Strange claims....

[DylanO]

I was reading a forum earlier and I found these statements (from a neo-pagan) in regards to Christianity. Are there any refutations of this guy’s claims?

• The story of Mary’s visitation is similar to the story of the Sons of God (angels) who impregnated the daughters of men and gave birth to the “Men of Renown” (titans) which caused the great catastrophe as punishment (flood) listed in Genesis. I do not believe in any “virgin” birth and the OT reference was erroneously translated from alma (“young woman”) to virgin to give credence to this claim. At the very least Mary would have claimed divine impregnation due to the fact that sex & pregnancy out of wedlock was a major transgression which more than likely would have the penalty of death, probably stoning. Either way, this Jesus character would not have been any holy offspring by the OT Israelite standards. However in most Pagan religions a demigod born of divine beings would have a great following!!! The only other explanation would be artificial insemination by Extraterrestrial which would have been viewed as “angels” coming from the heavens by most primitive cultures.

• The only thing that gnaws at me is to separate the wheat from the chaff and get to the truth of the matter.

• the sons of god are angels (messengers) and as powerful as they may be they are not to be worshiped, only thanked for their service. The worship of Jesus (I am the Morningstar - Rev.) sounds awfully similar to the Lucifer (light bearer - Venus/Morningstar) fallen angel story of the chief angel (son of god) exalting himself as high as the chief deity Yahweh and demanding to be worshiped as him. This story is found in masonic lure and outside of the standard canon. The OT reference is another erroneous misinterpretation of a king of the earth that went bad, nor the angel Lucifer.

 

[dacoobob]

I was reading a forum earlier and I found these statements (from a neo-pagan) in regards to Christianity. Are there any refutations of this guy’s claims?

I’d be inclined to go with a snort and a dismissive chuckle, maybe with a bit of patronizing head-shaking. The statement “The only thing that gnaws at me is to separate the wheat from the chaff and get to the truth of the matter” shows that this person a priori assumes that the Christian narrative is false/misleading. I think there’s no reason to respect this person’s spurious narrative any more than they do your ancient and revealed one. But then I’m a fairly frank (read: rude) person.

 

[DylanO]

Well, I find the alien and Annunaki claims are easy to shug off because of the absurdity.

But, I was hoping someone could shed a little light on his second claim (i.e. Morning Star, Lucifer, etc.)

 

[dacoobob]

Well, I find the alien and Annunaki claims are easy to shug off because of the absurdity.

But, I was hoping someone could shed a little light on his second claim (i.e. Morning Star, Lucifer, etc.)

I’m afraid I’ve never heard such a thing before; I mentally filed it with the alien abduction stuff. Sorry.

 

[Tom]

I was reading a forum earlier and I found these statements (from a neo-pagan) in regards to Christianity. Are there any refutations of this guy’s claims?

Christianity doesn’t come from neo-paganism, it’s the other way around. God let His people know about how He was going to introduce His Son long before it occurred. People simply wanted it to happen too much, they were mistaken (pagans) in prior civilizations and faiths that He had arrived.

 

[Tom]

The story of Mary’s visitation is similar to the story of the Sons of God (angels) who impregnated the daughters of men and gave birth to the “Men of Renown” (titans) which caused the great catastrophe as punishment (flood) listed in Genesis.

? What?

I do not believe in any “virgin” birth and the OT reference was erroneously translated from alma (“young woman”) to virgin to give credence to this claim.

I’ve heard the young woman argument and it makes absolutely no sense. Scripture says this is to be a “great sign”, so, if they actually meant young woman, where’s the great sign in that? Don’t young women get pregnant every day? It’s an absurd argument. “I’m going to give you a great sign, a young woman will get pregnant!” Wow, I sure believe!!! They are desperate!
On a similar thought, many claim this pagan origin because of the virgin birth stories. I have a real question for them. If God does exist, and He were to tell His people, from the very beginning, how He was going to introduce His son, why would it change? I mean the referenced parts of the OT were written over 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus. Do you imagine God waited until then (700 b.c.) to tell His people? Wouldn’t God have let His people know thousands of years before? When God told of the virgin birth, through the prophets, people wanted it to happen “NOW”! Go figure! So the fact that there were stories of virgin births prior to Jesus strengthens the belief that He is the Son of God, it doesn’t weaken it!

 

[DylanO]

Thanks for the replies everyone but, I’m wondering if anyone can counter this specific claim, what I guess this guy is trying to say is that “Jesus is Lucifer” or some bizarre claim like that:

• the sons of god are angels (messengers) and as powerful as they may be they are not to be worshiped, only thanked for their service. The worship of Jesus (I am the Morningstar - Rev.) sounds awfully similar to the Lucifer (light bearer - Venus/Morningstar) fallen angel story of the chief angel (son of god) exalting himself as high as the chief deity Yahweh and demanding to be worshiped as him. This story is found in masonic lure and outside of the standard canon. The OT reference is another erroneous misinterpretation of a king of the earth that went bad, nor the angel Lucifer.

 

[Joyful_1]

In Genesis God told Moses through the burning bush that His name was “Yahweh” or “I AM”. This was a powerful word. The Jews were very careful not to use this word when speaking for fear of using it in vain or profaning it.

In the Garden of Gethsemene, when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, He said, “Whom do you seek?”
They said,“Jesus of Nazareth.”
He said,“I AM (Yahweh)” and they fell back!
Clearly when He said that word it had power. If anyone else were to say it in reference to themselves it would be powerless because we are mere creatures - just as angels are. But when God says it, it has power. It is no longer just “I am” but “I AM”- the name of God and not a creature. Jesus was more than an angel. He was God. He said,“I and the Father are One.”

God Bless
Joyful_1

 

[Tom]

Thanks for the replies everyone but, I’m wondering if anyone can counter this specific claim, what I guess this guy is trying to say is that “Jesus is Lucifer” or some bizarre claim like that:

You are correct it is a bizarre claim. Why would a Christian need to defend a teaching from an unknown Masonic lore source?? He is making a false statement, and then basing the next statement on his false statement. He is saying Jesus is simply an angel, not the Son of God. It’s false. Where does he find reference to Lucifer being referred to as the “Son of God”? Is that in this strange Masonic lore or his own imagination?

 

[DylanO]

You are correct it is a bizarre claim. Why would a Christian need to defend a teaching from an unknown Masonic lore source?? He is making a false statement, and then basing the next statement on his false statement. He is saying Jesus is simply an angel, not the Son of God. It’s false. Where does he find reference to Lucifer being referred to as the “Son of God”? Is that in this strange Masonic lore or his own imagination?

What I think he is saying is that Lucifer who is represented by planet Venus is the morning star and that Jesus says in Revelation 22:16, “I, Jesus,have sent my angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star.” I think that is what he is getting at.

 

[Tom]

Lucifer who is represented by planet Venus.

To whom?