Dispelling Christianity with Homophones: The Son/Sun Conspiracy

reply to post by windword


Was the Bible written in English?

reply to post by adjensen


It's impossible to dismiss the relationship between the words son and sun as inconsequential to Christianity.

Shemesh: Goddess child of El and Asherah

Hebrew is one of those annoying languages with grammatical genderization. That is – nouns have a gender, masculine or feminine. French is like that too, and there's no short-cut – people learning the language have to learn the sex of each noun one at a time.

But in the case of the Hebrew word for sun, SHE-mesh, you can’t go wrong - it is both masculine and feminine, though most people use the feminine. This is the case because for the ancient Hebrews, who had a pagan streak a cubit wide, the sun was a goddess.

Sol Invictus

This is an example of the coins that Constantine had minted even after his questionable conversion from paganism to Christianity, on its back it still contains the inscription and the symbol for his favorite pagan sun God, "Sol Invictus". The truth be told, Constantine surreptitiously simply changed the name of his favorite pagan sun God "Sol Invictus" to "Jesus" in the half pagan/half Christian hybrid called "Catholicism" that he came up with.
thenewholybible.org...

The Catholic Treasure Chest

"...For Without Me you can do nothing."
John 15:5

That verse holds true for both Jesus Christ who said it, and for the sun, for without the sun, there would be no life on earth.
Everything alive owes its existence to the sun and ultimately to the Son (John 14:6).

GOD is a Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
They are three persons in one GOD. They are distinct but not separate.

The sun can be likened to a trinity also, with the Father as being analogous to the sun, the Son proceeding from the sun (Father) as the light that we see, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the sun and the light (Father and the Son) as the heat that we feel. There again, we have a trio of the sun, light, and heat, with each being distinct from the others but not separate.

Malachi 4:2

But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves.

reply to post by windword


Was the Bible written in English?

reply to post by adjensen


What's your point?

What language was this: "Malachi 4:2

But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves."

Shemash is the Hebrew word for sun. It's interchangable with the personification of a Hebrew sun goddess, and can also be a masculine name, and was known as the "Child of God".

Sol Invictus is the Latin word for the personified son God, that was named as the Christian deity by Constantine.

For more solar/son god imagery, (that can be related to the Greek sun god Helios) one only needs to stroll around the Vatican.

There is no way to separate the relationship between the son and the sun in the history of the development of and the evolution of Christianity.

reply to post by windword

What's your point?

My point is that the Bible wasn't written in English. Neither was it written in Latin. "Sun" and "Son" in Hebrew and Greek are not the same words, so saying that they are in English, Latin, Sanskrit, Swahili or Norwegian is an invalid argument.

reply to post by adjensen


Here's some more Biblical examples of the relationship to Jesus, the son, and the sun, from that same Catholic Web site.

"It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last."
Luke 23:44-46

Did you see the message here? The "sun's light failed"...The SON, the light of the world failed as He had given up His Spirit

"And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen."
Mark 16:2
In this verse is yet another connection which many miss. The "sun had risen", and on Sunday, "the first day of the week".
The SON had also risen, and on the same Sunday.

From the parallels which I have shown in the above verses, it looks as if the spelling of Sunday could also be SONday.

By your logic, Sunday SHOULD be SONday. So why isn't it? Why is the "Son of God's day" on SUNday?

reply to post by windword


I'm just going to ask you one more time, then we can stop this back and forth, which is a complete waste of time for both of us.

Was the Bible written in English?

reply to post by adjensen


It doesn't matter what language we read the Bible in, because the relationship to the Messiah, the Christ, and the Catholic religion Jesus and the Sun God are one in the same. It's just a coincidence that the two words sound the same, (or is it?) But the intrinsic conceptual relationship between the two remains intact regardless.

"The sun shall be no more your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you by night; but the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory. Your sun shall no more go down, nor your moon withdraw itself; for the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your days of mourning shall be ended."
Isaiah 60:19-20

The Messiah is meant to be the new Sun. "Christ" is to replace the Sun.

As a Greek i have to say there is no connection whatsoever with the Sun/Son thing. In Greek there are different words with different meaning. I will place a bold marker on the words below on some quotes that been posted in English.

Here is for example the verse that winword quoted from Isaiah. Written in Greek LXX.

19 καὶ οὐκ ἔσται σοι ὁ ἥλιος εἰς φῶς ἡμέρας οὐδὲ ἀνατολὴ σελήνης φωτιεῖ σοι τὴν νύκτα ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται σοι κύριος φῶς αἰώνιον καὶ ὁ θεὸς δόξα σου 20 οὐ γὰρ δύσεται ὁ ἥλιός σοι καὶ ἡ σελήνη σοι οὐκ ἐκλείψει ἔσται γὰρ κύριός σοι φῶς αἰώνιον καὶ ἀναπληρωθήσονται αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ πένθους σου

And another :

Gen 14:12 ἔλαβον δὲ καὶ τὸν Λωτ υἱὸν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Αβραμ καὶ τὴν ἀποσκευὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπῴχοντο ἦν γὰρ κατοικῶν ἐν Σοδομοις

Or here at Mal 4:2

καὶ ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸ ὄνομά μου ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἴασις ἐν ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξελεύσεσθε καὶ σκιρτήσετε ὡς μοσχάρια ἐκ δεσμῶν ἀνειμένα

ἥλιος = Sun and υἱὸν or υἱὸς = Son. Two different words with two different meanings.

Peace

reply to post by Seed76


I have never implied that these aren't two different words with two different meanings. However, Jesus, The Messiah, The Christ are all compared to the sun in biblical context.

The OP is implying that people are claiming that "the sun" and "the son" are related because they sound alike in English. I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether or not they sound alike, the sun and the son ARE symbolically related, as I showed in the quotes and links above, that are found at a Catholic website.

iRoyalty

chr0naut
The OP quite clearly debunks the idea that Jesus was the sun god. You don't seem to have grasped that concept.

No he hasn't, he debunked that there is no link to the word 'son' and 'sun'. That's not enough evidence to debunk for me.

Like I said, I believe that the story of Christ's life was altered to fit older sun-god religions, I'm not debunking the man, just his life and how his life has been changed to fit sun god religions for the conquering romans.

Please read my earlier comments.

edit on 26-2-2014 by iRoyalty because: (no reason given)

The feast of Sol Invictus was the attempt by the Roman emperor Aurelian to reform the cult of Sol, the Roman sun god, and and reintroduce it to his people, inaugurating Sol's temple and holding games for the first time in A.D. 274. Not only was this festival not annual, it also cannot be historically documented as having been established on December 25 by Aurelian

Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204) that the Lord’s birth was believed to have occurred on that day:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.

The reference to Adam can be understood in light of another of Hyppolytus’ writings, the Chronicon, where he explains that Jesus was born nine months after the anniversary of Creation. According to his calculations, the world was created on the vernal equinox, March 25, which would mean Jesus was born nine months later, on December 25.

While these explanations of how December 25 came to be the date of Christmas are all plausible, we know one thing for sure: The evidence that this day held a special significance to Christians predates the proof of a supposed celebration of Sol Invictus or other pagan deities on that day.

reply to post by adjensen

Apologies for off topic post.

Concerning what you said about the Council of Nicaea, what are your thoughts on this written by St. Jerome:

"Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.

Receive the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and declare triumphal honor with perpetual praises for her. For this one, imitable not only for women, but also for men, has the Rewarder of her chastity given, Who has granted such strength, that she conquered the one unconquered by all men, she surpassed the unsurpassable."

This doesn't conflict with what you said? Seems to strongly suggest the Council of Nicaea did discuss the Biblical canon. To me anyways.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Unfortunately your reference does not prove that the First Nicaea dealt with the canon, but it does show that the claim that it did was around in St. Jerome's day and that he, himself, believed it.

reply to post by lonewolf2

Well I wasn't trying to assert it as proof. I just find it quite interesting he seemed to believe so. Especially since he's not just some random dude

Also St. Jerome's day was 347-420 AD. First Council of Nicaea as you probably know was 325 AD. Not ancient history for him.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Well, there are two possibilities:

1) St. Jerome was mistaken
2) The Council did make some statement of the canonical status of Judith, but left no evidence of it

Since the Council was held before Jerome was born, he wasn't an eyewitness and could easily be mistaken, but in the absence of any other evidence, it would be unreasonable to simply assume that he was.

However, the point of my statement isn't that canonicity was never discussed at the Council -- as the first Ecumenical Council, it wouldn't be surprising to hear that it came up, as Bishops from across the known world met for the first time -- but that it wasn't the point of the Council, and that the Canon was not established at Nicaea. The New Testament canon was largely already in place prior to the Council, and it was firmly established a couple of decades after Nicaea (though Canon wasn't technically closed until the Council of Trent in 1546.)