sighhswolf

" I (King David) will tell of the decree of the Lord: he said to me, "You Are My SON: Today I have Begotten you."

"Behold a son will be born to you, his name shall be Solomon.....He shall build a house for my name,
he shall be a SON to me, and I will be a FATHER to him and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever."
God speaking to King David

In the first century of the common era there appeared at the eastern end of the mediterranean
a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts, but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity.
He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick,raising the dead.
His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the "son of man".
Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested.
After his death, his disciples claimed
he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and ascended into heaven.
Who Was this teacher and wonder worker?

His name was Apollonius of Tyana.
He died around 98ad and his story may be read in
Flavius Philostratus "Life of Apollonius".

Did the christian god have more than one son?
It would appear so.
Were there others who by deeds may have qualified as having supernatural powers and taught monotheism? It would seem so...

Naturally christians will bring to arms there defense of Jesus as gods only begotten son.
Yet this clearly says that King David was a begotten son of god.
It also points out the Solomon , Davids offspring was to be another "son of god".

The christian doctrine recognizes the miracles performed by Jesus as validation for the claim of
Jesus being the son of god or more precisely to validate the claim of divinity, yet it would seem the world knew of others with the same capabilities, and teaching the same general concepts.

I have had this conversation on many occassions
with christians of many classes (and they do have a caste system in christianity) and have not yet recieved a satisfactory explanation of these seemingly parallel story lines and historic progressions.
I make no claim to "know" the truth. I only offer
evidence to make your own conclusion.
Wolf

sighhswolf

It would seem Theophilus, that you are taking the position of the incomprehensibility of god as an explanation for your prior post.

Have you not just retreated into agnosticism, by the statement above?
The term "Religious Agnostic" comes to mind as I read your post above, or sometimes refered to as "theistic agnosticism".
The concept that the christian god is "unknowable"
and that mankind can never understand the motivations and actions of god.
So I take it that by your statement above you are of the opinion that mankind cannot have direct knowledge of god's nature?
Let me just suggest something here for consideration:
The Catholic Almanac lists 22 attributes of god,
Almighty
eternal
Holy
immortal
immense
immutable
ineffable
infinite
invisible
just
loving
merciful
most high
most wise
omnipotent
omniscient
omnipresent
patient
perfect
provident
supreme
true
And the last attribute "Incomprehensible".
It would seem that there is one word somewhat out-of-place here dont you think?
This is the central theme that escapes me in the christian doctrine.
How is it possible to list 21 attributes of an
"incomprehensible" "supernatural" divine being?
I have always had a problem with this concept, and I am only speaking for myself here.
I will never understand how you can define the attributes of god so perfectly, yet when questioned concerning the actions or inactions of this supreme being he becomes "incomprehensible"?
To me this is a contradiction in terms.
Oh I know, I am only a dumb non-believer, but I seem to remember that 2+2=4, and not 2+2=0.

We can discuss this further if you feel inclined
but your statement as to the nature of god being
an "unknown" is quite simply a bothersome concept.
It supposes that christianity has assigned attributes to this god, based on what christians WANT him to be like.
And then when questioned about the existence of evil side by side with this being of supreme goodness, a back up position is retained in the form of "incomprehensibility".
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Well, we can never understand the nature and motivations of this supreme being (other than to attribute him with 22 attributes spelled out in the Catholic almanac).

If this is rational thought I would much prefer to have my mind "uncluttered" with all of this absolute nonsense, and contradiction. This has no impact on you personally or your beliefs, but those who ask questions should be provided with reality based answers, not with abstract concepts that have no basis in reality or could never be considered as "truth".
We could argue this point of contention until we are blue in the face but the absolute truth of this concept is, that it is without question, one the most troubling aspect of christian doctrine.
Everything that exists in our reality has identifible characteristics. To even claim that something exists is to assign a nature and attributes to that something, whatever it may be.
So it is one of the most confusing points of christian doctrine to proclaim that god exists, and then to counter that claim with a statement that we cannot "comprehend" the nature of this being.
It is illogical and irrational and a contradiction in terms that no matter how you defend it by any method, cannot be reconciled, with accepted standards of rational thought processes. If you wish to retain this contradiction as the basis of one of your core beliefs, that is a choice you make, and no one can tell you that what you believe is wrong.
I can only point out how irrational this part of the doctrine is, and how it is technically an impossibility to come to this core belief through
known scientific reasoning.
But I guess that's what makes it "Christianity"
Huh ??

Wolf