Might God have more than one kid?

Maybe this belongs in a religion forum but it came to me as a random (stoned) thought so I'm posting it here.

So they say Jesus was his only son but I dunno. Other religions including mythological ones talk about the gods coming to Earth and messing around and begetting demigods. Why not our God?

No doubt he could do it. He could seduce any woman he wanted, drop dead gorgeous women!

And children? That God DNA must be awesome! Think about some of the most gifted people in history and wonder if they're God seed.

So there you have it. What do you think of my blasphemy?

 

God was the original Bill Cosby.

That poor woman didn’t even know she was pregnant.

 

low sperm count. that's why they said jesus was a miracle birth.

 

God adopted me.

 

What if God can control his sperm count? He can shoot blanks if he chooses (no need for birth control) or knock some woman up if he thinks she's a good choice for raising his progeny.

 

I am a direct descendant of the Åesir gods.
And the Aryans!

 

The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."

It's this last phrase ("only begotten" used in the KJV, NASB and the NKJV) that causes problems. False teachers have latched onto this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn't God; i.e., that Jesus isn't equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They see the word "begotten" and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be "begotten." What this fails to note is that "begotten" is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not transfer English meanings into the text.

So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

The bottom line is that terms such as "Father" and "Son," descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you can understand the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some pseudo-Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally "begotten" as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father.

 

there is no maybe about it, though i assume the question to be retorical. every religion was founded by a human person, who like christ, was choosen by the same god, to channell it.
each according to their time and place and the surrounding cultures of the people in that time and place.

that is why there will continue to come along another, every thousand years, give or take a few hundred.

ok, there's nothing absolute about any of that, but it is somewhat of a paraphrasing of the concept of progressive revelation.
a concept intrinsic to the baha'i faith, and oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, one seldom rejected by the followers of any faith who truly understand the spirit of their belief and the intend of its founders.

now of course there are infinity minus one other possibilities, as there is of any.

 

why would a god even have a physical form, or need one?

 

He could take a physical form if he chooses. At least long enough to do what he wants with it.

 

yes, he, she, it, they, could take, or more likely project, absolutely any physical form at all,
but not needing to, i'm more inclined to think the concept of it's/their doing so, more euphemistic then physical.

sorry i don't buy the idea, of the man jesus, being anything other physically, then just another human,
and only became anything more, after john the baptist convinced him to preach and practice peace,
instead of continuing to lead a gorilla insurgency against the roman occupation,
for which he was ultimately executed, as an enemy combatant there of.

(the whole 'virgin birth' thing, i see as being entirely pointless)

 

Indeed, he either has an awful lot as we as his creations are all gods children or he has none. Actually it's both imho :-D

 

We discussed this back in my school days and one pupil raised the question that if Joseph was not the father due to an accident with his carpenters chisel, where in the bible does it show that the accident happened more than 9 months before Jesus was born.

That poor teacher..... He did not know whether to laugh, cry, or give us all a detention for making such suggestions.
Instead, he burst out laughing and started teaching us some maths instead.

 

"his" creation, not being limited to our species nor our planet, has billions more then that.

 

I don't know...

I mean, I believe in the "only one" theory. I'm persnickety though. Other people are totally entitled to other religious beliefs.

 

kind of an ironic double post...

 

Christopher Lambert in Highlander. Nice.
I liked all the older scenes in those movies but didn't like when they were in the future/present.

 

The future scenes, you mean like starting the movie off at a professional wrestling arena. ..lol…originally they were going to start it off a Hockey game but the NHL at the time was trying to change its violent image.

Remember back then whenever there was a fight, everyone would use the phrase…..”I was watching a ______ and a Hockey Game broke out…lol...

So the NHL wouldn't allow the studio to film in any of their indoor hockey arenas