Just when I thought that I had gathered the answers for almost all of my queries about Bible and Christianity, there came a couple of “Brethren” friends who set my ‘tail’ on fire! One asked me if I thought that Mary’s ovum was used for Jesus the embryo. The other “Brethren” asked me how the ‘virginity’ of Mary could ever be a sign to anyone else on earth?!! These jolted me out of my sense of contentment and pushed me into another ‘search and rescue mission’. I wondered why the Jews who waited for thousands of years for their Messiah to come, chose as a nation to reject Jesus? I wanted to know what un-converted Jews had to say about it. So I ended up personally interacting with five (un-‘christened’) Jewish Rabbis and spending 15-20 hours each day for 3 years in a row studying, researching, questioning and writing what i came across. The outcome was so profound that it changed my total outlook.
What we (Protestants) think that they (Jews) think is not exactly what they think (and vice versa in some cases). We think that they consider Jesus only as a prophet and not as a Messiah. But most of them do not even consider Jesus as a real person. Some say that maybe there was someone by that name who, like many other rebel leaders, tried to upstage the Romans and was killed. We say, silly Jews, they are missing out on God’s eternal salvation by rejecting Jesus the Messiah. But they say, silly Protestants, since man is not born in sin, we don’t need a Saviour for our Salvation!
The Jews don’t believe that man is born in sin; but that he chooses to sin by his own free will and that forgiveness from sin can still be attained in the Old ‘Testamental’ way so they don’t need a ‘New’ Testamental saviour to die for them. The whole concept that when Adam sinned, his sinless, immortal constitution changed into a sinful, mortal one plunging the whole human race into sin, is just an assumption. Why so? Because there is no record of such a change in Genesis. We just read it INTO the passage. Infact, if we read Ge 3 carefully we can see that nothing had changed in them after the sin because they stopped living for ever only because God sent them away from the tree of life!! And why exactly did God have to send them away from the tree of life? Because God knew that since nothing had changed they could continue living for ever if they had access to the tree of life – just like before they sinned!
One of the proofs of “birth sin” that is often mentioned is how the kids lie and steal right from their early childhood days. People ask, who taught that kid to lie at that age? But my question is, who taught that kid to feel guilty at that age? If they were born in sin they shouldn’t be feeling guilty about it!! Since the feeling of guilt is a result of the sense of righteousness within, the way kids try and hide their wrongs reveals to us that that sense of righteousness is implanted in them!! If the human race had by default become sinful because of Adam’s sin, and they were all born as sinners thereafter, then wasn’t God over-reacting in Ge 6:5,6? If sinners weren’t sinful, what else was God expecting them to be??! If we insist that Adam and Eve became sinners and lost God’s glory because of the sin they committed, then we have a very serious problem in our hands. In Ge 3:22 while referring to Adam’s state after his sin we see God saying “Behold, the man is become AS ONE OF US”…! O, God! Ho, ho, ho, ho!! Did you hear what God said? Because of his sin Adam became more like God (“is become as one”) than what he was while he was sinless..!!!! Can someone give me a bottle of logic please…? I’m thirsty! I don’t think Elohyim had any idea about Adam’s “sinful nature” when he made that statement! But I won’t criticise Him squarely for that. Poor guy, He didn’t have any Bible Colleges to go to, did He?
So, what about the fellowship with God that we say was broken after sin? Interestingly, while there is no record of any details of God fellowshipping with them before the sin, we can see God very personally fellowshipping with them after the sin! He comes searching for them (like as before), has conversation with them, He makes designer leather jackets for them, etc.! He is later seen chatting up with the murderer Cain and even puts a divine security seal on him threatening to punish anyone who would dare harm him..!! Hence, the opposite is true concerning the effect of sin on God’ s fellowship with man. He continues to keep in cordial touch with Adam, Cain and others after sin!
In the Messianic verses of the OT God talks about raising his anointed servant in the last days (the “last days” – yom – common sense suggests, could definitely not have been 2000yrs ago! It’s yet to come). Who, when he appears, will uphold the Law of God and help the children of Israel in their complete restoration and eternal sanctification (IN ONE COMING) – something which the Christians have failed to see happen with Jesus. But on the other hand, God also says that this anointed one will bring God-fearing, Law-abiding Gentiles unto himself and gather them into his ever-lasting home – something that the Jews have difficulty accepting. While, on the one hand, the Jews are entrapped by their over-whelming focus on traditions and a misplaced fear of God that has resulted in a lack of proper Godly insight (not knowledge) of the Scriptures. On the other, the Christians are caged-in by the Hellenised version of the Scripture and their blind surrender to the “New” Pauline teachings!
Many NT teachers know that they are precariously perched atop a swaying tree but they just can’t cut the branch on which they are holding on to (can they?!). No wonder they have to resort to embarrassing logics to defend their position (that includes even the best of apologetic teachers in Christendom)! With a desire to end this embarrassment, I venture to chop out some rotten roots of Christianity that are feeding on misconceptions and misinterpretations. Inspite of the threat of further isolation that hangs over me, I hereby proceed, deriving strength from the fact that God is equally upset with the high-jacking of His perpetual precepts and the appalling apologetics that try and justify the same!
The Axe is Fallen on Christian Roots!!!!
1) Lord’s Day – Sunday – Jesus Rose-Again Day
The NT does not mention anywhere that Sunday is the Lord’s Day. Writer John of the book of Revelation mentions Lord’s Day, without specifying it as a Sunday (or even a Saturday). But using the laws of Protestant interpretation, since Sunday is not mentioned as the Lord’s Day anywhere else in the Bible, then this should by default be referring to the Sabbath because in the NT the Lord Jesus says that he is the “Lord of the Sabbath” – which would thus qualify the seventh day to be the Lord’s Day. Infact, it seems that the Greek phrase used there refers to the great “Day of the LORD,” – the “Yom Adonai” – which is a future event. So what is the big deal, you ask? The big deal is that, if it cannot be established that the term “Lord’s Day” used by John in Revelation is a Sunday, then that leaves the Sunday Believers with ABSOLUTELY NO verse in the entire Bible to support such an important basis of their faith – the Sunday worship!! (Acts 20 is being dealt below).
It is said that Sunday came to be considered as the Lord’s Day because Jesus rose again on it. But who asked whom to consider it so? The Bible does not record the disciples arriving at such conclusions. So form where did the concept creep in? (Acts 20 is being dealt below). What if I were to say that we should consider Friday as the Lord’s Day because it was on that day that the Lord gave himself up for the mankind…? Who would be competent to decide which one to follow??
The really shattering part here is that the gospels does not say anywhere that Jesus rose up on a Sunday morning..!! (Yes, you should verify it yourselves). Oh yes, I have read the part where Mary went early in the morning on the First Day of the Week (FDoW) to the tomb and found it empty. If you pay attention, you would realise to your utter amazement that the verse does not say that Jesus rose again on that day. It only says that he was not there when Mary reached there early Sunday morning. “What’s the big deal?” you ask. The big deal is that, based on that verse you can ONLY ASSUME (not claim) that Jesus rose again on a Sunday…!!!! What about Jesus’ claim that he will rise again after three days? Wont it be then on Sunday…?? I have dealt with it in another of my write ups… (Its like how you try and evade one pothole only to bump into a bigger one)!! So, “Lord’s Day – Sunday – Jesus rose-again day” is just an assumption, at best…!!
Have you ever wondered how dumb the disciples had to be to not understand that Jesus would die only to rise up again after three days?! He warned them many times, very specifically that he would die but rise again the third day. If I were to tell my kids the same things (inspite of the fact that I have not done any miracles before; or that they are too young to grasp the meaning), they would anxiously await the third day. How come NO ONE, including the guards and the disciples, saw the actual resurrection – which according to the NT teachers is the main teaching on which the NT church stands??! According to the OT law: Deut 19:15 – “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be establishment”. Poor God! Now how can he criticise the Jews for not believing in the resurrection story – there were no witnesses of the incident??!!
2) The Breaking of Bread Ritual
It is said that the NT ritual of Breaking Bread as ordained by Jesus was first observed daily by his apostles and then due to practical constraints shifted to only once a week. Acts 20 is said to be the passage which proves that the early church kept the ritual weekly on Sundays. But let me ask you something: Since Sunday was not a weekly holiday those days (it was a normal working day all over the world), what practical reasons would have made them to choose that day over the rest of the working days??!!! (Now, don’t go back to the “Lord’s Day” point again, please)! If you have noticed, Jesus did not (ritually) Break Bread with his disciples the first Sunday after resurrection!
So what about the term Breaking of Bread (BoB) mentioned in Acts 20…? Again, it’s a misinterpretation. Because the term BoB is just a term used to refer to eating food, according to both the Scriptural and cultural context – NOTHING ELSE. Scriptural Context: in Luke 24:35, when the disciples of Emmaus tell the other disciples “how (Jesus) was known of them in breaking of bread”, they were referring to the dinner Jesus had with them before he disappeared. (More examples of such non-ritual “breaking bread”: Mat 14:19 / Mat 15:36 / Luke 24:30 / Acts 27:35). So (once again, based on the laws of Protestant interpretations), unless otherwise specified, the term BoB should only mean having food. Even according to the Cultural Context, all through the ages, the Middle Eastern people have their meals by literally breaking their bread. So world over, the term Breaking Bread is used commonly to refer to having a meal. The 30th March 2012 edition of the Bangalore Times paper carries a front page write up about Indian actress Vidya Balan. It says: “Vidya isn’t breaking bread with the big daddies (top film-makers), post work”. I hope you did not for a moment think that Vidya Balan and the other film-makers are actually NT believers..!!
3) God-inspired Holy Bible
The word “inspire” basically means, to encourage. So it should just mean that God encouraged the writers to write what he wanted them to. That would then mean that the writers could use their own words. This would eventually mean that every word of the original was not from God. Then there is a problem. They say that every word of the original text was from God….! When a class teacher dictates notes to her students, every word would be hers and every note will look identical. The individuality, outlook or other differences of the students won’t be seen in their notes (except for the handwriting, that is). But, when the class teacher inspires her students to write, say a poem or a short story, inspite of the topic given being the same, every note will be different . So, when you say “God-inspired”, you are actually wanting to mean “God-dictated”. In that case, how can anyone explain the numerous NT misquotes from the OT, which is ascribed to the writer’s desire to pacify certain section of its readers? Why is it claimed that Matthew and Luke probably borrowed from Mark when the HS (who is the same as God the Father, but different) was standing by to help dictate every word..??
Just an example: From the four gospel writers, three quotes Jesus as saying that Peter would deny him thrice before the cock crows. But Mark specifically mentions “before the cock crow TWICE”. The four gospel writers are quoting/un-quoting the words of Jesus with the dictation of the Holy Spirit and yet manages to have four different quotes altogether..!! When such discrepancies are brought to the notice of the ‘apologetic’ teachers, you are given the example of how four journalists reporting the same incident may have slight differences in their reports. It would have been understandable if it were a case of four journalists seeing things in four different ways, and because of their human limitations getting certain DETAILS differently. But, 1) we are talking here about four writers (from which two have probably witnessed that incident) being dictated every word by the SAME all-knowing God the Spirit…!!!! How can they manage to see things differently (remember the class teacher’s example given above)…….??!! 2) The worst part is, NO JOURNALIST, NO MATTER HOW DIFFERENT THEY ARE, CAN GET A QUOTE/UNQUOTE DIFFERENTLY!!!! What a cock-n-bull story!!! I have a better explanation for all this, I feel that when God fore-saw the four gospels written identically, he would have realised how boring it would be for us. So he told the HS to allow some interesting variations to creep in… just to keep us excited!!
Infact, Luke 1:1-3, shatters the Holy Spirit dictationship myth..! In vr 1 he claims that many have written the gospel. Please note that he does not discredit them. Infact, he goes on to add that what the “many” had written were “most surely believed” by the apostles (read the verse carefully). In vr 2 he says that the “eyewitnesses”, who also ministered the word, passed on these “many” writings. In vr 3, he says he was also encouraged to write, “in order”, “all things” that he had “perfectly understood” “from the very beginning” …!!!!! I get a feeling that when Luke started writing, the Holy Spirit would have gone on vacation. Seriously! He had already worked with “many” people to write the gospel and here is a gentile who was not an eyewitness nor a disciple of one, venturing to write the same story all over again…!! “Give me a break”, the HS would have said!!! Luke here is destroying the all-Scripture-God-inspired myth, when he says that he is venturing to write a) what he has heard from the eyewitnesses, b) read from their accounts, and c) which he has set in order according to his “perfect” understanding (leaving no room for any outside help)!!!! I am really ashamed at the stupid defences that people like Josh McDowell, Ravi Zac, etc., bring out in support of such discrepancies! No wonder why learned men seldom accept the gospel that is preached..!!! It sounds so childishly silly.
Neither God in the OT nor Jesus in the NT mentions about any additions to the Scriptures. When you read the Bible you can see that the NT writers wrote the gospels and the letters to individuals or specific groups for their consumption and it was read by those who received them – as normal letters were read. The only claim of the NT as ‘scripture’ comes from within itself – 2Pe 3:16. Which, if carefully studied, contradicts 2Ti 3:16! Paul talks about “All” Scripture that is already given (at the time of his writing), which is good enough to make the man of God perfect (and you don’t need to add to perfectness, do you?!). What “holy Scriptures” do you think he is referring to in vr 15 that Timothy’s mother and grandmother taught him (2Ti 1:5) as a child? The proof of credibility of the NT should come not from within itself, but from what was already there. Otherwise it would mean that if someone were to write a book and claim in it that it was a part of the scripture and add it to the rest of the Bible, we then have no option but to just accept it!
The Jews never claim inerrancy of the written word (even of the Torah) and so they do not have a problem accepting that there are post-Moses additions to it. We think that our OT of the Bible and the Jewish Scriptures are the same. The fact is that the books are the same but there are differences in the usages and crucial words. A Jewish Rabbi tells me that the KJV OT is the closest translation to the Jewish Bible, but even that is influenced heavily by a Christianised Messianic outlook.
What has the NT done?
1) It contradicts God’s words: When God says in the OT “there is NO ONE else”, Jesus says in the NT “believe ALSO in me”.
2) It glorifies what God abhors: God says in the OT that human sacrifice is an abomination to him, but the NT not only glorifies it but holds God responsible for the most popular one in human history!
3) It belittles what God esteems: When God himself is proud of the Law He gave to Israel to keep them perpetually and counts them to be a privileged group for having it, the NT counts it a curse.
4) It is confuses the wit out: There are 100s of denominational splits based on the interpretations of the NT doctrines. Most of the differences are still unsolved. There are hardly any based on the OT.
5) It leads to a guilt-ridden life: It claims that man is born in sin and is prone to sin all his present life. It says that apart from the free gift of forgiveness, man on his own is incapable to please God. While, the God of OT expects man to please Him with their good intent and deed!
4) The Great I AM
One of the many proofs of Jesus’ divinity is his use of God’s name “I am”… (another stupid logic that I felt so bad about, even as a youngster)!!! Jesus once said “before Abraham was, I am”. “I” is ego and “am” is aimi which means I exist or I have been. Jesus was trying to tell his listeners that he started existing before Abraham. He could have said “before Abraham was, I was”, but that would mean that he is no more now. So to convey that he was there before Abraham was and he still is, Jesus was only using the best available grammar. Even otherwise, Jesus only used 1/3rd of the name of God. He just used “I am” from “I am that I am”. With that logic, Paul should be more of God than Jesus because in 1Cor 15:10, he says: “I am what I am”… Here he uses the complete phrase; only one alphabet is different; and the meaning is almost the same!!! Step aside Jesus, Paul is a bigger God than you!!
What makes it more stupefying is the fact that the place where God is said to be revealing his name to Moses is grossly misunderstood. If you read carefully you will be zapped. Moses asks God what he should say when he goes to the Israelites and tells them that the “The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you” and they ask him “what is his name?” God replies to Moses saying “I am that I am” – hayah asher hayah – which means, I exist because I exist. In other words “go tell them that I am the self-existent one. I don’t need a name”…! Just a small example: say I had many children and they were all playing outside except one who was at home and as the sun was setting I tell the one at home to go tell his brothers that daddy is calling. If he was to ask me “Daddy, what if they ask me what your name is?” and I with a smile on my face tell him “just tell, daddy told”, would that mean my name is “Mr Just Tell Daddy Told”???!!! How much brains do you need to immediately say “no”?!
So, did God not reveal His name to Moses? If you read further (Ex 3:15), you can see God saying “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you THIS is my name for ever”. “This”, not “that”! This, what I said just now is my name. That, what I said then, is what I am. Moses, please don’t get confused….!!! Imagine, if someone were stop me on the road and ask me “what is your name?” and I, not able to hear properly, ask back “What did you ask?” And if that person were to say: “Oh! Glad to meet you Mr What-did-you-ask!”, how ridiculous would that be? Imagine further, if the same person were to ask the same question to my son and he not able to hear properly ask back “what?” and the man exclaims: “Oh! So you and your father are one!”, how extremely ridiculous would that be, too, right? “I AM” is not a part of God’s name… I AM sorry! Really, I AM!!
5) Yehovah and His God-heads
It is very interesting to note that OT nowhere talks about any God-heads but the one Yahweh God. It does not talk about a God-Son or a God-Spirit who are different in everything and yet one in everyway. According to the NT, Psalm 110 is a prophecy about Jesus. If you read the background you can understand that it was infact a Psalm written by David for the coronation ceremony of his son Solomon as the king and was used for similar ceremonies thereafter. In vr 1 David says: “The Lord (Yehovah – self existent) says to my lord (adon – ruler, owner)”. The word adon is the same used by Sarah to address Abraham in Ge 18:12. Where does the second person in Trinity (who is the same as the first person in the Trinity but different), fit in here?
If you say that David is referring to the second person in Trinity with the second “Lord” (adon), as his Lord, then the question that begs to be asked is was the first “Lord” (Yehovah) not David’s Lord? If both Yehovah and adon were the same then how come one is David’s Lord and the other is not? And if both the Lords were David’s Lords, because they both were one, then why does David only call one of them his “Lord”? Did he not understand Trinity? (Probably not, because it was not taught in his times)!! The basic problem with all major Christian teachings is the inability of Bible-teaching westerners to properly understand and thus interpret eastern cultures and lifestyles on which the Bible is based. They could not fathom that a king can be called “god”, or a master, “father”.
Let me draw your attention to a seemingly unharmful but very dynamic verse: Isa 44:6 – Thus saith the LORD (yehôvâh), the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside* Me there is no God (‘ĕlôhı̂ym). *(a part of; from or out of, among, because of, by reason of, through, with). Here we see yehôvâh categorically claiming that there is no ‘ĕlôhı̂ym (the part of Trinity where Jesus was supposed to fit in) before Him, after Him, because of Him, by the reason of Him, through Him or WITH HIM..!! As if He foresaw the “begotten son” claims that were to come!
A Question that begs to be Asked :-
Heb 12:2 – Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Being seated at the right hand is a symbolic place of highest honour given by a greater authority. So when the Bible says that Christ was seated at the right hand of God then won’t it put a glorified Christ below in the hierarchy with God as he is seated at God’s right hand? What really needs to be asked is “where is the Holy Spirit seated?” Don’t tell me that he is seated on the left hand of God, because if being seated on the right hand is the highest honour one can give to another then being seated on the left hand would be a lesser honour. Thus the HS should be considered lower than Jesus in hierarchy..!! But why this disparity in equality??!!
6) Sinless – Lion of Judah – Born of a Virgin
The “virgin birth” is supposed to be one of the greatest prophetic fulfilments of Jesus the Messiah. It was meant to be a sign to mankind. But…, apart from the fact that the verse taken from Isaiah, to claim the virgin birth prophecy, is a shining example of ridiculous misinterpretations, how could Mary’s virginity during her delivery ever be a sign to any other human being on earth?! Even her mother would have doubted her chastity, once she became pregnant..!! What a nonsense sign that turned out to be – a sign that no one could see!! A sign that backfired so badly that Mary was considered adulterous and Jesus – a bastard!! I guess it would have been wiser on God’s part to have let Jesus be born through Zacharias and Elizabeth (who were also righteous and blameless before Him), and let John be born through Mary….! Or, did Gabriel get it botched up?!
So, was Jesus born sinless because a man’s sperm was not used? (If Mary was righteous enough to bear a sinless child, and her cousin Elizabeth and her husband Zacharias be righteous and blameless enough to be considered so by God, what then was the need for crucifixion, in the first place?)!! But, if Mary’s ovum was used by the Holy Spirit to form Jesus the embryo and if this embryo-Jesus did ‘feed’ on his mother Mary through the umbilical cord, if he did suck from Mary’s breasts as a new-born baby and if any part of Mary’s DNA was passed onto this baby Jesus… then how could he be sinless? Otherwise, Mary, her parents and her whole lineage should have been born sinless…! If we consider that Mary’s ovum was not used but she only carried God’s embryo in her womb and that the child was not connected to Mary in anyway and did not even suck her breasts, then how can he ever be David’s son without any human connection to David??
Did you know that according to the Jewish custom, a child inherits a tribe only through his father? By being born to a Jewish mother one only becomes a Jew, but he belongs to a tribe only through his father!! So, if Jesus had to be from the tribe of Judah, he had to have a biological father from that tribe. (Legal fatherhood is only for human ‘consumption’). Which means, if a Jewish woman, say from the tribe of Levi, gives birth out of wedlock to a child whose father is from the tribe of Benjamin, but is legally adopted by her husband who is from the tribe of Judah, the child will be considered by others as part of the tribe of Judah, but only as long as his biological father is not known (spl during those days when ‘actuality’ superseded ‘legality’). But as far as God is concerned, since he knows from the beginning who his biological father is, the child will not be considered by Him as from the tribe of Judah…!! So Mary’s tribal root is not enough to connect Jesus to the tribe of Judah.
God very specifically claims in the OT that a descendent from the line of David will sit on the throne of David to rule the world…!!! Ps 2:12 – “Kiss the Son”. The Hebrew word used here for “son” is bar which means “heir to the throne”. (In vr 7 the Lord tells David “You are my Son”. The word used there is bane which means son of a father). So the warning given in vr 10 to kings and rulers is to “serve the Lord with fear” and to kiss the heir to the throne of the king installed on Zion (vr 6). The chapter ends by saying that blessed are those who take refuge in this heir to the throne. When God says that the anointed one will be from the tribe of Judah, then he should be born of the sperm of a human male from that tribe. Otherwise, what God said would turn out to be meaningless. Since only biological sons are legal heirs to their father’s throne and since Jesus does not have a paternal biological descent from David (in anyway), we could conclude that he is NOT the future heir to David’s throne!!
So, is Jesus not the Messiah? The word mashı̂yach (Messiah) means – an anointed person or a consecrated person: like a king (I Sam 26:11) or a priest (Lev 4:3). God through his prophets, anointed kings, priests and others from time to time for certain tasks. Jesus cannot be an anointed one because, as God, he did not need to be “set apart” for any task! We should keep in mind that “mashach” – the process of anointing – was introduced by God as a sign to reveal His approval to man (anointer, ‘anointee’ and witnesses)!! As we see in 1Sam 16:1, God had already chosen David to be the king, but anointing was done in the presence of his family (vr13). God considered it as a formal commissioning because He filled David with His Spirit from that day on. So God the Son being anointed to reign on David’s throne will be like the owner of a company writing an appointment letter for himself – with his seal and signature!!!
A classical representation of misinterpretations is the prophecy of Messiah in Gen 3:15 – “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. It is said that the woman’s seed mentioned here is in singular hence it refers to Jesus the Messiah. RUBBISH! The “seed” – zera – is always used in ‘singular’, ex: Ge 13:16. Well… (I have had lots of ‘fun’ asking this to others): IF GOD HERE IS REFERRING TO JESUS AS EVE’S SEED, THEN WHO IS THE SEED OF THE SERPENT THAT HE IS REFERRING TO? (If you are at home, please feel free to scratch your head)!! It is very clear from Ge 3: 14 – (thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go) that God was cursing a real snake that belonged to the animal kingdom. So, contextually, when God says “thy seed” to the snake, he should be referring to real (animal) snakes. If, for the sake of argument, we consider that God was referring to satan and Jesus, then the ‘prophecy’ was not fulfilled. Jesus underachieved it as he could not even scratch satan’s head, while satan exceeded his brief as he actually bruised Jesus from head to toe!!
Greco + Romo = Christo:
Isn’t it interesting that the Jews were greatly impacted by 150yrs of Greek occupation! Hellenistic Judaism is an offshoot of the Greek impact. The Jews were subject to various occupations and exiles (some lasting few centuries) but no exile has made such a great impact on them. The Hebrew Scripture was said to be translated into Greek to help the Jewish population that had forgotten their language. When you consider the fact that the Vedas did not have to be translated into English to help the Indians who had forgotten their mother tongue during their 400yrs of British occupation, you can understand that there is more to it “than meets the eye”! You can see that it was all a part of a ‘greater’ plan. Alexander the Great was convinced that the Greek culture was the one force that could unify the world (the motivation behind his unbelievable conquest spree). So he made sure that Greek language and philosophy were accepted by everyone – including the Jews. And if you ever thought that Greek influence died out a little after Alexander, then you are wrong, becauseit is very much alive and kicking!!!
If we look around we can see Christian countries aggressively imposing western philosophies on the world through democratic governance, modern education, religious teachings and (even) sporting activities. This led me to search forthe origin of this western philosophy. If we study about it we can understand that it is an off-shoot of Greek and Roman philosophies.Socrates, Plato and Aristotle – three great philosophers the world has ever known – were Greek. They are credited with having laid the foundations of Western philosophy and science! According to GREEK PHILOSOPHY of the origin of universe, Chaos (a body that contains all elements of nature) produced Gaea (earth), which inturn produced Uranus (heaven) and later married each other. Through their union came Cronos (Saturn) who married his sister Rhea (?) and Zues was their child. Chaos in English means confusion or disorder (it has its origin from the Greek word khaos, which means void or nothingness). It’s no small surprise thus that Georges Lemaître, the man who proposed what is now known as “the Big Bang theory”, was a Roman Catholic priest and a professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain! He had his early education at a Jesuit secondary school and studied civil engineering at the Catholic University! Galileo Galilei – an Italian physicist, mathematician and astronomer; who is known as the father of modern astronomy and science and played a major role in the Scientific Revolution – was a Roman Catholic. Albert Einstein who came from a non-observant Jewish family attended a Catholic school!
FORMAL EDUCATION existed in ancient times in Greece, Rome, India and China. During the Middle Ages, the monasteries of the Catholic Churches in Europe were the centres of education and literacy. Prior to their formal establishment, many medieval universities were run for hundreds of years as Christian monastic schools (Scholae monasticae), in which monks taught classes; evidence of these dates back to the early 6th century. The current system of education, with its western style and content, was introduced and spread around by the British.
Though a wide range of SPORTING ACTIVITIES were already established in China, Egypt and Persia, even as early as 2000BC, it was the Greeks who organised and regulated it by creating the Olympic Games. The origin of these Olympics is shrouded in mystery and legend. One of the most popular myths identifies Heracles and his father Zeus as the progenitors of the Games. The Olympics were of fundamental religious importance, featuring sporting events alongside ritual sacrifices. For the ancient Greeks, fire had divine connotations—it was thought to have been stolen from the gods by Prometheus. During the Olympic Games, which honoured Zeus, additional fires were lit at his temple and that of his wife, Hera. The modern Olympic flame is ignited at the site where the temple of Hera used to stand . Eleven women, representing the Vestal Virgins, perform a ceremony in which the torch is kindled by the light of the Sun, its rays concentrated by a parabolic mirror. The first Olympics was conducted in the honour of Zeus. Pelops, a divine hero and mythical king of Olympia is also honoured. Olympia, the site where the Olympic Games in classical times were held, dating back to 776 BC, is also a temple sanctuary of ancient Greece. Enclosed within the sacred enclosure are the Temple of Hera and Temple of Zeus, and the area of the altar, where sacrifices were made.
Believe it or not, even the concept of a DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE has its formal origins in Ancient Greece. The term Democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The Greek city state of Athens, led by Cleisthenes, established what is generally held as the first democracy in 507 BCE. And who is pushing hard for this Greek-invented form of government? Christians! You can see the ‘connect’ now, don’t you?! If you think that this western philosophy is doing the world a world of good, then take a 2nd thought. Take a look at every country that is christian-dominated, western-educated and democratically governed – countries like UK, USA and Australia – and compare their prevalent moral and social values with that of the Muslim countries. Look at the cities of India that are influenced by the western philosophies and compare its values with that of villages and towns not influenced by them. (Please note that we have to measure the values on the basis of the scriptures given by God). This philosophy is made to turn man against God!
I am glad that God is initially sending His messiah to take control of the earth and to rule it! Because, if He were to come to this earth in a human form, He would immediately be arrested, tried and hanged by the International Court of Justice, for the atrocities He has committed against mankind in human right violations, war crimes and abuse of power!!!! Take a look at His record: He initiated brutal, inhuman capital punishment even for petty offences; he encouraged slavery; He tolerated polygamy; He ordered ethnic cleansing which resulted in the killing of thousands of innocent women and children; His commandments were pro-men and against equality of women (ex: test of virginity not for men); He propagated animal sacrifice and allowed the killing of millions of animals; He has threatened to kill everyone who does not follow his commands by some ‘weapons’ of mass destruction…!! In light of the modern, western philosophy that governs the world today, Jehovah God appears to be worse than Hitler, Saddam or even W Bush! God needs to be hanged – send Him down here, ye angels!!
When Rome took control of Greece they adopted their gods and gave them Latin names. They also created a few myths of their own including The Founding of Rome. In ROMAN RELIGION the worship of the Greek sun god Helios was converted into the cult of Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun). The worship of Sol as special protector of the emperors and of the empire remained the chief imperial religion until it was incorporated into Christianity. Some early Christian writers connected the sun to the birth of Jesus, which they believe was prophesied in Malachi 4:2 as the “Sun of Righteousness.” It is believed that the date of December 25th for Christmas was selected in order to correspond with the Roman festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti – the birthday of the unconquered sun. “O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born…Christ should be born”, wrote Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage.
The fusion of Greek, Roman and Palestinian communities, under the secure Roman rule, formed the background for the new era of Christendom. The widespread adoption of Christianity helped in popularizing the Greek and Roman myths. From the early years of Renaissance, artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael, portrayed the Pagan subjects of Greek mythology alongside more conventional Christian themes. Through the medium of Latin and the works of Ovid, Greek myth influenced medieval and Renaissance poets such as Petrarch, Boccaccio and Dante in Italy. The acceptance of Christianity enabled the Romans to take hold of the majority middle-class, thus enabling them to further their theme of universality (Catholicism).
(Pic 1): The Lament for Icarus by Herbert James Draper, 1898. Compare both the above pics: note the head fallen to the right, bent legs, cloth around the groin, hand of the woman beneath the upper torso, tending females, etc. Both are ‘fallen’ sons of gods – one is Greek and the other Roman!!
The link between modern Roman Catholicism and Greek beliefs is evident in a few symbols:
The symbol X with a P placed in its centre is derived from the first two Greek words for Christ (Christos), Chi – X and Rho – P. These are the letters that supposedly appeared to Emperor Constantine after which he made Christianity the official religion of Rome.
IXOYE is an abbreviation of the Greek words Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter (Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour). It’s pronounced as “ickthoos” and they are similar to the Greek word for “fish”, which went on to become a popular Christianity symbol, probably 2nd only to the cross.
Thus, the most famous Christian symbol – the Cross – has a Roman connect; while the second most famous Christian symbol – the Fish – has a Greek connect!! Interesting?!
It is disturbingly evident that Protestant Christianity, as an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Christianity, is only another extension of the clever combination of Greek mythologies, Eastern mysticism and Judaism, designed to lead mankind away from the only, true Yahweh God, and his ordinances and promises (More about it in my next article: Gentiles to Jehovah)! The similarities between the two are very overwhelming! And the differences that are there in basic teachings like salvation through faith, priesthood of all, etc., is outside the purview of Jehovah’s precepts. It’s frightening to realise that these daughter-in-laws of God are in effect worshipping:-
1) the Sun god on Sundays :
Nimrod Ra – Egyptian Helios – Greek Roman Sun god Christ-ian god
The worship of the sun god can be traced all the way back from Catholic Christianity to Nimrod via Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Babylonians. Nimrod, who was the great grandson of Noah rebelled against Jehovah God and probably initiated the building of the Tower of Babel. After his death he was worshipped as the sun god. The rebellion that he started continued down the ages through various religious practices and philosophical teachings. In the year 46 BC, Roman Emperor Julius Caesar incorporated pagan days into his Julian Calendar. In 325 AD the Roman Empire changed the day of Christian worship to Sunday – the day Egyptian sun god was worshiped. In 1582 AD, Pope Gregory XIII made slight changes to the Julian Calendar and named it the Georgian Calendar. It then went on to become the common world calendar with the help of the British.
The Colossus of Rhodes was a statue of the Greek Sun god HELIOS, erected in the city of Rhodes on the Greek island of Rhodes by Chares of Lindos between 292 and 280 BC. It is considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.
Statue of Liberty: The design, posture and dimensions of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor are based on what the Colossus was thought by engineers in the late 19th century to have looked like. There is a famous reference to the Colossus in the sonnet “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus, written in 1883 and inscribed on a plaque located inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
The connect between the ancient statue of Helios in Rhodes Island and the Statue of Liberty in the US is interesting. When you consider the fact that it is this Greek god Helios look-alike structure that reminds Americans of “liberty”, “equal rights”, etc., we can trail the source of these new-age thoughts that have given the world one of the most shattered societies ever – the world capital of modern immorality!
2) God Janus on January 1st ‘midnight’:
The earliest recorded New Year celebrations comes from the ancient Babylonians. The practice of New Year’s resolutions has also been traced to the ancient Babylonians. It is the Romans who began the practice of beginning the year with January 1. This happened somewhere during the 2nd BC, when Jan and Feb were included to the otherwise 10 month long calendar year that started with March.
Janus Bifrons (Vatican Museum)
In ancient Roman religion and mythology, Janus is the god of beginnings and transitions. He is the two-faced god who looks to the future and the past. The Romans dedicated the month of January to Janus. It is perplexing to see even Protestant Christians sit through the past and the future on the night of Dec 31/Jan 1…! Blind to the philosophy behind it?
3) and, above all, Jesus of the NT (who is an adaption of Zeus, the chief of Greek gods!):
Zeus (Greek) Jupiter (Roman) Jesus (Christian) (Museo Pio-Clementino), Vatican. (Roman King of gods) (St Peter’s Basilica, Vatican)
It may be more than just a coincidence that the name “Jesus” resembles “Zeus”, the chief of the Olympian gods. What explanation can be given to the bust of Zeus being erected in a museum in Vatican?! The Roman equivalent to Zeus is god Jupiter. He was endowed with all the noblest elements in human character. He ruled the affairs of men with fatherly benevolence. He rewarded goodness, punished the wicked, and was withal the fountain-head of justice. By a nod of his head he made known his will, and there was no appeal from his decrees – a la Jehovah! During the time of the Greek rule over the Jews, between 330 BC – 166 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes dedicated the temple at Jerusalem to Zues. Thus it is possible that “Jesus” was a Greek attempt to make Jewish inroads.
With all the facts that are available with us we can conclude that Christ and Christianity were an invention of the Greeks (Acts 11:26 – And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch – a Greek city – not Jerusalem). It was later adopted by the Romans who mixed Babylonian and Egyptian paganism to it and made it popular. More recently, the British took its “side-shoots”- Protestant Christianity – out of the European “closet” and spread it through the world. The NT Christ and his teachings are profound and popular, no doubt. Turn the other cheek; walk the extra mile, do unto others what you want others to do to you, etc. are unique and great. But great philosophies cannot reciprocate God or stand between Him and His plans (and remember, other religions too have great teachings that has influenced the society. Like Buddhism). WE HAVE BEEN HANDED DOWN THE LEGACY OF NIMROD. INFACT, ALL RELIGIONS LEAD TO NIMROD – NOT ROME!
When God has set certain perpetual standards that He said He would only change after a certain time (and that time is yet to come), why would I want to believe someone who claims to have come to change it before-time? When provisions for forgiveness of sins and eternal life are already set in place by God Himself, why should I unnecessarily follow a new and different system? God says: LOOK UNTO ME, AND BE YE SAVED, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH; FOR I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE (Isa 45:22). If you ask me, when the Owner of the Company himself has given me the appointment letter, why should I run behind his son?! Huh??
Just like how you would not wish to continue living in a house – inspite of how Beautiful or Big it is – if its Foundations are Found to be False, I find it difficult to believe or follow any teaching or practice that – inspite of how Popular or Pious it is – puts down or resists the scrutiny of its basic source or its foundational truths and tries to defend itself by its own claims.All those who do not wish to be rudely awakened by reality to Face the Fierceness of Facts should continue slumbering in their Faith Fiefdoms.
Others… wake up!