The Nature of Jesus

[IshChayil]

Psalm 2:1-12
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?...[stuff deleted]. [12] Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Seems to me this whole Psalm is directed at Messiah. any overlap to David and Israel is the secondary part.

The Hebrew does NOT say "kiss the son"
this is an absolute abuse of language.
(I'm using purple for the errant Aramaic translation and green for Greek translation (LXX) and Hebrew translation original.

נַשְּׁקוּ־בַ֡ר (that's the part mistranslated "Kiss the son")

To make it say "kiss the son" you have to take the Aramaic word for son בר (bar) and inject that into the Hebrew of the psalm. We have a word for son in Hebrew, בן (ben) and we have the Hebrew word בר "bar" it means several things: grain, purity, etc. so there is no reason other than exuberantly trying to make the whole psalm about Yeshua (early Christians) to imagine that this is the single Aramaic word in the psalm and the rest in in Hebrew.
More likely translation is "yearn for purity" not "kiss the son"

The Greek LXX says "δράξασθε παιδείας" "seize instruction" also nothing like "son"
Most telling is that even the Aramaic bible (targum psalms) says קבילו אולפנא
"Gather / receive instruction" so if we are to believe that the Hebrew bible used an Aramaic word here to mean "son" then how can we explain that even the Aramaic bible does *not* use this Aramaic word for "son"?

Let's agree on this horrid translation issue then we can tackle the proverbs verse you mentioned.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

1247 (KJV)

Ezra 5:1
1 Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them. (KJV)

Ezra 5:2
2 Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (KJV)

Ezra 5:2
2 Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem: and with them were the prophets of God helping them. (KJV)

Ezra 6:14
14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. (KJV)

Dan 3:25
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. (KJV)

Dan 5:22
22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; (KJV)

Dan 7:13
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. (KJV)

According to an Englishman's search, these verses use bar for son.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

 

[aineo]

According to an Englishman's search, these verses use bar for son.

I'm no expert on this, so I'll be curious to see @IshChayil's response, but reviewing my resources show that the Aramaic "bar" only came into use in Hebrew language as a borrowed word meaning son late in the writing of what we call the Old Testament, but it wouldn't have been that case during the writing of the Psalms.

Regarding Psalm 2:12, the NET Bible notes say this:

Traditionally, "kiss the son" (KJV). But בַּר (bar) is the Aramaic word for "son," not the Hebrew. For this reason many regard the reading as suspect. Some propose emendations of vv. 11b-12a. One of the more popular proposals is to read בִּרְעָדָה נַשְּׁקוּ לְרַגְלָיו (bir'adah nashéqu léraslayv, "in trembling kiss his feet"). It makes better sense to understand בַּר (bar) as an adjective meaning "pure" (see Pss 24:4; 73:1 and BDB 141 s.v. בַּר3) functioning here in an adverbial sense. If read this way, then the syntactical structure of exhortation (imperative followed by adverbial modifier) corresponds to the two preceding lines (see v. 11). The verb נָשַׁק (nashaq, "kiss") refers metonymically to showing homage (see 1 Sam 10:1; Hos 13:2). The exhortation in v. 12a advocates a genuine expression of allegiance and warns against insincerity. When swearing allegiance, vassal kings would sometimes do so insincerely, with the intent of rebelling when the time was right. The so-called "Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon" also warn against such an attitude. In this treaty the vassal is told: "If you, as you stand on the soil where this oath [is sworn], swear the oath with your words and lips [only], do not swear with your entire heart, do not transmit it to your sons who will live after this treaty, if you take this curse upon yourselves but do not plan to keep the treaty of Esarhaddon may your sons and grandsons because of this fear in the future" (see J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East, 2:62).

 

[Jim an Apostle]

I can see the basis for that thought but the rest of the Psalm seems very Messianic to me. Israel did not seek to rule other nations except to throw off their tyranny and to possess the land promised to them. Jesus will rule with a rod of iron during the coming Kingdom age and there will be a rebellion at the end of it.

 

[IshChayil]

1247 (KJV)
[Ezra quotes deleted] .... Dan 7:13
According to an Englishman's search, these verses use bar for son.

Yes, those verses you quoted above are entirely in Aramaic in the original language bible.
So that's why they use "bar" for son.
Psalm 2 however, like all the psalms, are in Hebrew language in the original.
The bible is mostly Hebrew, then Greek, then a few sections are in Aramaic. Psalms is in Hebrew; quite old Hebrew in fact due to the poetic nature.
Much of Daniel and Ezra is in Aramaic.
This is why Ezra and Daniel we don't have separate Targum translations for these books in the Aramaic bible. We just use the "original" since they are mostly in Aramaic already.

 

[IshChayil]

I'm no expert on this, so I'll be curious to see @IshChayil's response, but reviewing my resources show that the Aramaic "bar" only came into use in Hebrew language as a borrowed word meaning son late in the writing of what we call the Old Testament, but it wouldn't have been that case during the writing of the Psalms.

Regarding Psalm 2:12, the NET Bible notes say this:

Traditionally, "kiss the son" (KJV). But בַּר (bar) is the Aramaic word for "son," not the Hebrew. For this reason many regard the reading as suspect. Some propose emendations of vv. 11b-12a. One of the more popular proposals is to read בִּרְעָדָה נַשְּׁקוּ לְרַגְלָיו (bir'adah nashéqu léraslayv, "in trembling kiss his feet"). It makes better sense to understand בַּר (bar) as an adjective meaning "pure" (see Pss 24:4; 73:1 and BDB 141 s.v. בַּר3) .

Nice point how בר "bar" this shows up in others psalms translated as "purity"since the translators treat it as Hebrew there.

Yes you are right that "bar" in "Late" Hebrew becomes a loanword.
Most people don't realize in the "Hebrew" bible we are dealing with:

• SBH-Standard Biblical Hebrew
• Archaic Hebrew (much of psalms)
• LBH-Late Biblical Hebrew
• Imperial Aramaic
• Northern Kingdom Hebrew dialect and
• Judean Hebrew.

For psalms we are dealing in Archaic and Standard biblical Hebrew, centuries before "Late Hebrew". People who just study and focus on Torah can't understand much of psalms.
"Late Hebrew" uses both words, and by PBH-Post Biblical Hebrew we already see "bar" being used almost as frequently as "ben".
This is why in Rabbinical Hebrew we have "bar mitzvah" I'm sure you've heard of; "son of the commandment" for boys at the age of accountability.

Going back to "old Hebrew" and "Standard Biblical Hebrew" we find a friend in the cognage language Ugaritic which attests the word "br" "purity" and "brr" "to be clear/pure" (you guys can't see Ugaritic fonts so I won't post them here-trust me though, they are so cool )
I usually try to avoid such technicalities as the phases/dialects of Biblical Hebrew posts here, but since you asked

 

[Jim an Apostle]

You never addressed three NT witnesses regarding a preexistent Christ. I presented John 1, Phillipians 2, and Hebrews 1.

I am not trying to interject into a private discussion, but if I may MOJO, I would give you my take on these portions of scripture.

John 1:1-14


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God.

You cannot separate a man or a (g)God from their word. We say a man is only as good as his word. A man's word is his bond. In the beginning there was nothing but God. The beginning began not with creation, but rather with God's stated purpose for the creation. Then was the spiritual realm created and the inhabitants thereof, and the physical realm and the inhabitants thereof.

[3] All things were made by him;

Technically God was the creator, "and without him was not any thing made that was made." Nothing was made without consideration as to how it would connect and relate to Jesus.

[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The life and light of every man (and Angel) was given to them because of Jesus.


[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. [8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. [9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him,...

The word "by" can mean: for reason of / or because of. The creation was because of / and for Him... Jesus. 2 Thes. 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

...and the world knew him not. [11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not. [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: [13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [14] And the Word was made flesh,...

The Word was the 'seed' which became the body of Jesus! As in any other conception, there was a joining of the Spirit of the Father (God) with the spirit of the mother (Mary) and a new life was born. The Life of God without sin was imparted to Jesus, as was also true for Adam. Jesus is spoken of in in terms that could be interpreted as conscious pre-existent, but so was Levi. Hebrews 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

...and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Only Peter, James, and John saw Him in a state of Glory before Pentecost (transfiguration). The rest only saw His Glory through His works.


Philip. 2:1-11


If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, [2] Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. [3] Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. [4] Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. [5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

This would have no meaning if it referred to Jesus as a pre-existent God for He would also be 'God' and there could be no "robbery" to the thought. Being in the "form of God" had to refer to His earthly life.

[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

He mostly referred to Himself as Son of man, which was a messianic term, but also emphasized His humanity. He did declare Himself to be the Son of God also; but He did not use His position or His miracles to make for Himself a reputation. He did not take credit for the miracles, and we should not either. He said He could do nothing of Himself, it was not His power. It was faith in His Father.

[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. ...

He faced the cross as a man. Scripture says,

• Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
• Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
• Galatians 4:1-4 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; [2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. [3] Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: [4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

There is that word "made" again. Jesus had a mother. Mary is directly referenced 19 times as mother. The ultimate Heir was Jesus, and we are joint Heirs! How can you be an Heir to that which you created?

...[9] Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: [10] That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; [11] And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus was "exalted..." not "re-exalted"; and we shall be exalted, as well.

Hebrews 1:1-14

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

God was the creator of heaven and earth. He made it because of His desire to have a Son! When was this appointment of "appointed Heir" made?...

[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

The "word of His power" is Jesus. As long as Jesus is faithful, the universe shall be upheld. Someday, it will be recreated when all rebellion is put down; but even then, it will be because the Father is pleased with the Son.

...when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; [4] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. [5] For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

This is not a play-act, or a deception to fool us!

[6] And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

If Jesus had been in heaven as a full blown person before His earthly birth, they would need no command to worship Him. He was the "firstbegotten" to produce from seed; the seed was the word of God. This term is used of the firstborn of Egypt, of the literal birth of Jesus, and is used figuratively of the birth of Jesus (because although He was not actually born yet, in the mind of God, His birth was the first thought of God that sparked the whole of creation). The birth of Jesus was not an after thought, it was the first thought!

[7] And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. [8] But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. [9] Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Jesus' obedience and faithfulness earned for Him His throne. Jesus has the birthright of God, i.e., the double portion. The best we can do is have a portion. Notice in the above scripture that God is the God of Jesus.

[10] And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: [11] They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; [12] And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. [13] But to which of the angels said he at any times, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Both "Lord" and "He" used in this passage is God the Father! Who was invited to sit at the Fathers right hand? Jesus!

[14] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

 

[cnystrom]

Something wonderful and freaky and unique happened in time when our Heavenly Father got that girl pregnant. Something changed. That's what I want to come back to.

I thought it was the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20)?

BTW, side note: Jesus and the Father are clearly male. How do we know if the Holy Spirit is male, too? My fallible brain tells me that if you get a girl pregnant you fall into the male category.

 

[andrew]

I thought it was the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20)?

The spirit of God effected the change; it wasn't 'the change'.

 

[Shibboleth]

Something wonderful and freaky and unique happened in time when our Heavenly Father got that girl pregnant. Something changed. That's what I want to come back to.

I thought it was the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20)?

The spirit of God effected the change; it wasn't 'the change'.

At the risk of misunderstanding one or both of you, I'd like to suggest that andrew misread cnystrom's post, specifically by assuming an incorrect antecedent for the bolded "it". Andrew seems to believe "it" referred the "something wonderful" that happened at the incarnation ("the change"), since that's his interest. While my understanding of cnystrom is that "it" referred to the subject of "...got that girl pregnant." A sort of nitpick, if you will.

And that brings us back to the binitarian thread...

 

[Mojo]

And that brings us back to the binitarian thread...

Ahhhh.
Simpler times.

 

[IshChayil]

John 1:1-14
You cannot separate a man or a (g)God from their word. We say a man is only as good as his word. A man's word is his bond. In the beginning there was nothing but God. The beginning began not with creation, but rather with God's stated purpose for the creation. Then was the spiritual realm created and the inhabitants thereof, and the physical realm and the inhabitants thereof.

We're cooking here for the holiday (Rosh Hoshannah - biblical New year) but I want to respond to part of your post now.
When we read the gospels it's useful to look at things the way a 1st century person would have received these messages.

You mentioned the word being a "seed" or a "bond" or a plan or other things.
Please revisit my post earlier in this thread where I discuss the memra of G-d
A short rehash here for those who don't wanna hop over there. We do not need to invent or try to figure out why John used his "logos" languages (logos means 'word' in Greek).
In the times of the disciples the Aramaic bible (targum) was very popular and in this translation there is some built in commentary. The translators use the words מימרא"memra" and דיבורא "dibura" both mean "word" in Aramaic to refer to the divine presence embodied as a man / angel. The "memra of the L-rd" walked around in the garden of Eden.
G-d sent forth his "memra" to smite Egypt. The memra of the L-rd would meet Moses and instruct him at the mercy seat.
There are a slew of other examples like this in the popular Aramaic bible of the 1st century.
There can be NO DOUBT what the reference to "the word" would mean to 1st century believers (i.e. Jews).
In my link to my post earlier in this thread I mention an excellent book which details these references. This is a scholarly tour de force which if you read it, or if you want I'll post 30+ examples here of how "the word" is used as the manifestation of G-d when He visits Earth in the Aramaic Old Testament targums.
We don't need to imagine it's a seed, or it's some Greek wisdom thingy... we absolutely know who John's audience was, and what it would mean to them to read about the "word became flesh".
Sorry I can't get to your other things in this post now, maybe later.
Happy New Year to any who celebrate it!

 

[rustywest4]

Yup ... Brother Ish has my back! ... echoing what I said, but with bigger words... busting out some Aramaic and stuff... lovin it man! (Insert thumbs up emoji here) @IshChayil

 

[IshChayil]

Yup ... Brother Ish has my back! ... echoing what I said, but with bigger words... busting out some Aramaic and stuff... lovin it man! (Insert thumbs up emoji here) @IshChayil

This made me laugh ... in Aramaic

 

[ABlessedMan]

Though it may or may not be heard . . . trying to draw a hard and fast line between 'Hebrew' and 'Aramaic' based strictly upon the considerations of time has been attempted unsuccessfully before. Aramaisms have been shown to be a mark not only of Late Biblical Hebrew . . .but also are shown to mark great antiquity. Look for example at the Tell Fekheriye Inscription and other Old Aramaic / Paleo-Hebrew Inscriptions. The development of Paleo-Hebrew as a written language was intensely regional and developed in close association with Aramaic.

Also, ManofSubstance . . . given the broader context (2:6-10) of the Psalm does not reference to the king as son of YHWH (a common enough ANE trope) make sense? Furthermore, translating as 'kiss purity' is difficult. I can find no parallel usage of nashaq used figuratively in Tanakh (outside of the problematic occurrence in Hos 13:2. . . ). I am hesitant to dismiss the interpretation of generations of rabbis and divines . . .especially without compelling reasons to do so . . .

 

[IshChayil]

Though it may or may not be heard . . . trying to draw a hard and fast line between 'Hebrew' and 'Aramaic' based strictly upon the considerations of time has been attempted unsuccessfully before. Aramaisms have been shown to be a mark not only of Late Biblical Hebrew . . .but also are shown to mark great antiquity. Look for example at the Tell Fekheriye Inscription and other Old Aramaic / Paleo-Hebrew Inscriptions. The development of Paleo-Hebrew as a written language was intensely regional and developed in close association with Aramaic.

Welcome @BlessedMan please be more clear when you are not replying to a specific post it was hard to follow your challenge as you're going back a few posts ago.
You can copy paste quote sections with this forum software which is quite useful.

The Psalm mis-translation of the word I mentioned I made a rock solid case for it not being an Aramaism as you suggest.
If it were, as I wrote, the Aramaic targum would have used the same word as the "Aramaism".
I also pointed out that the other "go to" translation of antiquity, the Greek Septuagint, does not translate "bar" as "son". It's a slam dunk buddy.
Referencing the notion that there are admitted loanwords from Aramaic at various times does not undo this mountain of evidence I referenced which is particular to the psalm in question.
Sometimes people were overzealous to make everything a Messianic prophecy; G-d doesn't need us to bend scripture, He supplied enough to make His case.

@aineo pointed out correctly that the same translators translate the same word correctly, as a Hebrew word, in other psalms "purity".

Even the Germans are back-peddling from the traditional Christian mistranslation here. THe popular German bible translation has this in a footnote on this psalm:
Psalmen 2:1 Od Küsst Reinheit (= haltet euch an Lauterkeit und Unschuld).
"Kiss purity (= it means keep yourselves to Purity and Innocence)"

Also, ManofSubstance . . . given the broader context (2:6-10) of the Psalm does not reference to the king as son of YHWH (a common enough ANE trope) make sense? Furthermore, translating as 'kiss purity' is difficult.

This is exactly why I did *not* write "kiss purity" please re-read my post.
NaSHaQ has meanings other than "kiss"; although kiss would also be appropriate in poetry alluding to an attribute such as purity. When considering the sheer number of hapax legomena in the bible why do we need to see a verb used in a certain manner twice (per your reasoning) for it to be relevant?

Just because someone has difficulty with a translation does not give them permission to inject a foreign word into the original text willy-nilly and just call it an Aramaism

 

[andrew]

At the risk of misunderstanding one or both of you....

Nah, I think you are spot on, and I'm the one who misunderstood Chris (unless he comes back and says otherwise). Good catch!

 

[The Revolting Man]

G-d doesn't need us to bend scripture, He supplied enough to make His case.

Yes and amen!

 

[joe88]

This is an interesting discussion, and I have a definite bias here, but I'd like to point out something that hasn't been mentioned. The following prophecy has received some attention in this thread:

Psalms 2:7 NKJV "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

However, the timing of the fulfillment is significant to this debate. Some say it applies to Jesus' birth, but the following passages give us another possibility:

Acts 13:33-35 NKJV God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.' (34) And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: 'I WILL GIVE YOU THE SURE MERCIES OF DAVID.' (35) Therefore He also says in another Psalm: 'YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO SEE CORRUPTION.'

Hebrews 1:3-5 NKJV who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (4) having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (5) For to which of the angels did He ever say: "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? And again: "I WILL BE TO HIM A FATHER, AND HE SHALL BE TO ME A SON"?

Romans 1:3-4 NKJV concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, (4) and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

It seems to me that these verses indicate that the timing of the declaration calling Jesus the "Son" was made at the resurrection, not at His birth. This is significant in that it provides more evidence that Jesus preexisted His birth and was present at the creation in Genesis 1:26 and was spoken of as Creator in Col 1:16.

1 Corinthians 15:45 NKJV (45) And so it is written, "THE FIRST MAN ADAM BECAME A LIVING BEING." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

When did the "last Adam" become a life-giving spirit? It was when He was raised!

1 Peter 1:3 NKJV Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 Peter 3:18, 21 NKJV For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
... (21) There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

We also are "begotten" children of God and grafted into His kingdom when we accept His Son's sacrifice, which is symbolized by baptism, not at our birth.

Also, the Father speaks to the Son saying, "O God." Notice this passage:
Hebrews 1:8-11 NKJV But to the Son He says: "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER; A SCEPTER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE SCEPTER OF YOUR KINGDOM. (9) YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS MORE THAN YOUR COMPANIONS." (10) And: "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORK OF YOUR HANDS. (11) THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY WILL ALL GROW OLD LIKE A GARMENT;

Further, who is the Son of Man?

Notice the plural "thrones" in this passage:
Daniel 7:9 NKJV "I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;

Then we see His dramatic entrance:
Daniel 7:13-14 NKJV "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. (14) Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

Consider also that God does not share His glory:
Isaiah 42:8 NKJV I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.
Isaiah 48:11 NKJV For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it; For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another.

So when Jesus prayed, in John 17:5 NKJV saying, "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was," it was more than metaphor.

And the Pharisees heard Him clearly, when He said,
John 10:30-33 NKJV I and My Father are one." (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. (32) Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" (33) The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."

This oneness echoes the "echad" unity spoken of since ancient times through the prophets.

Also,
John 5:17-18 NKJV But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." (18) Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Again,
John 8:57-59 NKJV Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" (58) Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (59) Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

This reminded the Jews immediately of:
Exodus 3:14-15 NKJV And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' " (15) Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'

He claims the Name again three times (notice that the "He" is italicized, meaning it's not present in the Greek):
John 18:4-8 NKJV Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, "Whom are you seeking?" (5) They answered Him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am He." And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. (6) Now when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the ground. (7) Then He asked them again, "Whom are you seeking?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." (8) Jesus answered, "I have told you that I am He. Therefore, if you seek Me, let these go their way,"

Paul later speaks of the Son in this way:
Philippians 2:6 NKJV who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
and Colossians 2:9 NKJV For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

Anyway, I've probably thoroughly revealed my bias! For continued discussion, I wanted to add the timing of the fulfillment of the "You are My Son" prophecy for your prayerful consideration.