much entitled to offer atonement as was the Messiah (peace be on him). And if they were not entitled, neither was the Messiah (peace be on him); for the foundation of atonement rests on the Messiah's sonship of God. As I have already shown,. Messiah is not the sole claimant to that honorific; hundreds of the Prophets of Israel and lacs of their faithful followers share the honour, according to the Bible. . So far we have brought to bear proof in the light of the. Bible against the thesis that since the Messiah claimed to be