Was Jesus the SON......or.....the SUN?
Below I'm going to reply to the statements in Gumby's first post above:
The sun's 'followers' or 'disciples' are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
Interesting. I'll try to post some info on this soon. That doesn't seem like an obvious link to Jesus to me.
The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the 'Most High'; thus, 'he' begins 'his Father's work' at 'age' 12.
Well, the problem with that is that the Jews' day started at about 6 AM (by our modern time calculations), and what we call 7 AM was called the "first hour" and what we call 8 AM was called the "second hour" and what we call 9 AM was called the "third hour", and so on.
So, when the New Testament was written, 12 Noon would have been called the "sixth hour", and would have had no connection to the number "12" to the Jews.
Also, what would be the sun's "Father"? What would be considered "greater" than the sun?
Also, according to the Bible, Jesus did not "begin His Father's work" at age 12 (Jesus was already doing His Father's will ever since He was born on Earth -- in fact even before that), and Jesus did not begin His public ministry until about age 30.
The sun 'dies' for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or 'resurrected' on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
Well, that is an interesting statement.
However, first of all, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ died and was raised up in March/April, not December.
The Bible does not say when Jesus was born on Earth, however, it was warm enough for shepherds to be out tending to their sheep at night, so it probably was not in December.
It was the Paganized Roman Catholic Church that decided to celebrate Jesus Christ's birthday on December 25th.
I would not doubt that the Roman Catholics did choose December 25th because of Pagan connections.
I believe it was also the Catholics who made that "Christos Helios" image above.
The sun is the 'Light of the World'.
Yes, that is correct -- but who does the Bible say created the sun? THE SON:
Hebrews 1:10: And, "You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the Earth. The Heavens are the works of Your hands.
John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him. Without Him was not anything made that has been made.
Colossians 1:16: For by Him were all things created, in the Heavens and on the Earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through Him, and for Him.
Jesus Christ created the sun and gave the sun its light and power, and He is the One who causes the sun to give off light to the Earth.
When the Bible says that Jesus is "The Light of the World" it is talking about spiritual light -- the light of truth which opens the eyes of the people who are trapped in Satan's darkness!
The sun 'cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him.'
Okay, but I am curious who "pierced" the sun and who is going to "mourn" when they see the sun?
Revelation 1:7: Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, including those who pierced Him. All the tribes of the Earth will mourn over Him. Even so, Amen.
The sun rising in the morning is the 'Savior of mankind.'
I've never heard that expression used for the sun, but regardless: Does the sun give eternal life? Can the sun resurrect the dead? Can the sun forgive sins? Does the sun save people from going to Hell? Can the sun bring people to Heaven?
The sun wears a corona, a 'crown of thorns' or halo.
Now that's a stretch, don't you think?
First of all, Jesus only wore a crown of thorns while being tortured, and second, the Bible does not mention anywhere that Jesus ever had a halo around His head on Earth.
The sun 'walks on water.'
Nice play on words -- I've never heard that expression before.
Can the sun tell the wind to "hush" and have the wind obey? Can the sun cause humans to walk on water?
Following a star would lead you round in circles.
I really am not sure about that statement. I haven't studied up on following stars -- however, the Bible makes it obvious that the "star" that led the "Wise Men" to Jesus was a miracle. Also, in the Bible, the word "star" is used to describe any bright object in the sky (other than the sun or moon), including planets and meteors and comets, etc.
Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.
I have no idea about that (I highly doubt it though, based on the other information provided by the same people), but I will definitely do research into it.
The first believers in Jesus maintained he was a sun-god in the sky. Only later did he acquire a death, a life and finally a birth.
Well, who were these "first believers"? Where can I find any writings of these "first believers"?
Also, (this is just a side-note) even though the English words for "son" and "sun" sound the exact same, and are spelled similar, in the original Greek that the New Testament was written in, here is how the two words were spelled and pronounced:
helios (sun), which was pronounced hay'-lee-os
uihos (son), which was pronounced hwee-os'
So, in Greek, those two words were not pronounced the same, as they are now.
Also, below is the context of the statement by Tertullian:
"You say we worship an ass's head, but you worship all kinds of animals; your gods are images made on a cross framework, so you worship crosses. You say we worship the sun; so do you. A certain Jew hawked about a caricature of a creature half ass, half goat, as our god; but you actually adore half-animals. As for infanticide, you expose your own children and kill the unborn. Your promiscuous lust causes you to be in danger of the incest of which you accuse us. We do not swear by the genius of Caesar, but we are loyal, for we pray for him, whereas you revolt. Caesar does not want to be a god; he prefers to be alive. You say it is through obstinacy that we despise death; but of old such contempt of death was esteemed heroic virtue. Many among you brave death for gain or wagers; but we, because we believe in judgment. Finally, do us justice; examine our case, and change your minds."
So, if Tertullian was saying that Christians worship the sun, he was also saying that Christians practiced infanticide and incest.
It is obvious to me that Tertullian was trying to refute all of the claims above (that Christians worship the sun, and that Christians worship half-man half-animal creatures, and that Christians worship donkeys, etc.)
Thanks for your observation on this. What I posted was simply an article of intrest....not what I believe my self on this particular subject. I simply thought I'd share the authors take on it.
I do believe what was said about Jesus being a spiritual figure ......before the church deified him and that it is possible there was some connection that the article mentioned.
I realize SOME anti bible material have weak arguments and I always appreciate when it is pointed out.
I plan on reading "the Christ Conspiracy" next and will post info it contains.......and I'll let you disect that too
...Here's the meat of Lewis' thoughts (see above for link)
...(D)oes not the Christian story show this pattern of descent and re-ascent because that is part of all the nature religions of the world? We have read about it in The Golden Bough. (1) We all know about Adonis, and the stories of the rest of those rather tedious people; is not this one more instance of the same thing, "the dying God"?
Well, yes it is. That is what makes the question subtle. What the anthropological critic of Christianity is always saying is perfectly true. Christ is a figure of that sort. And here comes a very curious thing. When I first, after childhood, read the Gospels, I was full of that stuff about the dying God, The Golden Bough, and so on. It was to me then a very poetic, and mysterious, and quickening idea; and when I turned to the Gospels never will I forget my disappointment and repulsion at finding hardly anything about it at all. The metaphor of the seed dropping into the ground in this connexion occurs (I think) twice in the New Testament, (2) and for the rest hardly any notice is taken; it seemed to me extraordinary. You had a dying God, Who was always representative of the corn; you see Him holding the corn, that is, bread, in His hand and saying, "This is my Body", (3) and from my point of view, as I then was, He did not seem to realize what He was saying. Surely there, if anywhere, this connexion between the Christian story and the corn must have come out; the whole context is crying out for it. But everything goes on as if the principal actor, and still more, those about Him, were totally ignorant of what they were doing. It is as if you got very good evidence concerning the sea-serpent, but the men who brought this good evidence seemed never to have heard of sea-serpents. Or to put it in another way, why was it that the only case of the "dying God" which might conceivably have been historical occurred among a people (and the only people in the whole Mediterranean world) who had not got any trace of this nature religion, and indeed seemed to know nothing about it? Why is it among them the thing suddenly appears to happen?
The principal actor, humanly speaking, hardly seems to know of the repercussion. His words (and sufferings) would have in any pagan mind. Well, that is almost inexplicable, except on one hypothesis. How if the corn king is not mentioned in that Book, because He is here of whom the corn king was an image? How if the representation is absent because here, at last, the thing represented is present? If the shadows are absent because the thing of which they were shadows is here? The corn itself is in its far-off way an imitation of the supernatural reality; the thing dying, and coming to life again, descending, and re-ascending beyond all nature. The principle is there in nature because it was first there in God Himself. Thus one is getting in behind the nature religions, and behind nature to Someone Who is not explained by, but explains, not, indeed, the nature religions directly, but that whole characteristic behaviour of nature on which nature religions were based. Well, that is one way in which it surprised me. It seemed to fit in a very peculiar way, showing me something about nature more fully than I had seen it before, while itself remaining quite outside and above the nature religions.... bebu