IMO that stuff about Jesus being the Son of God is really just a semantic mix up that the Christian faith got stuck with, and then couldn't shake off.

This is how things really went; a Palestinian Jew called Jesus wandered around preaching for a few years. Because he was such a holy man, people called him a son of god, a metaphor for "really holy person" which at the time was applied to various religiously inclined people, the same that today nuns can be called "daughters of Christ."

Decades or maybe centuries after Jesus' time, people like St. Paul wanted to present Jesus as part of a watertight religious theory. Either they didn't think it through properly, or they didn't trust the intelligence of the people they planned to convert. Either way, they decided to put capital letters to "Son of God" and declare it to be literally and uniquely true.

Unfortunately, this made necessary a whole lot of really shakey dogma to explain away the paradox of God in Human form; God got divided into three parts and Mary was accorded special status when they dreamed up the "explanation" of the Virgin Birth. Once established, the medieval Christian church went along with all this; not questioning the origin of the ideas, but instead pondering the ramifications of the theory in detail, in the same spirit in which they debated issues like, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Explaining Christianity had become a profession and no one was blowing the whistle on how ludicrous the debates were becoming.

These days, of course, the church has to explain itself to a better educated audience and even though it embarrasses some Christian intellectuals, they are stuck with taking some dogma literally. For example, Christians have difficulty defining the powers, the nature and the presence of The Devil because he also hovers somewhere between the spirit and the physical world, and in the same way the "Son of God" tag on Jesus and the mechanics, or even necessity, of the Virgin Birth seem to throw up more questions than they do answers.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

.

Are those claps for me?? Thank you, Chula!

.

Does this count as one of those "good" explanation?

Yeah, cause, I'm still waiting for one.

It's true that I don't care to read the Catechism, although as a child I was obliged too. As I recall, it provides answers in a rather legal style rather than explanations.
But my comment was not that "Christianity can't explain", because, as I understand it, Christianity reserves the right to side-step the need for explanations. Unlike science, where proof is necessary, Christianity, like other religions, talks in terms of faith and mystery.
What I did say was that "Christians have difficulty defining," and as I have a book about the Devil to hand, I might use that to illustrate the difficulty Christians have in agreeing about the Devil:-

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) article 395:
"Satan's power is not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but always a creature."
Catholic Archbishop Milango:
"We are now in the last days of Satan's reign... his agents have penetrated to the very heart of Christ's Church to lull Christians, especially priests, into believing that the the Devil and his demons don't exist. Satan plays with priests like toys when they don't believe in him."
Bishop David Jenkins (C of E):
"If evil is the question, the Devil is not necessarily the answer. The Devil is one of a canon of Christian myths, historically significant, but [myths] must seem real to serve any purpose...and the Devil no longer seems real."

So we have spirit, creature, real existence (including demons), and historical myth. This ambiguity about the Devil's status is also apparent in Christianity's attitude to exorcism. Back in the infamous days of witch hunting, exorcisms were regular and proudly publicised events; victories in the war of good and evil, or (according to interpretation) opportunities to kill unpopular women. Today, witch trials aren't so popular, and even though the Vatican still has it's own exorcist, his activities are not given much attention, perhaps because (1970 Report by Bishop of Exeter, UK) "It cannot be overstressed that...this concept of demonic possession is extremely dubious."

.

How do you know this? Because it just is? Research? Experience? Slayer lyrics?