Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Gods' begotten sons


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 24 December 2010 - 09:54 AM

<strong class='bbc'>Image credit: Wikipedia</strong>
Image credit: Wikipedia
Victoria Grossack: Christmas, we are told, is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God.  His mother, Mary, became pregnant while still a virgin and bore her son nine months later in Bethlehem. Let’s not debate that – yet – but instead review the stories surrounding the offspring of many other gods.  They’re nearly always sons, although in a few cases they had daughters, too.

We start with a well-documented case: Augustus Caesar (63 BCE to 14 CE).  Augustus – Gaius Julius Augustus Caesar – was the first of the Roman emperors.  His biological parents were Gaius Octavius and Atia Balba Caesonia, and his original name was Gaius Octavius Thurnius.  But his great-uncle, Gaius Julius Caesar, adopted the young man in his will.  Now, in Rome of that time, adoptions were taken very seriously.  An adoption – even a posthumous one – was generally considered as good as one’s natural ancestry.

Posted Image View: Full Article

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    RedStar

RedStar

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2009

Posted 25 December 2010 - 11:00 PM

To lump all the deities of the world's religions, ancient or otherwise, under the catch-all word "God"
is to do them a serious injustice. They are quite different, behave differently, and present themselves
at varying distances from the human condition. Today we would be more inclined to think of many of them
as resembling angels, archangels seraphim, etc. Typically, a 'son of god' simply meant that the person
in question possessed one or more of the qualties of a particular god. The 'god' had intervened with the
birth process at some stage and imparted those qualities to the infant. The physical sex act between father
and mother could have, or may not have, been necessary to get the ball rolling. For Christians, Jesus as
the son of the Father, actually resembles the Father in physical features (the physical features the
Father chooses to possess). This is seemingly rare or non-existent in other religions.


#3    MythDigger

MythDigger

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2010

Posted 26 December 2010 - 05:57 AM

View PostRedStar, on 25 December 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

To lump all the deities of the world's religions, ancient or otherwise, under the catch-all word "God"
is to do them a serious injustice. They are quite different, behave differently, and present themselves
at varying distances from the human condition. Today we would be more inclined to think of many of them
as resembling angels, archangels seraphim, etc. Typically, a 'son of god' simply meant that the person
in question possessed one or more of the qualties of a particular god. The 'god' had intervened with the
birth process at some stage and imparted those qualities to the infant. The physical sex act between father
and mother could have, or may not have, been necessary to get the ball rolling. For Christians, Jesus as
the son of the Father, actually resembles the Father in physical features (the physical features the
Father chooses to possess). This is seemingly rare or non-existent in other religions.

Interesting comment.  Which physical features do God the Father and Jesus share?  Could you please cite some sources?


#4    ralphzillo

ralphzillo

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2011

Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:06 PM

Check out Caesar's Messiah to get what I think is the most reasonable explanation for the story of Jesus the Christ.

http://www.caesarsme....com/index.html


#5    Janus13

Janus13

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2011

Posted 18 March 2011 - 03:14 AM

Well Red Star that is an odd statement. The word deity is a synonym for god or goddess. So Why wouldn't all deities correctly be referred to as gods or goddesses?


#6    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,106 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 18 March 2011 - 03:22 PM

View PostRedStar, on 25 December 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

To lump all the deities of the world's religions, ancient or otherwise, under the catch-all word "God"
is to do them a serious injustice. They are quite different, behave differently, and present themselves
at varying distances from the human condition. Today we would be more inclined to think of many of them
as resembling angels, archangels seraphim, etc. Typically, a 'son of god' simply meant that the person
in question possessed one or more of the qualties of a particular god. The 'god' had intervened with the
birth process at some stage and imparted those qualities to the infant. The physical sex act between father
and mother could have, or may not have, been necessary to get the ball rolling. For Christians, Jesus as
the son of the Father, actually resembles the Father in physical features (the physical features the
Father chooses to possess). This is seemingly rare or non-existent in other religions.
here is something to think about.  mary was a virgin when christ was born.  which means god either couldnt have had sex with her or was able to reverse the affects,  today we can have virgin births anytime we want to.

I am a mormon.  If I don't use mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the mormon faith. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#7    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,094 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 21 March 2011 - 02:16 PM

View Postdanielost, on 18 March 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

here is something to think about.  mary was a virgin when christ was born.  which means god either couldnt have had sex with her or was able to reverse the affects,  today we can have virgin births anytime we want to.

All Mary said to her neighbour was, "That guy last night,... sigh.... he was like an angel. But don't tell my fiancee, ok?"

The neighbour, alas, did tell Mary's fiancee, Joseph.

To safe face, Joseph concocted a story, and from then on it went from bad to worse...


#8    KRS_One

KRS_One

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 128 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2011

Posted 22 March 2011 - 10:42 PM

That article was a bunch of bunk.

The Caesars were deified after death as a mark of respect, not so much as a claim of actual divinity.  It wasn't until around 290-310AD that the actual idea of divinely inspired rule really took off with the members of the tetrarchy and even that was just a political ploy.  The article simultaneously dismisses and attempts to espouse the idea that divinity is either real or a fantasy, I'm not actually sure what the POINT of it was.

Furthermore, when discussing matters such as "virgin birth" ask yourself the following question:  What is more likely?
For example:

What is more likely:

A.) A teenage girl and her boyfriend have sex, she gets pregnant, can't face her community for fear of retribution and shame, so claims she was impregnated by an angel, they get married and head out of town.

B.) The literal avatar of god, in the form of an archangel appears to a no-name peasant girl and impregnates her with the magical seed of God himself.

Which is MORE likely?

Edited by KRS_One, 22 March 2011 - 10:43 PM.


#9    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,106 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 23 March 2011 - 02:55 AM

View PostKRS_One, on 22 March 2011 - 10:42 PM, said:

That article was a bunch of bunk.

The Caesars were deified after death as a mark of respect, not so much as a claim of actual divinity.  It wasn't until around 290-310AD that the actual idea of divinely inspired rule really took off with the members of the tetrarchy and even that was just a political ploy.  The article simultaneously dismisses and attempts to espouse the idea that divinity is either real or a fantasy, I'm not actually sure what the POINT of it was.

Furthermore, when discussing matters such as "virgin birth" ask yourself the following question:  What is more likely?
For example:

What is more likely:

A.) A teenage girl and her boyfriend have sex, she gets pregnant, can't face her community for fear of retribution and shame, so claims she was impregnated by an angel, they get married and head out of town.

B.) The literal avatar of god, in the form of an archangel appears to a no-name peasant girl and impregnates her with the magical seed of God himself.

Which is MORE likely?
you forgot that b was predicted hundred of years before it happened.  and out of all the women who got pregnate out of wed lock and stood a chance of getting stoned or kicked out of their town, only one girl thought to make the claim to be that woman.

I am a mormon.  If I don't use mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the mormon faith. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#10    KRS_One

KRS_One

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 128 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2011

Posted 26 March 2011 - 06:09 AM

View Postdanielost, on 23 March 2011 - 02:55 AM, said:

you forgot that b was predicted hundred of years before it happened.  and out of all the women who got pregnate out of wed lock and stood a chance of getting stoned or kicked out of their town, only one girl thought to make the claim to be that woman.

I will assume that by "predicted hundred of years before it happened" that you reference the Jewish scriptures foretelling a messiah figure.  I would advise that you research "Jewish Messiah claimants".  Of which there are many, especially in the years during which the Romans most severely oppressed their native jewish clients.  See: http://en.wikipedia....aimants  (sorry for the wiki link).

Many people in and around the centuries of Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be messiah.

During that same time, and before and after, many claimed to also be of virgin birth.

If you would like to talk about Jesus being "the one" due to his miracles and such, I would also direct you to the myriad of sources that speak to "holy men", "prophets" and other important people who are also credited with the miracles of Jesus -  notably the healing of the sick (particularly the giving of sight to the blind, healing leprosy, and even raising the dead).

Each of these 'miracles' is accredited to a great many prophets, messiah-figures, and even Roman Emperors (see Tiberius' claim to curing blindness and leprosy during his factual reign).

Many of these feats are considered de riguer of even BEING a holy person during these centuries, required and even expected of them.  These are 'baseline' miracles, kinda like how being able to saw a woman in half would be considered de riguer of being a magician in the late 19th century, for example.  Jesus was by no means unique at his time.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users