I did something last night that I rarely do -- someone had posted a "shocking video" of a lecture that supposedly refuted Christianity, by exposing
Jesus as a fraud, invented by Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, and because I'm a fan of early church history, I started the video and went to
do some other stuff, listening to it in the background.
The video was, of course, absolute nonsense, a shining example of a non-historian absolutely butchering documented history to fit his biases, but of
particular note was the argument, often repeated here on ATS, that Jesus was a refashioned version of Ra, Apollo or Nahundi, because "Son of God" is
a clever twist on the real meaning, "Sun of God".
A typical argument:
The bible is for a fact Egyptian text. That is the true religon. So that means that the same Son that the Christians worship, the Egyptian people
look upon the true Sun as the most high . They knew that everything that was good on earth came from the Sun. It was the closes thing to the Father.
The true seeker will be awakend with research. The true seeker must find out where certain words and terms derive from. As you get deeper into
research the seeker will find that Jesus is actually a representation of the True Sun. A Sun God, Before the english language came about the word
"Sun" was spelled "Son". Don't believe me, do your own research.
The Catholics don't even bother hiding the fact -- in their artwork, Christ is almost always depicted with the shining sun behind him:
Who can deny that Jesus is a hoax, a refashioned sun god, a construction of Constantine?
If you read that, looked at the picture and thought "oh, how clever", not to put too fine of a point on it, but like the members of the audience of
the video lecturer who acted astonished at his revelation of the "truth," or the person who wrote the external argument I cited, you're an
The Bible was not written in English
. If you only learn one thing today, please make it this. Any argument against the Bible or Christianity
that relies on the English language for its basis, whether the "Son/Sun" nonsense, or the real meaning of the word "Easter", is automatically an
invalid argument, because you can't put your case on something that didn't exist until centuries after both Christianity and the Bible were well
The Bible was written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament)
. In the New Testament, Christ is referred to as the Son of God, and
refers to himself as the Son of Man. The Greek word for "son" is υἱός, transliterated to huios and pronounced hwee-os' (See
Strong's Concordance #5207
), while the Greek word for the sun is ἥλιος, transliterated to hélios
and pronounced hay'-lee-os. Similar, but not really the same thing.
However, Christ's "Son of Man" actually comes from the Old Testament, from the book of Ezekiel
primarily, along with a few other places. In
Hebrew, the word for "son" is בּן, transliterated to ben, while the Hebrew word for "sun" is שמש, transliterated to shemesh -- not even
close to the same thing.
So, no, there was no ancient conspiracy to create a phony sun god, and the refer to him as the "son of God" to let clever observers in on the joke.
Sun and son did not become homophones until many centuries after the Bible was written, and in a language that the text wasn't written in.
But what about those Catholics? The ones who depict Christ as the sun?
We do believe that Christ is the bringer of light, but it is a spiritual light, not a physical one -- the world is in spiritual darkness, and it is
Christ who brings light into that world. This is from scripture:
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the
light of life.” (John 8:12 NIV)
Christ is not depicted in iconography as the sun, he is depicted as what he declared himself to be -- the light of the world.
If you don't want to believe in Christianity, then just don't believe in Christianity -- there is no need to come up with convoluted "proof" of
its lack of validity, particularly when, like the argument made in the "shocking video," it is so ridiculously wrong that the person making it loses
all credibility, even on matters that they might actually be right about.