I've been pondering of this title for sometime. Is the title a metophor???
No. It is the identification of the Son's hypostasis, and the identification of Christ as God.
Because the literally meaning of Son of God would necessarily entail that the Word of God has a beginning.
Not really. Take for instance my son (the older). He has a beginnng, and is now going to be 12. I am his father, but 14 years I was NOT a Father. I became a father only when my son came into being. That is why we say (or rather, it has been revealed to us) that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. If He isn't, it would mean the hypostasis of the Father has a beginning.
And the Word of God has no beginning. The Word of God always was and will be. It would also entail that the Word of God separate from God (ie other than God).
No. Just like my son is a human, and not a jellyfish or orangutang: we have the same nature. And just like the robot made
by the scientist is not human, because it is not begotten of him, so too the Son is not a creature: He has the same consubstantial nature, i.e. one in essence with God the Father.
I mean God used metophors like this in the Old Testament, likening Israel as the spouse and God as the Husband.
but in these last days has spoken to us by a Son Whom He has appointed heir to all things, and through Whom He made all the worlds, Who, being the radience of His glory and the image of His nature (hypostasis), He upholds all things. (Hebrews 1:2-3)
Is it proper to see to conclude that the title Son of God in reference to Jesus as a metophor as oppose to a literal meaning???
No. It is quite literal. Hence the reasons why we can venerate icons: we have beheld Him Who said "I AM."
This is a great question. Many people (myself included) accept doctrines or concepts without really truly understanding what they mean and I almost fool myself in to believing that I understand these things. Personally I have found that most interesting and thorough contemporary responses to this question to be from converts from Islam, the reason being is that in Islam there is an understanding of Jesus as a prophet and since many of the titles we use for Christ are also bestowed on him in Islam albeit with a different meaning. The change in understanding of these meanings brings about a better understanding of the terms. We have a poster here who was formerly a muslim and he might have time to give a response.
Yes, the Muslims misuse many titles from the NT. But under no circumstance will they call Jesus "Son of God." The mere mention makes them apoplectic. They know the implication. So does the Quran in its denial: "Neither does He begot, nor is He begotten."
The Quran also states that "Never will Christ disdain to be a servant of God" as proof of the denial of Christ's divinity. As any reader of Phillippians knows (2:5ff), that is the proof of Christ's divinity.
It might help to know that "Son of X" means to have the nature of X. Hence, "human" is "son of a man." The closest you have in English is calling someone a S o B: you are really trying to say something on the son, not necessarily the mother.