Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
UM-Bot

Gods' begotten sons

10 posts in this topic

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.

arrow3.gifView: Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Jewish_messianic_claimants (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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.