Son of God = son of god
What’s the difference between “Son of God” and “son of god”? Actually in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) and ancient Greek, the orignal language that the New Testament was written, capital letters were never used – so there is NO DIFFERENCE!
Son or Servant?
The King James Version reads, “Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”
The New King James Version reads, “To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities.”
Which is the correct translation? This is a pretty huge mistake. There’s a pretty big difference between claiming to be God’s servant, and his Son. Could Jesus have claimed to be the SERVANT, not the SON, of God? Is the Aramaic word for this the same, or is this a confused interpreter or what? How easy would it have been for the original interpreters to have tailored their interpretation to fit their purposes?
Son of Man?
Jesus tended to call himself the Son of Man not the Son of God anyway…
We are all Sons and Daughters of God
Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.’
Jesus calls Adam a son of God in Luke 3:38, “the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”
Romans 9:26, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said of them ‘you are not my people’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
Matthew 5:44-45 “But I tell you: Love your enemies[a] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”
Psalm 82:6 “I said, ‘You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High.’”
Genesis 6:1-3 “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with (or remain in) man forever, for he is mortal (or corrupt); his days will be a hundred and twenty years.””
The disciples enthusiasm as evidence or support for a social revolution?
My Dad’s main argument for the evidence of the truth of Christianity, is the disciples. The disciples were weak followers. After their leader had died, they lost all hope. They were sad and depressed. What then caused such a change so that they might go out, profess Jesus resurrection? They believed so strongly that they would die for it. Paul, … were all martyred for their belief.
Paul was converted on his way travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus, by a voice and vision of Jesus. What else could have caused such a change? It must have been a true vision of Jesus or else why would he do it?
Let’s consider the options:
1. Jesus was not dead, a disciple nursed him to health. He appeared slowly to different disciples.
2. He was dead. One or more disciples stole the body.
3. Jesus appearance to them:
Did they imagine it?
Have a visit from his ghost/spirit?
Share a vision?
Maybe the idea of Jesus eating, was more of a little thing that the disciples added to make their story more believable (so that they weren’t thought of as crazy) The vision may have been a ghost / spirit, like a seance or something of the like…
An impostor: At first they did not recognise him – why not? Is it possible that it was because it wasn’t really him?
From the disciples point of view:
1. A new leader, had a revelation and inspired them with new vision to continue their ministry. They may have believed it would be for the good of mankind. They didn’t want to go back to their old way of life.
2. Another follower of Jesus conspired to create the resurrection story, stole the body and appeared to them like a magician/illusionist can do. The disciples thus believed the story and set out to spread the word with conviction.
3. It was true: Jesus was dead. Then he was resurrected. He appeared maybe in the garden to some women, maybe… he walked through walls to appear to the disciples even though they could touch the holes in his hands and eventually he physically shot up into the sky towards the sun.
It is possible that it was Jesus and one disciple planned to create a new religion all along. Maybe they staged everything. It is a possibility. If Jesus wasn’t dead, he could have appeared to many, then escaped to Egypt or some far away place. Alternatively if he was dead, the co-conspiring disciple could have stolen the body, organised himself or someone else to impersonated him as to excite them that the resurrection came true. Why did some disciples doubt him? The few men that were close to him didn’t even think he was going to rise from the dead…
Pagan Religions – who is the copycat?
Virgin-born Saviours who died and rose again
This is a list of religions before Christianity who had virgin-born saviors who were sons of their gods, who lived, preached, performed miracles, rose from death and ascended into heaven:
- Chrishna – Hindu
- Osiris – Ancient Egypt – The worship of Osiris continued for over 6000 years. During that time millions of Egyptians believed that the had risen from the dead. In contrast, Christianity is less than 2000 years old and the resurrection of Christ is rejected today by ? .
- Aesculapius – Ancient Greece – Adonis – Syrians at the time of Jesus (One of the gods that Paul continually scolded the Jews for going back to)
- 386AD St Jerome says “Over Bethlehem (in the year 386 after Christ) the grove of Tammuz, that is of Adonis, was casting its shadow and in the grotto where formerly the infant anointed cried, the lover of Venus was being mourned””
The Babylonians and other Pagan cultures believed that the earth was flat with mountains around the edges holding up the rigid dome of the sky and that the sun, moon, planets and stars were pushed by angels along the underside of the dome (kind of like the Truman show) The Tower of Babel story where people try to build a tower to reach God, is an example of this type of belief.
Nelson’s search on Easter reveals:
“Easter was originally a pagan festival honoring Eostre, a Teutonic goddess of light and spring. At the time of the vernal equinox (the day in the spring when the sun crosses the equator and day and night are of equal length), sacrifices were offered in her honor. As early as the eighth century, the word was used to designate the annual Christian celebration of the resurrection of Christ.”
This is what is says about Ishtar:
“The ancient Babylonian and Assyrian goddess Ishtar symbolized Mother Earth in the natural cycles of fertility on earth. Ishtar was the daughter of Sin, the moon god… Ishtar has been identified with the Phoenician Astarte, the Semitic Ashtoreth, and the Sumerian Inanna. Strong similarities also exist between Ishtar and the Egyptian Isis, the Greek Aphrodite, and the Roman Venus.”
Ok, so I don’t have to worry that someone is making up this ‘Ishtar’ character in order to turn people away from Christianity. This is information written by Christians!
“Then he brought me to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz.”Ezekiel 8:14 NIV
The notes of the NIV study Bible say “The only Biblical reference to this Babylonian fertility god. The women of Jerusalem were bewailing his dying, which they felt caused the annual wilting of vegetation.”
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary says regarding this verse: “Tammuz, later linked to Adonis and Aphrodite by name, was a god of fertility and rain … In the seasonal mythological cycle, he died early in the fall when vegetation withered. His revival, by the wailing of Ishtar, was marked by the buds of spring and the fertility of the land. Such renewal was encouraged and celebrated by licentious fertility festivals … The women would have been lamenting Tammuz’s death. They perhaps were also following the ritual of Ishtar, wailing for the revival of Tammuz” (Vol. VI, 1986, pp. 783-784).
Does the Bible mention ‘Easter’?
The word Easter appears once in the King James Version of the Bible, in Acts 12:4, where it is a mistranslation. Reputable scholars and reference works point out that the word Easter in this verse comes from the Greek word pascha, meaning Passover. Modern translations correctly translate this word “Passover.”
“You shouldn’t write ‘Xmas’ as it takes the “Christ out of Christmas.” I often thought that people today have lost focus on what is important. They put all their attention on commercial things such as the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Easter eggs and exchanging gifts, loosing the real meaning of Christmas – Christ’s birth; and of Easter – his ultimate sacrifice – he died for YOU, then rose again – just as you will rise and have eternal life.
Slight problem I have just discovered, how can we put the “Christ back into Christmas”, if it wasn’t even there to begin with?
The bubble hurts as it bursts, but but just as children discover the truth about santa, as adults we do need to know the truth behind our traditions. The ‘real’ meaning of Christmas is not Christ. Christmas did not start out a Christian celebration. Christ wasn’t born on or even close to the 25th of December. This date was adopted by Christians in order to ease the conversion of Pagans. The ‘real’ meaning of these celebrations goes back far further than 2000 years – all the way back to Ancient Egypt. This date was the shortest date of the year, the winter solice, and since from this day, the sun would be in the sky for a longer time, it was considered the worship of the Sun god Ra.
How do we know Christ wasn’t born in December?
Firstly, the shepherds. Luke 2:7-8 tells us shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at the time of Jesus’ birth. Shepherds were not in the fields during December. Secondly, the census. Luke 2:1-4 tells us that Jesus’ parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census. Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition.
If you are reading this in disbelief, check out the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that The Sol Invictus festival has a “strong claim on the responsibility” for the date of Christmas.
Did you know that Christmas was outlawed in England and some parts of the American colonies in the 17th Century because of its unbiblical and pagan origins? I wonder how we managed to forget something so important. Why haven’t I been taught the truth behind something I have celebrated every year for the last 25 years?
Wise men, kings, shepherds and astrology
Three wise men? Three kings? Why did shepherds follow a star? What does this mean?
Did three wise men travel to see Jesus? The Bible doesn’t say. There could have been more. We are told only that they gave Jesus three kinds of gifts: “gold, frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:1, 11). Did the wise men, as nativity scenes often depict, arrive to find Jesus in a makeshift shelter–a manger–because there was “no room in the inn”? (Luke 2:7). Not really. By the time the wise men arrived, apparently some time after Christ’s birth, Joseph’s family was residing in a house (verse 11). Did the writers of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) consider Jesus’ birth to be one of the most significant events for Christians to acknowledge or celebrate? Mark and John do not even mention the event.
Paul didn’t know Mary was a virgin – if he did wouldn’t he have mentioned it? Alexander the Great – His mother told him that Zeus was his father, that she had slept with him in the hills. The Hebrew word for ‘Virgin’ also meant “young woman”. Matthew 1:20 says the news of Jesus’ impending birth was first told to Joseph in a dream. Yet Luke 1:28 describes the news coming first to Mary, by an angel. I know my Christian response would be to say that both events would have happened, but why does Matthew fail to mention Mary’s experience with the angel, and Luke omit Joseph’s dream? And why did Mary seemingly forget these incredible circumstances of her son’s birth? That is, later in the gospels she tells her other children to go and get Jesus who is acting like a lunatic, and bring him home…
I think I would have a different perception of my son if had I been visited by angels and been a pregnant virgin…
Supernatural additions – theological debates and decisions
“Most Christians seem to assume that the details of their faith system dropped out of heaven in a fully developed form. The creeds began as baptismal formulas in the 3rd century and did not receive the shape we now recognize until the 4th century. Doctrines like the Trinity and Incarnation were still being formed in the 5th century.
Moving closer to the life of Jesus, scholars now suggest that miracles were added to the Jesus story only in the 7th and 8th decades of the Christian era. The Virgin birth and the suggestion that resurrection meant physical resuscitation are products of the 9th decade, and the account of Jesus’ ascension enters the tradition only in the 10th decade. Perhaps the biggest gap in our knowledge of Jesus, however, occurs in those years between 30 C.E. when Jesus’ earthly life came to an end and 70 C.E. when gospels began to achieve written form. Today, by lining up the gospels in chronological order with Mark first (ca. 70 C.E.), then Matthew (ca. 80 C.E.), Luke (ca 90 C.E.) and finally John (ca 100 C.E.), we can see how the miraculous was heightened; the details become more graphic and supernatural activity more pronounced. If the story could grow as dramatically as it did from 70-100 C.E., is it not reasonable to assume that it also grew from 30-70 C.E.? Yet with no written sources, entering that time of oral transmission is a problem.”
Chapter 1 – Introduction Click here
Chapter 2 – Is the Bible the “Word of God”? Click here
Chapter 3 – Is Jesus Christ the “Son of God?” Click here
Chapter 4 – Discussing the contradictions Click here
Chapter 5 – What does this mean for my life today? Click here
Chapter 6 – My conclusions Click here