"Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit....." (John 1:47-50)

When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit."
"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."
Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel."
Jesus said, "You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that."(John 1:47-50)

Was Jesus the 'king of Israel'?

the word "king" here is translated from the Greek word βασιλεύς (basileus). According to Strong's lexicon, this word can mean "leader of the people," or "prince," or "commander," or "lord of the land." It can also mean "king."

Obviously, Jesus was not a king in the common sense of the word. Jesus held no legal governmental authority that could have attributed the word "king" to him.

The word “king” here is thus a mistranslation. The better translation is “leader,” as taken from the lexicon. This would fit the circumstances of the situation and the English language.

Interestingly, the word "Israel" here may not mean a region or country as it does today. This Hebrew word means, literally, "he shall be a prince of God." This name was given by God to Jacob, and it is assumed that this is a character identifier rather than a common name.

While "leader of Israel" is an appropriate translation, one could certainly make the case that what Nathaniel was describing Jesus as also representing the lineage of Israel - referring to those who love and serve God.

What does 'Son of God' mean?

Now let's consider Nathanael's statement regarding being the Son of God, and then afterward, Jesus' own use of the word "son" in the context of "Son of Man":

Here the Greek word that has been translated to “son” is υἱός (huios). This may indicate a relationship of offspring in the limited sense of the physical body, but it is more appropriately defined, as taken from the Greek lexicon, to mean "one who depends on another or is his follower."

Furthermore, the Greek word that has been translated to "man" is ἀνθρώπου, which can mean "man" but can also mean "humankind," "people" or "humanity."

Thus, within the context of the self-reference of υἱὸς τοῦ [of] ἀνθρώπου, the more appropriate translation would be something like:

"servant of humanity" or "servant of the people"

We find this alternative use for the word "son" throughout the scriptures For example, we see this use of the word "son" as follower or servant in this text spoken by Eli to his student, Samuel:

“My son,” Eli said, “I did not call; go back and lie down.” (1 Samuel 3:6)

"Son" is also the wrong translation used in connection with υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ or "Son of God." Let's consider how the term "Son of God" is used in the larger context:

...the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:2)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.(Genesis 6:3-5)

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Jesus, Matthew 5:8-10)

...because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Romans 8:13-15)

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. (Romans 8:18-20)

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:25-27)

We can see by these statements that the use of the "Son of God" is much broader than simply Jesus being the only Son of God. We are certainly seeing this among Jesus' disciples as well.

Are we saying that God can only have one son? Are we saying that God is now impotent since He had His one son and no one else?

Certainly, this is ridiculous. God has innumerable children. He has directly created each of us. It is not as if, as the politically-driven Synod of Nicea - assembled by emperor Constantine in the fourth century as part of his effort to control Europe and the middle east through the control of the Christian church - Jesus is the only begotten Son of God while we are all indirect sons of God. This is preposterous. We are all children of God.

Rather, as we can see from the use of the phrase "sons of God" in the texts above, the word "son" was used to signify a loving servant of God: Someone who has, out of freedom of choice and love, given their life to God. The "Son of God" is someone who has dedicated their life to God.

While we find many references to "Son of God" in the Bible that many sectarian teachings have singled out Jesus as the only Son of God.

In reality, this reference is describing a particular role or position, not one single person. When the prophets in the Old Testament refer to a coming "Son of God" they are referring to someone who will take on the role of loving servant of God and become God's representative.

This might be compared to the word "ambassador." While we might refer to someone in particular as "ambassador," we will also refer to the duties of a person in that role in general. A person might say, "the ambassador will represent the president of the United States and all of the people of the United States." This would be a correct statement that could be applied to a particular person who is currently holding that office, as well as any other future person who may hold that office in the future.

But if someone says, "there will only be one ambassador," well that is another story altogether. What about those who served as ambassadors of the U.S. before this particular ambassador? How about those who will succeed the ambassador currently holding office?

This is the same misconstruction that has happened within the sectarian world. Because of a combination of two things:

1) The desire of emperors, popes and bishops (and other sect and church leaders) to control the people and thus declare that Jesus was the only Son of God (i.e., if there were others, they would lose their control)

2) Those not becoming servants of God themselves. Because they did not follow Jesus and surrender their lives to God and become the loving servants of God, they instead took on this falsehood of just proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God and then supposedly being saved by Jesus (salvationism - a selfish desire that has nothing to do with serving God).

We can see this also in Acts, where Jesus is described as God's servant, yet it is translated to "Son of God" in the King James version. In the New International Version, it has been translated correctly:

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus. (Acts 3:13)

Here the Greek παῖς or ‘pais’ better translates to "servant" than "son."

The combination of these two elements has created this misconstruction of the notion of Jesus as the only Son of God. In fact, we are talking about Jesus being the loving servant of God. And as he says above in Matthew 5:8-10, we can all become sons of God simply by following Jesus' instructions, the first and most important being:

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:37-38)

What is a better word instead of son then?

When most people hear the word "son" they conjure up a male offspring. Sometimes a supervisor or older person might also greet a younger man as "son." But this is quite rare compared to the typical application of the word "son" in modern English.

From a spiritual context, this creates quite a bit of confusion because a son is typically a physical offspring. When we try to apply this term applied to the physical body to a spiritual context things get confusing.

Now let's consider the true meaning of the words being translated to "son" in 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man.' What the heck is a "Son of Man"? Does this make any sense?

Remember the translation of υἱός (huios) to "follower" or "loving servant." This also applies to the meaning of “Son of Man.” The use of "man" is not a single "man" here. It is not one man, but men in general. In other words, mankind, or humanity.

Here Jesus is describing himself as a “servant of mankind” or a servant of humanity. In other words, he feels that he has come to serve people by bringing them the teachings of God. This is certainly the highest service, as Jesus is practicing the second greatest commandment:

"And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matt. 22:39)

The reason the second command is like the first is that once a person loves God, they will automatically love all of God's children. It is automatic. They will instantly feel saddened by the state of existence that some of God's children are in as they (we) are ignoring God and not loving God. Thus, the loving servant of God will work to deliver the message of love of God to all of God's children.

What is 'heaven and earth opening' mean?

Consider Jesus’ next statement. Jesus predicts that they will see heaven opening, and angels ascending and descending on the servant of humanity. What is Jesus saying here?

Jesus is saying that he will be teaching them about God, and those teachings will open the gates of heaven to those men (the translation from Greek refers to a plural “you”) who accept the guidance of God's representative.

Should they follow the teachings of God's representative(s), they will guide them back home to the kingdom of God. Notice that some of the angels are "descending." Why?

These are God's representatives - angels - who are being sent down to earth to teach us about God. It isn't that God is losing some angels and gaining others. They are coming and going because God is sending them and bringing them back. It is a passageway, that allows God's messengers to descend to the earth, and bring others back home, back to God's kingdom. And why are they on the "backs of the Son of God?"

It is because as these angels descend from God's kingdom to bring us back, they become loving servants of humanity. They bring God's message to us as a gift. And the message: If we also become God's loving servants (sons of God) we will be happy, and will return to our eternal loving relationship with God.


*Here is the translation of these verses from the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

Jesus saw Nathanael coming towards him, and said of him, “Truly, an Israelite in whom there is no deceitfulness.” Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathanael answered and said to him, “Rabbi, you are the Representative of God; you are the leader of Israel.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I saw you under the fig tree, you are believing? You will see greater things than this.” (John 1:47-50)

"You are Israel's teacher, and do you not understand these things?" (John 3:10-15)

"I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man [or man who is in heaven]. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” (John 3:10-15)

What did Nicodemous ask?

Here Jesus is responding to Nicodemus the rabbi's continued questions. After Jesus’ previous statement (see previous entry), Nicodemus asks:

“How can this be?” (John 3:9)

This prompts Jesus to question how it is that Nicodemus is a Jewish teacher, and he cannot discern between matter and spirit — one of the basics of spiritual life (as Jesus had spoken of earlier). Did the Jewish teachings not teach about the spiritual world and the difference between the spiritual world and the physical world?

Then Jesus comments that even though authorized teachers and prophets in the line of David, including John the Baptist, taught about the dimension they know — heaven, or the spiritual world — people (such as Nicodemus) do not believe them.

Even as they try to teach about the spiritual world from the perspective of the physical material world, the people still do not believe their teachings. Jesus presents that one cannot know about heaven (the spiritual world) unless he has entered the spiritual world and can thus speak about it from experience. One cannot speak about the spiritual dimension with authority unless they have been there, in other words.

What does 'Son of Man' mean?

The next sentence has often been misinterpreted. "Son of Man" is often confused to mean an exclusive position. This would mean that no one except for Jesus has ever been in heaven. If we believe this interpretation, this means that all of the other prophets and saints through the years never went to heaven: Only Jesus has been there. This is a nonsensical position, yet this is the interpretation that the sectarian preachers, ministers and priests would have us believe.*

Furthermore, the Greek word translated to “son” is υἱός (huios). This can indicate a relationship of offspring in the context of a physical family, but in this context, it is more appropriately defined in the Greek lexicon, as "one who depends on another or is his follower."

"Man" is being translated from the Greek word, ἀνθρώπου, which can mean "man" but can also mean "mankind," "people" or "humanity."

Thus, within the context of the self-reference of υἱὸς τοῦ [of] ἀνθρώπου, the more appropriate translation* would be "servant of humanity" or "servant of the people."

This is why God called Ezekiel "Son of Man" ["servant of humanity"] more than 60 times, and why he also called Daniel "Son of Man."

Accordingly, Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man" with a humble reference. We can also see this humble self-identification in David's referral to himself as a Son of Man:

"O Lord, what is man that you care for him, the Son of Man that you think of him?" (Psalm 144:3)

The reason professional sectarian teachers want to describe Jesus as the only person who's been to heaven is that they - ironically as Jesus also describes here - are not speaking from a position of being from the spiritual world. Their interpretations are coming from those whose eyes and hearts only see the physical world.

The appropriate translation* of υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, rather than "Son of Man" would thus be "servant of humanity," or servant of the people.

Is Jesus the only spiritual teacher?

Many sectarian institutions have put forth the premise that Jesus is the only bonafide spiritual teacher. Is it true?

This is precisely the intention of the Council of Nicaea in Constantinople of the fourth century, organized by King Constantine. And his purpose? To organize the Christian churches and their various teachers into one church so it could be controlled politically. Why? So that Constantine could maintain control over Europe. He understood that by controlling the teachings of the most popular religion, he could control the population.

So the council organized what is referred to as the Nicene Creed. This creed was a sectarian interpretation of the scriptures imposed upon the Christian world by a body of political appointees from various churches, gathered under the command of Emperor Constantine. This turned the teachings of Jesus into a political tool to exert power over people. It had nothing to do with the truth.

This goes against everything Jesus and all his disciples taught. If Jesus was the only teacher then why did Jesus send out his disciples to teach to others? They must also be teachers if they were teaching.

And those who teach on behalf of sectarian institutions today are also assuming the role of teacher. Even if they proclaim that Jesus is the only teacher, they are teaching that. Therefore it would be a hypocrisy to teach that Jesus is the only teacher.

Jesus also quoted the teachings of the Prophets before him. This confirms that Jesus accepted the Prophets teachings. Part of the purpose of the Bible is to chronicle the teachings of the Prophets. They taught that to realize God, one must humbly approach God in prayer, and hear from those teachers who are representing God. They taught that one's relationship with God is a personal one, not one of an organization of men. Love of God cannot be enforced by a political group.

The knowledge of God does not come from an electorate: It comes from one's personal communion with God, and God hands this knowledge down through His loving servants - those prophets and teachers such as Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jesus and so many others.

All of these teachers were individuals teaching a personal message. They were not political assemblies of men. God's representatives are individuals, not political groups with ulterior motives.

For this same reason, all political assemblies of men, be they made up of cardinals, bishops, deacons or whatever, do not represent God. They are councils of men and/or women who seek to sustain the organization they represent. Their conclusions, voted on just as a legal bill might be voted on, do not represent the will of God. Their conclusions represent the political will of that group.

What is the Council of Nicaea?

Therefore, we cannot accept the conclusions of the Council of Nicaea. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. created seven creeds. The next council, fifty years later, further embellished upon these with nine creeds. They defined who Jesus was, how Mary fit in, and the relationship between Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost.

These nine creeds have since become the pillars of the interpretation of the scriptures by sectarians around the world. And the teachings of practically every preacher, reverend, priest or pope of today's sectarian organizations all teach these misinterpretations of Jesus' teachings.

Anyway, the translation to “Son of Man” simply makes no sense. What the heck is a “Son of Man”? Isn't every male a son of a man? Furthermore, the sectarian explanation of this does not make practical sense either.

This translation as "servant of humanity" is consistent when applied to other mistranslations of "Son of Man" throughout the Bible, in addition to David's self-reference quoted above:

"...how much less man, who is but a maggot— a Son of Man, who is only a worm!" [Job, humbly referring to himself] (Job 25:5-6)

"He said to me, "Son of Man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you." " [Ezekiel referring to God calling upon him] (Ezekiel 2:1-3)

"He said: "Son of Man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against Me to this very day."(Ezekiel 2:2-4)

"He then said to me: "Son of Man, go now to the house of Israel and speak My words to them."(Ezekiel 3:3-5)

(God refers to Ezekiel as the "Son of Man" over 60 times)

"As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of Man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end." " (Daniel 8:16-18)

Certainly, these indicate that υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου does not refer to the exclusive position of Jesus. "Servant of humanity" is the only logical translation of υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Thus, Jesus and other prophets such as David and Ezekiel could refer to themselves as “servants of humanity” because they were devoted to helping others return home to God. And this, of course, is why God referred to Ezekiel as a "servant of humanity."

So when Jesus makes these statements about the servant of humanity, he is speaking in a general way. Note how he refers to the servant of humanity in the third person. Why wouldn’t he just say “me” or “I” if it were all about him? No, he is speaking in general about how loving servants of humanity descend from the spiritual world to bring others back home to God. This is a selfless mission - one that requires the loving servants of God to make many sacrifices in their service.

So why was Jesus bringing up the concept of being "lifted up" within the context of the rabbi not understanding the spiritual world and the difference between the physical world?

The concept of “must be lifted up” describes the sacrificing of one's physical life in the service of God, the departure of the spiritual individual from the physical body, and the resulting ascension (or return) of God's loving servant to the spiritual world.

This is what Jesus did. He sacrificed his physical body as part of his loving service to God and humanity, illustrated his identity as spirit to his disciples, and then ascended into the spiritual world to return to God.

Why the sacrifice? Was it so that people could stare at the cross every Sunday and be relieved of their sins so they could return to their selfish lives on Monday free of the consequences of their actions? Certainly not.

When people do not believe someone, radical action must sometimes be taken to illustrate the seriousness of the issue. In Jesus' case, teaching the Truth required significant sacrifice to illustrate just how important our relationship with God truly is. This is, in fact, the reason for Jesus' sacrifice: To illustrate the importance of our relationship with God.

Isn't that what any sacrifice says?

Consider an army soldier who gives his life to his country in a battle. What is this sacrifice saying? It is saying that the soldier considers his country more important than his own life.

In the same way, Jesus' sacrifice is saying that he considered God, and the teachings of God, more important than his own physical life.

Note also that Jesus was not the only representative of God that sacrificed his life in his service to God. Jesus' own teacher, John the Baptist, also sacrificed his life on behalf of his teachings and service to God. He was beheaded by Herod, after being jailed. In addition, many of Jesus' disciples were also tortured on behalf of their teachings and service to the Supreme Being.

This is the ultimate service to God, and to humankind.

It is not, as terrorists would imagine, murdering innocent people while committing suicide. Jesus did not commit suicide and neither did his teacher John the Baptist or many of Jesus' disciples. They were murdered by those who could not tolerate someone teaching love of God.

Some might ask: Why did God let Jesus be murdered then?

This scenario would essentially remove the freedom of those who murdered Jesus from rebelling against the Supreme Being. To do so would be to also remove their freedom to decide to love God.

In other words, the Supreme Being give each of us the freedom to love Him or not - which requires the freedom for us to also act against His will and thus act in a self-centered fashion.

This does not mean that God has lost control. It simply means that God allows us to exercise freedom within a virtual reality - this temporary physical plane of existence.

Should a person understand the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice, and see the purpose of life is to serve and please God, that person will have, as Jesus puts it here, "eternal life." What is “eternal life?” Eternal life is returning home to God in the spiritual world: A place without birth, disease, old age and death. Life in the physical world is temporary. Life in the spiritual world is eternal.

Eternal life is also where relationships are eternal. Our physical relationships with friends, family and spouse, are all temporary. They end when the body dies. The relationships of the spiritual world - ones centered around loving God and loving His children - are eternal. They do not end when the body dies.

And being "saved" is not a condition of being cleansed of sins: It is a change of heart. It is the change from a selfish consciousness to the consciousness of love for God and His children. This is the consciousness of those within the spiritual world.

*Here is the translation of these verses from the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel and do you not understand these things? Truly I say to you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you do not accept my testimony. If I speak of worldly matters and you do not trust me, how will you trust me when I speak of spiritual matters? No one ascends to the spiritual realm unless he descends from the spiritual realm as the Servant of Humanity. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Servant of Humanity be honored, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life.” (John 3:10-15)**

**There is considerable evidence from earlier texts that Jesus' statement ended at John 3:15, and the verses later numbered as John 3:16-21 were added in as commentary by later translators. It is for this reason that a number of translations, including this one, end Jesus' quote at John 3:15.

"And He has given him authority to judge ..." (John 5:27)

"And He has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." (John 5:27)

Is Jesus saying that God gave him the ultimate authority to judge?

Just as was misinterpreted in John 5:22, Jesus is not speaking about becoming the judge. He is speaking about being given the ability to select those who will receive his teachings. This becomes evident as we understand the original Greek texts:

δίδωμι (didōmi): According to the lexicon, this means to "bestow a gift upon another." Jesus is clearly saying that God has bestowed a gift upon Jesus. This was confirmed also in Jesus' previous statement. In other words, whatever powers Jesus has, they are bestowed upon him by the Supreme Being. Jesus is not claiming it isn't his own power, then. It is God's power, granted (δίδωμι ) to Jesus.

ἐξουσία (exousia): According to the lexicon this word means, "power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases; a) leave or permission." This means Jesus is saying that God has given him a particular type of freedom. What kind of freedom?

ποιέω (poieō): According to the lexicon: "to make; a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc." In other words, Jesus has been given the freedom to make or produce something.

κρίσις (krisis): According to the lexicon: "a separating, sundering, separation; selection." This indicates Jesus is being given the ability by God to make a choice or a selection.

What is this freedom to choose or select in the context of this statement? Before this statement, Jesus said:

"For as the Creator has life in Himself, so He grants His Representative life in Himself." (John 5:26)

In this context, Jesus is stating that the Supreme Being has given him the ability to select others to whom he passes on God's Message - which gives life.

And what is that message?

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matt. 22:37-38)

What is a 'son of man'?

The next phrase from Jesus' statement above, "because he is the son of man." makes no sense without an accurate translation* of Jesus' words into English. What is a "son of man" and why does that render him the ability to be granted this power of selection by God? Isn't every male a son of a man?

In other words, "son of man" is not the proper translation of υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου:

υἱός (huios) may be translated to "son" if the context were a father and son relationship known in families of the physical body. However, its alternative meaning from the Greek lexicon, and one better applied in this context, is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." And what is a follower or someone who depends upon another? This is a loving servant.

ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) has the following definition in the Greek lexicon: "1) a human being, whether male or female; a) generically, to include all human individuals." Since Jesus is not talking about a physical relationship of being a son of a particular man, we must use the alternate translation from the lexicon, "generically, to include all human individuals." In other words, humanity.

So where does this leave us with the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (τοῦ means "of")?

In this context, it is more appropriately translated to:

"servant of humanity" or "servant of the people."

How does that apply to Jesus' statement?

Jesus is stating that he has been bestowed by God the freedom to select others who will receive God's Message. This is because Jesus is the servant of humanity. Jesus' teachings are a service not only to God. They are a service to humankind. His life and his teachings served humanity because they gave us an understanding of God. And the ability to know how to return to God.

And because Jesus' purpose was in the service of humanity, God gave him certain freedoms to select others to pass this message to - who then, assuming God empowered them as well - would be able to pass this Message onto still others.

Consider an analogy. Let's say that you were a baseball coach who had a passion for teaching kids to play baseball. Because of that passion, over the years you were able to train many baseball teams to become champions. Based on this passion, a major league baseball team owner decides that he wants you to be the head coach of his major league baseball team.

When the coach gives you this position, he also gives you the freedom to select the players and also field the players the way you would like. So you make your selections and you train your players accordingly. Now the owner of the team has the right at any time to fire you. He also has the right to select whatever players he wants, and pay them whatever he wants. But he gives you certain freedoms because he trusts you and your judgment of players.

In the same way that Jesus made his statement, you, the new head coach could say: "The baseball team owner has granted me the ability to select and field my players as I wish, because I have a passion and skill for training baseball players." This statement makes sense because the authority given was based on the original passion and skill.

In the same way, God granted Jesus the ability to pick certain students to whom he gave God's Message, so they could also establish their own relationship of loving service with God. This was granted by God because Jesus had a sincere love for others. He saw himself as not only God's loving servant but also as a servant of humanity.

Thus we can more appropriately translate this verse to something like:

"And He has given him authority to select because he is the servant of humanity." (John 5:27)

Why is Jesus speaking in the third person?

Notice also in Jesus' statement his third-person reference to himself. Was this a figure of speech not to refer to himself directly with "I" and "me"? Who talks like this?

For example, if a pilot was telling the passengers on an airplane that he is the pilot and will be flying the plane, would he say, "He is the pilot and the pilot will be flying the plane"? Such a statement would confuse the passengers. They would be looking for someone else besides the person who was speaking.

In the same way, if Jesus was speaking in the third person, then this would be confusing if what he was saying was solely his authority. In other words, Jesus is clearly stating that this authority is not solely his. Otherwise, he would have said, "And He has given me authority ..."

This is because Jesus is conveying that this empowerment and authority given by God is given to all of those loving servants who God empowers to represent Him.

This same authority was given to Moses, Abraham, Job, David, Solomon, Eli, Jeremiah, Jonah, John the Baptist and so many others (often referred to as "prophets") who were sent by God to bring us back to Him.

Jesus' indirect reference would be akin to a Lieutenant in the military saying something like: "The lieutenant is given his orders and authority by the general." In this way, the lieutenant is not only referring to himself. He is referring to everyone who takes on the position of being lieutenant. And like it, Jesus is referring to those who are empowered by God to be His representatives and messengers.

The erroneous interpretation of this verse has been made by those who have sought to portray Jesus as God and/or the only path to salvation. This interpretation began only a few generations after Jesus' passing for the purpose of organizing the Christian religion.

The Roman government transformed the Christian teachings into a political organization wielding power and influence throughout the Middle East, the Mediterranean, Europe and other regions.

This led to Constantine's Council of Nicea in the Fourth Century - where what we know today as the Bible was assembled and translated by scribes selected through a political process. During this process and thereafter, the Creed of Nicea was determined. And the official bishops of the church were politically appointed by the council to carry out the creed in their teachings. This political process of appointment by council continues to this day in most ecclesiastical churches.

This has nothing to do with Jesus' teachings. It has nothing to do with representing God or being authorized by and empowered by God to teach. And those who maintain this process are simply engaged in political positions oriented around securing the goals of their politically oriented sectarian organizations.

Didn't Jesus criticize sectarian institutions?

Remember that Jesus complained about similar political organizations among the institutional temples of his time. He wanted nothing to do with the organized politics surrounding the institutional temples. They were governed by politically appointed high priests, Sadducees and Pharisees - who he characterized as wolves in sheep's clothing.

It is ironic and offensive to Jesus that some of his so-called followers have done the very same thing, and to this day maintain the various politically-assembled Christian churches and sects headed by professional teachers and administrators elected by councils of peers.

The interpretation that this indicates Jesus was God is ludicrous. God is never given authority by someone else, as Jesus is clearly indicating the authority was given to Jesus. God always has always been God and He is never given authority.

And Jesus is God's servant and messenger, and those who misinterpret this statement simply do not know God. This is why Jesus said:

"They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me." (John 15:21)

 

*Here is the translation of this verse according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

"And He entrusts him with the authority to choose because he is the Servant of Humanity." (John 5:27)

“Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life ...” (John 6:26-27)

The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus. When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (John 6:26-27)

What is 'the food that endures'?

Here Jesus is pleading with those who are following him to not focus on the temporary things of this physical world, but rather, focus on the Supreme Being, and trust that he is God's representative.

The "food that endures" is none other than our relationship with the Supreme Being. This "endures" - from the Greek word μένω (menō), which means "to remain" or "to survive - because it is not of this temporary physical world. Our relationship with the Supreme Being is transcendental to this temporary physical body and this fleeting physical world. Our relationship with the Supreme Being is eternal.

The things of this world are fleeting because they rust, corrode, whither and degrade. Nothing is permanent here. And at some point, our body dies, and we depart our bodies, leaving everything behind.

Jesus is requesting that his students and followers focus their attention on their spiritual lives. The spiritual dimension does not whither or degrade. The spiritual world is the permanent world. This physical world is a temporary, virtual world.

In other words, this physical world is like a facade or perverted reflection of the spiritual realm. It is like looking at a pond's reflection of a tree on the other side of the pond. 

Just consider such a reflection of a tree on a lake. Does the reflection look like the tree? Yes, But is it the tree? No. It's just a reflection of the real tree on the other side of the lake.

Furthermore, such a reflection on the lake is upside down, with the leaves at the bottom.

This is much like the difference between the physical and the spiritual realm. All life comes from the spiritual realm - and each of us is from the spiritual realm. But since we are animating these physical bodies, life is only portrayed proximally within the physical world.

One might compare this to a movie set. The movie set is not permanent, nor is it real in that it is just made up to make the movie look like it is real. The movie set might look like a real-life scene but it is not. It is a facade of a real-life scene.

The physical world is acted out by temporary physical bodies - each driven by a spiritual individual. Just as a person sits down inside a car and drives the car away, each of us (spiritual individuals) is driving a temporary physical body. Once the car has reached its destination (or breaks down) the driver steps out of the car and walks away. The physical body provides the same facility. The spiritual individual steps into the body and drives it for 60-90 years, and then it dies, and the spiritual individual must then move on.

Jesus is representing the permanent spiritual realm - the realm where love of God is the ongoing environment. This is why Jesus also stated that he was the bread of life.

What is 'eternal life'?

Each of us is a spirit, not a physical body. And eternal life takes place in the spiritual dimension. The spiritual world is the dimension where God dwells personally, surrounded by innumerable loving servants who share relationships of love and loving service with Him. Out of love, they tend to His needs, play with Him and care for Him. They also care and tend to each other in love. The spiritual world is the place where love rules. It is the place we all aspire for. It is a place where there is no hatred. It is a place where there is no envy. A place where there is complete harmony. This is the place many (such as John Lennon) often imagine and hope the physical world could be.

But these imaginings always fail, because the physical world is the place where the envious, selfish beings dwell. The physical world is like the prison of the spiritual world. It is the place where those who cannot function in the spiritual world go, because we have become envious of God, and desire not to love and serve God and others. Rather, we prefer to serve ourselves, and strive to achieve self-satisfaction (which never comes, because we are innately servants, not masters).

The only way we could create such a “heaven on earth” that we strive for would be if we were to transform the consciousness of every resident of the earth to the consciousness of those in the spiritual world. This is in fact what Jesus is asking. He is asking us to return home to God, by first changing our consciousness. He is asking us to focus on God and His permanent world, rather than this temporary physical world.

What is God's 'seal of approval'?

In his statement, Jesus also indicates clearly his God-given authority. He says, "For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." What does this mean?

Jesus is explaining that God empowered him to be God’s representative and guide people back home to God.

He states: "On him God the Father has placed His seal of approval.” How much clearer can this be? He is clearly showing that he and God are distinct individuals. In order for someone to place their “seal of approval” on someone else, there must be two distinct individuals. For one individual to approve another individual, there must be one person who approves, and another person who is approved.

It is not as if Jesus is the Supreme Being and God needs to create a fake approval process to boost Himself. God does not need anyone's seal of approval. But Jesus is clearly illustrating that he has received such a seal of approval - as he has been empowered by the Supreme Being to deliver God’s message to these people.

And the "oneness" that Jesus once indicated between himself and God is their unity of purpose: Jesus does God's will, so there is a oneness of purpose. God has given Jesus His “seal of approval” because Jesus is carrying out God's will. This means that Jesus' teachings and activities represent the wishes of the Supreme Being. Jesus said this specifically:

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of Him who sent me." (John 6:38)

and

"My teaching is not my own. It comes from the One who sent me." (John 7:16)

With Jesus' statement above, he is also indicating that he is empowered to deliver people back to God ("give you"). And how does Jesus give them the "food that endures to eternal life"?

By his teachings. If they (and we) listen to and apply Jesus' teachings, they (and we) can receive what he gives, and be saved.

Jesus is serving God and serving humanity, in other words. This is actually what "Son of Man" means. The Greek word that has been translated to “son” is υἱός (huios). υἱός can indicate a relationship of offspring in the context of a physical family, but in this context, it is more appropriately defined, from the Greek lexicon, as "one who depends on another or is his follower." Thus, the correct translation of υἱός in this context is "servant" and ἄνθρωπος means "humanity," so the most appropriate translation is not "son of man." The more appropriate translation would be "Servant of Humanity" or "Servant of the People."

Being saved is not an automatic process by which we simply say "I surrender to Jesus" and then we are saved. It is not as if Jesus' "dying" on the cross automatically saves anyone. We must apply Jesus' teachings. It is following Jesus' teachings that saves us. And what was his primary teaching?

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.” (Matt. 22:37-38)

*Here is the translation of these verses according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

“Very truly I say to you, you seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Servant of Humanity will give you. For on him the Creator, God, has authorized.” (John 6:26-27)

"... but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." (John 6:53-59)

"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." (John 6:53-59) 

Are they supposed to literally eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood?

Jesus is not speaking of people literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Such an interpretation - made by many - is grotesque. Such an interpretation is inaccurate and unrealistic.

Here Jesus continues with the metaphorical use of bread and eating, which also completely confused many of the institutional temple priests who had assembled to hear him in a synagogue in Capernaum. This is evidenced in the previous verse:

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52)

This illustrates that Jesus, who was teaching in a synagogue as would a Rabbi of those times, was using an analogy that many in his audience did not understand. In John 6:44-51, Jesus describes that the loving servant of God supplies the "food" that ultimately satisfies the spirit-person (each of us). Was Jesus speaking of physical food? No.

Was Jesus speaking literally?

Jesus clearly differentiated from physical food by saying that this "bread of life" enables one to live forever. Yet the crowd did not understand. In fact, John describes that many of Jesus’ disciples left him during this sermon, saying:

“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:60)

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:66)

Just as he was not talking about physical food, Jesus was not talking about people actually eating the flesh of his physical body. He was not talking about people drinking the blood of his physical body. Just as he used the bread symbolically as an analogy, his is using his flesh and blood symbolically. Jesus certainly was not promoting cannibalism.

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." (John 6:63)

What does 'eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood' symbolize?

"Flesh" symbolized Jesus' teachings, and "blood" symbolizes his relationship with God. 

The word "flesh" is being translated from the Greek word σάρξ (sarx), which can mean "flesh" but also, according to Strong's lexicon, "as the symbol of what is external." Jesus assumed a physical body of flesh in order to give us his teachings. These are the external elements of Jesus.

"Blood" is being translated from the Greek word αἷμα (haima). This can mean blood when used literally, but when used metaphorically, can mean "the seat of life" as this is what blood was considered back then. Jesus is thus referring to his essence - the core of his being, which is his relationship with God.

Jesus' used his life to serve God. He also taught others to love and serve God. This was his primary mission. Therefore, to be taking Jesus' teachings to heart and following them would mean that one would also begin loving and serving God. 

By loving and serving God, we are partaking of the spiritual food Jesus is speaking of, and his very being, because Jesus' mission and purpose was to turn lovers of mammon to lovers of God.

As for "son of man," remember that the Greek word translated to “son” is υἱός (huios). This is more appropriately defined, as taken from the Greek lexicon, to be "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower."Thusυἱόςwould be moreappropriatelytranslated as loving servant.

Thus with the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, Jesus is referring to himself as the servant of humanity, becauseτοῦ ἀνθρώπου is translated to either "of man" or "of mankind" or "of humanity."

To describe oneself as the "servant of humanity"is a humble self-description, consistent with Jesus' other teachings, such as when he washed the feet of his disciples and told them:

"Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant"(Mark 10:43)

Thus we know that Jesus felt himself to be the servant of others, as he gave them God's message.

This self-description is consistent with other servants of God also describing themselves (or God referring to them) as "servant of humanity," (mistranslated as "son of man"). Consider David's statement to God about himself:

"O Lord, what is man that you care for him, the son of man [servant of humanity] that you think of him?" (Psalms 144:3)

While creative and speculative ecclesiastical commentators on the Bible say that David is referring to Jesus, this would be wholly inconsistent with the text before and after this statement. David was communing with and praising God, while discussing his relationship with God.

Furthermore, God called Ezekiel the "son of man" [servant of humanity] at least 60 times in the Book of Ezekiel. Job also referred to himself as a "son of man" [servant of humanity].

The loving servant of God is also the servant of all of humanity because his mission is to deliver God’s message, which, if heard clearly, serves to deliver us back to our original relationship with God.

What is the 'bread that came down from heaven'?

Jesus is referring back to his statement in John 6:32.

"This is the bread that came down from heaven" because Jesus has humbly surrendered his life to God, and is enjoying a loving relationship with God. This relationship with God is "bread" or "food" because this sustains him.

If we assimilate Jesus' devotion by reading and carefully reviewing his teachings and doing our best to establish our own loving service relationship with God, we would effectively be 'consuming' this "bread that came down from heaven."

This is speaking of spiritual consumption - the understanding of those teachings and the acceptance and following of those teachings.

The key part of Jesus' statement illustrating this analogy is:

“Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”

What do sending and feeding have in common? The "bread of life" that Jesus is delivering is the teachings of God’s message. Hearing those teachings, and following in Jesus’ footsteps by devoting our life to God is the feeding.And what is the substance of the core teaching and example of Jesus?

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment."(Matt. 22:37-38)

And finally, how does this relate to: "and I will raise him up on the last day"? Does this relate to some far off day in the future where the world will end and Jesus will come down riding a big horse to round up all those who are waiting (some for thousands of years apparently)? This "world is coming to an end" thesis has been proposed and abused by ecclesiastical sectarian teachers for centuries. Quite simply, this is a misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings.

What does 'the last day' mean?

"The last day" is quite simply the day that each of our bodies dies and we each leave our body. We each will have a unique last day as our physical body dies. On this day, we are torn away from our family, our possessions, our reputation, and all our plans.

Also on this day our next destination is determined. If we have continued to live lives of self-centeredness, focused upon our own pleasure, we will not be raised up by Jesus. We will remain in this hellish physical world, away from God.

If, however, we take the teachings of Jesus into our hearts, and learn to love and serve the Supreme Being as Jesus taught and showed us, then yes, Jesus will raise us and escort us back to the spiritual dimension after the death of our physical body.

This is what is meant by "will live forever."

"The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing ..." (John 6:61-65)

"Does this offend you? What if you see the son of man ascend to where he was before! The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:61-65)

Does this define Jesus' use of 'flesh' and 'blood'?

Here Jesus confirms that in his last statement (John 6:53-59) he was not speaking of eating physical bread or consuming his physical flesh or blood - here or during the last supper.

Those in the crowd who were confused by that analogy and deserted Jesus as disciples did so because they could not understand the most basic of Jesus’ teachings: That we are each spiritual individuals temporarily occupying a physical body. This is why Jesus said:

"The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (John 6:62-64)

This confusion between matter and spirit is the reason some institutions and their teachers have misinterpreted and confused so many statements of Jesus. They also misconstrue the understanding of the resurrection (of both Jesus and others), the "last day," and "judgment day."

They mistakenly interpret "last day" to be the end of the world. They also state that during this end-of-the-world scenario, everyone who has ever died in the past will be judged.

This interpretation, of course, creates the problem of where are all the people who have died throughout time? To this problem, some institutions have created the speculative notion that everyone who dies before the "last day" must wait around in some kind of "purgatory" state until the end of the world.

Is there a purgatory?

Is purgatory mentioned in the Bible? No. This proposition was created by Church teachers to fill the gaps in their interpretations of Jesus' life and teachings.

Such a proposition would mean that billions upon billions of souls - every human who has lived on the planet - are crowded into this imaginary place, just waiting for Jesus to return to the earth.

And just where is this place?

If it is on earth why haven't we seen it or otherwise heard from all these souls awaiting Jesus' return?

And if it isn't on the earth, then why would they all need to wait for Jesus to return to the earth?

What are the 'last day' and 'Judgment day'?

Some interpretations regarding the "last day" and "judgment day" are based upon the false notion that we are these physical bodies. As a result of this basic misunderstanding, those interpretations have confused many of Jesus’ teachings almost in their entirety.

The understanding of our identity is the most basic and fundamental understanding we need to have in spiritual life. If spiritual life were a college degree, understanding our identity would be called “Reality 101.”

We are not these physical bodies. Our physical bodies are like automobiles. Just as we step into a car and drive it for a while, then stop the car and get out, the spiritual individual – each of us – enters a temporary physical body and drives it around for a while, and then leaves it at the time of death.

The personality of the body – the person making the decisions – is the spiritual individual. This spiritual individual dwells on a plane of the eternal. Each of us is eternal. When the temporary physical body dies, the spiritual individual leaves it and moves on.

At the end of the lifetime of this body, if the spiritual individual - the spirit-person - has not prepared himself to return to his relationship with the Supreme Being, the spirit-person will continue to dwell on the platform of the physical world within another temporary physical body.

Jesus is describing the method the spiritual individual can use to return to God’s spiritual kingdom. This requires the spirit-person to accept as a guide - the devoted loving servant and representative of God.

Should that spirit-person take God's representative's teachings into his heart and follow them with humility and devotion, God's representative will effectively deliver the spirit-person back to God by virtue of helping them develop their own relationship with God. This is the pathway for returning to the Supreme Being, and Jesus is discussing this pathway in his teachings.

Is Jesus God's only messenger?

This does not mean, as many have construed, that Jesus was the only representative of God who has ever offered a pathway back to God. Otherwise, are we saying that all those billions of people born into physical bodies before Jesus had no path back to God?

Furthermore, if Jesus is God's only representative after Jesus left the planet, then why have there been so many of Jesus' disciples, popes, priests, and reverends over the centuries since Jesus left the planet that has been teaching among the various churches and synagogues? Are they not claiming to represent God? Have they not been trying to teach us about God?

Such a scenario (that Jesus was God's only representative) would be grossly unfair to those who lived before or after Jesus. Such a thesis would unfairly give those who were able to experience Jesus' life personally when he was here on the planet a greater opportunity for salvation.

Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, David, John the Baptist and many other loving servants of the Supreme Being were also empowered by the Supreme Being. They also had the ability to deliver those around them - who were suffering within temporary physical bodies - back to their relationship with God - including those of Jesus’ disciples who followed in Jesus’ footsteps.

Yes, those disciples such as Peter and James were directly empowered by Jesus and God to represent God as they taught others to love and serve the Supreme Being.

Why else would Jesus have commanded his disciples and students to go out and teach? If Jesus was the only person who could deliver people, then his disciples, and those many prophets before him and after him including John the Baptist, would have been teaching in vain. Why would they teach if they couldn’t deliver anyone?

It is this very problem that has produced the confusion and even at times the outright editing of the Bible texts in an attempt to portray John the Baptist, David, Moses and so many other prophets (teachers) as having the sole purpose of merely foretelling Jesus' arrival.

This began when Paul created his own interpretation about Jesus even though he had never listened to Jesus' teachings. It is claimed that he had a vision of Jesus even though Paul does not admit this.

Paul created an interpretation that Jesus died for all our sins and all we have to do is accept that fact. This is something that Jesus never taught.

Why would Jesus even spend time teaching if all he had to do was die and everyone would be saved?

Paul argued against Peter and James as he tried to spread his new interpretation of Jesus' teachings. He argued that Jesus' teachings had to be modified in order to bring in the 'gentiles' (or 'pagans' which refers to atheists that did not accept the existence of the Supreme Being).

This 'Pauline theology' effectively strangled the true teachings of Jesus as Jesus' own disciples were trying to spread - the teachings of love of God.

But the Romans effectively rubberstamped the Pauline theology and that's why nearly half the New Testament is made up of Paul's letters and life. 

Jesus' own teachings were passing on the teachings of the Prophets such as Moses, Abraham, David and Isaiah. This is why Jesus constantly quoted those Prophets' teachings.

If Jesus was the only messenger then why did Jesus quote the teachings of the Prophets? Why was Jesus' "greatest commandment" (to love God) a quote from Moses in Deuteronomy 6:5?

Because Jesus wasn't the only messenger of God. He truly was God's messenger. And he was truly the greatest messenger of God. But he was not the only messenger.

The fallacy of this teaching is quite easy to see. How so? Consider the purposeless of these prophets, if all their work preaching to people was only to foretell of Jesus' coming centuries and even in some cases, thousands of years into the future. What good would that do to the people they were teaching to that Jesus would come a thousand years later and save all of humankind?

Does Jesus have to come again to save us?

Is the Supreme Being so limited that He cannot empower others besides Jesus to represent Him? Is God so limited that people can only be saved if Jesus returns? What about all those billions of people who lived and died after Jesus left the planet during the 20 centuries between his departure and today?

This misinterpretation of scripture is an offense against the Supreme Being, along with the many Prophets the Bible describes. All of them were sent by the Supreme Being to bring the people of their particular time and society back to their loving relationship with God. This is why Moses instructed:

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deut. 6:5)

Why would Moses try to teach those around him to develop their loving relationship with the Supreme Being if they were all supposed to wait around for thousands of years for Jesus to come? It absolutely makes no sense.

The reality is that Moses, like the other prophets, and Jesus too, were each dispatched by the Supreme Being to canvas those around them at their particular time and place in time, to return back home to their loving relationship with God. This is why Jesus repeated Moses' instruction:

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' (Matt. 22:37)

and followed that with:

"This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:38)

The gross misinterpretations laid out above stem from those who seek to control God's message rather than pass it on. We can see that Jesus had no problem passing on the instructions of Moses without changing their meaning. But those institutions that have over the past 1,800 years been using Jesus' teachings for political purposes. So they have changed the meaning and intent of his teachings.

Is 'Son of God' a mistranslation?*

Jesus is not speaking of himself as the only person in history that could bring people back to God. In fact, this is why Jesus often spoke of the "Son of God" in the third person. He was speaking of these as roles, much as a person might refer to the role of a captain or a lieutenant.

Yes, "Son of God" is a mistranslation if we take it literally (physically). The word "son" is translated from the Greek word υἱός (huios). The translation to "son" according to the lexicon is "restricted" to offspring of a physical family. Rather, the word υἱός (huios) is also "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower."

Since Jesus was not referring to a physical family relationship here - rather a spiritual relationship - the appropriate translation would be "devoted follower of God" or "loving servant of God."

Therefore, "son of man" is also a mistranslation. Such a phrase has absolutely no meaning. Every male on this planet is a son of a man. Therefore "son of man" is a meaningless description for a person of Jesus' stature. (Others, such as Job, David and Ezekiel were also referred to with the same syntax "son of man" in the texts of the Bible.)

The correct translation of the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου given the lexicon as stated above, would be "servant of humanity." The Greek phrase τοῦ ἀνθρώπου can be translated to either "of man" or "of mankind" or "of humanity" or of the people

Therefore the Greek phrase υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου would mean that Jesus is referring to himself as the servant of humanity or the servant of the people. This, after all, is consistent with the other teachings of Jesus, namely the need for humility in spiritual life. Remember what Jesus said as he washed his disciples' feet:

“Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)

Yes, at times Jesus did refer specifically to himself within these roles - as loving servant of God and servant of humanity. But he is speaking to a particular audience, and telling this audience that he is the bona fide representative of God in their midst - as opposed to the institutional temple teachers of Jesus' day who were not truly representing the Supreme Being.

Is the Supreme Being impotent?

He doesn't employ one son or one savior. God has the ability to produce many many many children. Thus, God sends His messengers - his loving servants - to those lost spiritual individuals living in the physical world in every generation in an attempt to bring us back home.

And because each of God's messengers is representing God, their basic teachings must be essentially the same. They speak with one voice. This is why one can also speak of God's representative in the singular. Because it is the Supreme Being who is the ultimate Teacher.

The only way back home is to latch onto the teachings of God's messenger. This is the only way, because the only way to return to God is to re-establish our relationship with the Supreme Being, and God’s loving servants are involved in such a relationship, so they can teach us how to regain our relationship.

In the verse above, Jesus also speaks about ascending "to where he was before." Where is this? This is the spiritual realm. This indicates that Jesus descended from the spiritual realm to bring us home to God's world - the spiritual realm - where "the spirit gives life."

Returning to God and the spiritual realm is not a mechanical thing. It is not as if we can join a club or do some rituals or postures or recite some scriptures or stare at a cross and we automatically return to God. 

We must be invited into an intimate relationship with the Supreme Being by God when we are ready. This comes in the form of receiving guidance from one of His messengers - who has such an intimate relationship.

Then of course we have to then do the work necessary to change our hearts and consciousness from loving ourselves to loving God. It is an exclusive situation because it is all about loving relationships.

The Supreme Being wants us all to return to Him. But we have to make that decision first. Should we make the decision, God will direct us to one of His guides and give us the vision to understand their relationship with God. This is stated clearly by Jesus:

"no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"

 

*Here is the translation of these statements according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

“Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Servant of Humanity ascend to where he was before? It is spirit that gives life; the physical body provides no benefit. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not trust.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who did not believe, and who would turn him over to be persecuted. And he said, “For this reason I have taught you that no one can follow me unless they have been enabled by the Creator.” (John 6:61-65)

"Do you believe in the Son of Man?" (John 9:35)

What does "Son of Man" mean?

Jesus asked this question of the man who was born blind, after he had healed his blindness.

Note that Jesus is speaking in the third person context. This indicates that while he is referring to himself, he isn't referring strictly to himself.

Rather, he is referring to a role rather than exclusively himself. Otherwise, he would have said:

"Do you believe in me?"

But he doesn't. This means this is referring to a role. Just as one might refer to the role of General if they were a General. 

But what is a son of man? Every male is a son of a man. So why would that phrase be a distinction?

The original Greek indicates that "Son of Man" is a mistranslation of the Greek phrase, υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου:

The Greek word, υios can indicate a relationship of offspring within the context of a physical family, but Jesus is not referring to a physical family here. The alternate meaning of υios according to the Greek lexicon is "one who depends on another or is his follower." 

This is the appropriate translation of Jesus' words, and this can be boiled down to the words "follower" "disciple" "servant" or "loving servant" because a servant or loving servant follows the one who is being served.

The Greek word τοῦ indicates possessive, and is most appropriately translated to "of" but it can also mean "to."

The Greek word, ἀνθρώπου, can be translated to "man" as well as "mankind" or "humanity." The latter two are most appropriate within the context of Jesus' statement.

Thus, within the context of this self-reference by Jesus, the more appropriate translation* of this phrase would be servant of humanity. It might also be translated to servant of the people.

What is a Servant of Humanity?

This is most appropriate to Jesus, as he is indicating that he has come as a service to all of humanity. This self-deprecating identification of oneself is consistent with Jesus' activities, as he repeatedly talked about the Supreme Being sending him and being of service to others, and told his disciples that they too would have to serve others in order to be pleasing to Jesus and God:

"Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant." (Mark 10:43)

Jesus also illustrated this sense of service as he washed his disciples' feet. Thus he was illustrating by example the activity of being of service to others.

This self-reference of being a servant of humanity was not exclusive to Jesus. David also made this self-reference, as he said to God in one of his Psalms:

"O Lord, what is man that you care for him, the Son of Man [servant of humanity] that you think of him?" (Psalm 144:3)

Many have attempted to interpret this to mean David is referring to Jesus, but he is obviously speaking humbly of himself, wondering why God would even consider David - a humble servant of humanity.

Job also humbly referred to himself as a servant of humanity when he prayed:

"how much less man, who is but a maggot - a Son of Man [servant of humanity], who is only a worm!" (Job 25:6)

Could Job possibly be referring to Jesus with this statement - portraying Jesus as a maggot or worm? Certainly not. This is Job's humble reference to himself.

God also repeatedly used this phrase to address Ezekial when He appeared before Him to give Him instructions:

"He said to me, "Son of Man [servant of humanity], stand up on your feet and I will speak to you."" (Ezekial 2:1)

and (among others):

"He said: "Son of Man [servant of humanity}, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against Me to this very day." (Ezekial 2:3)

Is this about belief or trust?

According to the translation, Jesus is also asking the formerly blind man if he "believes in" him. This phrase makes it seem that simply believing "in" Jesus is sufficient. However, this is a reach by translators who do not see that Jesus is not representing himself, but is representing God and teaching about the Supreme Being.

The fact is, Jesus was standing in front of the man, so certainly Jesus doesn't have to ask the man if the man believed that Jesus exists (as "believes in" references existence). The real question was whether the man would trust Jesus and believe what Jesus was teaching. We can see this when we translate the Greek phrase appropriately:

The word "believe" here is being translated* from the Greek word πιστεύω which means, according to the Greek lexicon, "to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in."

The word "in" is being derived from the Greek word εἰς, which can be translated to "into, unto, to, towards, for, or among" in the Greek lexicon. It is further understood to refer to a leading or carrying forward of something.

So the correct understanding of Jesus' question to the formerly blind man is not whether he "believes in" Jesus, but whether he is now trusting Jesus. And why would Jesus want the man to trust him? Because Jesus is teaching about God, and wanting those around him to come to love and serve God.

This gives us some context with which to understand how Jesus saw himself and referred to himself. 

He was not trying to promote himself as the Supreme Being or even the exclusive means to reach God. He simply saw himself as God's humble loving servant and a servant of humanity, and wanted us to trust him as he reached out to introduce us to the Supreme Being and ask us to love Him:

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:37-38)

*Here is the translation of Jesus' question according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:

“Do you trust in the Servant of Humanity?” (John 9:35)

"You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." (John 9:37)

Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." (John 9:35-37)

Why is 'believing' in the 'Son of Man' important?

We have discussed the more appropriate translation of  the Greek phrase, υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, translated here to "Son of Man." As documented there, the more appropriate translation is "Servant of Humanity."

Summarizing, the "son" portion "son of God" or "Son of Man" is being translated from the Greek word υiός (huios). υiός can indicate a relationship of offspring in the context of a physical family, but it can also indicate a relationship of servitude. The Greek lexicon's second definition for υiός is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." So in the case of God or humanity, "son" would not be the correct translation of this word - especially in the case of humanity (ἄνθρωπος in Greek - which can mean "man" or "mankind" or "humanity"): There is no practical relationship of "son" when we consider humanity.

It should be noted that the English translation of this verse makes it sound as if Jesus is making a big deal out of the fact that the man is seeing Jesus. However, the Greek phrase καὶ ἑώρακας αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λαλῶν simply means that Jesus was saying that the man was seeing and talking with the person Jesus was referring to in the previous statement (e.g., "I am that person.").

It is not as if Jesus is implying that the man is having some sort of supernatural vision or something. Jesus was physically standing in front of him and was referring to himself as the servant of humanity.

Is this an esteemed role?

Being a servant is typically not considered an esteemed role. But in this case, it is.

The reference invokes the servant of humanity as one who enlightens mankind: He is God's representative. The representative of God is God’s servant and the servant of all humanity because he has come to the earth to deliver God’s message. God’s message saves people, so the servant of humanity is also referred to as “Messiah” or "savior."

Yet at the same time, the role of servant of humanity is a humble, yet esteemed role. It is the role of serving God.

This is why David also referred to himself in the same way (servant of humanity mistranslated to Son of Man) (Psalm 144:3), why God referred to Ezekial in the same way as God was sending Ezekial to teach to the Israelites (Ezekial 2:1 etc.), and why Job also humbly referred to himself in the same way in Job 25:6.

All of these references were mistranslated to "Son of Man," but we can nevertheless understand that none of these, including Jesus, was identifying themselves as the exclusive servant of humanity. As we saw repeatedly in Jesus' teachings - as he quoted scripture, and even his "first and foremost" instruction (to love God) quoted from Moses - Jesus was not creating a new teaching as is often proclaimed by many teachers. He was following in the footsteps of those former teachers (prophets) whom he (and the rest of Jewish society at the time) considered God's representatives.

Jesus confirms the need for humility in spiritual life as he taught his disciples:

"Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant." (Mark 10:43)

What is the distinction of being a servant?

This statement by Jesus indicates that Jesus taught that he was not the only representative of God (or savior). Is the Supreme Being so impotent that He could only have one devoted servant (or "son") who can represent Him? Is God's power so tiny that He could only create one son? 

Is God’s kindness and omnipotence so weak that He could only have one person devoted enough to sacrifice his life for Him?

We can simply look around us and see that God’s ability to create is vast – beyond our wildest imagination. As we can see around us, God created so many living beings, who are occupying the physical bodies of humans, animals, plants, insects, fish and other organisms. In other words, God has many many children.

We can simply look at the beauty of nature to understand God's unlimited potency. How could God be limited to one "son" or representative?

As Jesus, David and other Prophets have repeatedly said, each of us is one of God’s children, and we all have the ability to become God’s “son” (servant).

However, when "servant" is utilized instead, the essence of the relationship that Jesus was describing between himself and humanity becomes clear. Jesus saw himself as serving all humankind because he was delivering God's message. This is why God also gave this same title to Ezekial, and Job and David described themselves as such. It is also why Jesus washed his disciples' feet - to illustrate his mission (and hopefully theirs) as a servant of God and all of humanity.

We must remember that those who translate scripture have significant power over nuance. They can create concepts and ideas that may not have been there in the original text. This can especially be the case if there is a political agenda amongst those translators.

Was there an agenda?

In the case of the New Testament, we find significant evidence of a political agenda: The Roman government wanted to use Christianity to control their empire. This is why Constantine organized the synod of Nicene, why this politically organized group wrote the Nicene Creed, and why Constantine and Eusebius selected certain texts to include in the Bible, and certain scribes to translate those texts. And why the Bible was assembled in a certain order - and not in chronological order. There was a political agenda.

This was why many scriptural texts, such as many of the later-found scriptures that contained more information on Jesus' teachings and other disciples, were burned.

That political agenda became obvious through the history of the Roman Catholic Church, as they sought to squelch any and every translation or opinion that differed from theirs. They murdered people - many by burning at the stake. They burned books, houses and villages down. They overthrew kings. 

They discredited devoted saints and teachers that differed in any respect - and jailed many of them. The goal of the Romans was to dominate their empire, and the Roman Catholic Church was their proxy.

How did this affect Biblical translations over the centuries? The Nicene Creed became the standard interpretation of Jesus' role and identity, and this was enforced as the standard. Any interpretations or translations that conflicted with the Creed were considered heretical, and the author or speaker was subsequently jailed or burned at the stake.

And what does the Nicene Creed claim about Jesus? It claims that Jesus was "God the Son," and the only Son of God. This meant that Jesus was ex facto God and no one can reach God without going through Jesus.

Well isn't that convenient? The Roman government took over the Christian religion and then twisted the interpretation and translations to not only indicate that no other teacher but Jesus could save people, but that Jesus was in fact, God. 

So it's either join the Roman government-sponsored religion or go to hell. So convenient. A perfect strategy to control the people. And this is how the Roman government and/or its proxy - the Church - dominated Europe for over a thousand years.

Furthermore, their strategy was so resounding, and their removal of any competing interpretation so complete that those sects that split off from the Roman Catholic Church to this day uphold the Nicene Creed. 

This brainwashing by the Roman Catholic institution was so complete, that even Martin Luther and other "radicals" that broke off from the church still felt they had to abide by the Nicene Creed, simply because this interpretation was so solidly entrenched and implanted in all the available scholarly texts (as differing scholars had been murdered and their texts burned) along with the minds of the populace.

The beginning of the split-offs from the Church began in the fifteenth century after over one thousand years - that's ten centuries - of dominance over Christianity by the Roman Catholic church. So their interpretation of Jesus' role and position was so cemented that anyone straying too far from the Creed would quickly be discredited.

Are there holes in this interpretation?

Even so, there are so many holes in the Roman Catholic interpretation that survives amongst nearly every sect today. Consider just a few:

-If Jesus was God, who was he praying to when he prayed: "Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will. Let the cup pass from me." (Mark 14:36)

-If Jesus was the only person who could save people, why did God command Moses, Abraham, David, Job, Joshua, Noah, Ezekial, Jeremiah and others to teach people and bring them back to Him?

-Why did Jesus receive baptism from John the Baptist (representing that he became a student of John and accepted John's teachings)?

-Why did Jesus send his disciples out to teach others?

-If Jesus is the only son of God (assuming the translation to "son"), why did Jesus say: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9)?

-Why did one of Jesus' early followers say, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26)?

-What about Genesis where it states. Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)?

-"And what about...because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." (Romans 8:12-17)?

-And why does Genesis make several references to "sons of God"?

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. (Genesis 6:4)

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:1-2)

Could all of these verses in scripture be wrong while the interpretations of the Roman Catholic church - sponsored by the Roman government that sought to control Europe - be right?

Could all of the prophets including Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Job, Jeremiah, Noah, Ezekial and others have no other purpose in their existence other than to foretell of Jesus' coming thousands of years later, as the Roman Catholic church interpretation would have us believe?

And the big hole in the Nicene Creed interpretation is a simple one: Why, if only Jesus can save people, are there so many priests, reverends, preachers, popes, bishops and cardinals - all taking on the role of teacher? Why are there so many teachers in these sects if Jesus is the only person who can save us? Why are all these others teaching if all we need is Jesus? Many of them teach, in fact: "You don't need any other teacher other than Jesus." Yet they are teaching this? Are they not assuming the position of teacher as they teach this? This is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Certainly, there is reason to doubt the Roman Catholic's Nicene Creed, given the history of conduct by the Roman Catholic church - not just because of the centuries of persecution of anyone who disagreed with them: But even in recent years, as Roman Catholic priests have been found sexually abusing those who sought spiritual guidance from them.

Are these the "fruits" of a good tree or a bad tree? And if we admit that they are bad fruits, do we still want to blindly accept the teachings and interpretations from such a tree that bore such fruits?

The true teachings of Jesus and all God's representatives are evident:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:36-38)

"You do not realize now what I am doing, but later ..." (John 13:7)

Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?" Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand." (John 13:7)

Why was Jesus washing their feet?

And what is it that Jesus is doing that his disciples will only later understand?

This clearly indicates that Jesus wasn't simply interested in keeping their feet clean: There is a metaphorical, symbolic meaning to Jesus' washing their feet. What was it?

Jesus hints at it with a statement he makes later:

"I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." (John 13:16-17)

Jesus is speaking of being a servant. Washing someone's feet is an act of a humble servant. Jesus is asking that his disciples do what he is doing: Provide service.

In other words, Jesus wants his disciples to take up a life of service, as he has done.

Jesus is clearly indicating that he is a servant and a messenger. He is the servant and messenger of God ("the One who sent him") and he is the servant of humanity.

Did God really 'put all things under his power'?

The key to this statement is the translation of the words 'all things'. The translation assumes that God had somehow handed over all His power to Jesus.

That is not what the Greek says. 'All things' is translated from the Greek word πᾶς (pas). This can mean "all" but also "any" or "all of a type" according to the lexicon.

Furthermore, the word "put" comes from the Greek word δίδωμι (didōmi). This can mean "to give" but also to "appoint to an office," "entrust," "to "grant" or "commission" according to the lexicon.

On a practical basis, it is impossible for God to give Jesus all His power. If that were so, God would cease to be God and Jesus would therefore have taken over God's position.

That would mean that God would not be God anymore, which is an oxymoron.

Therefore, the only logical translation would be that God entrusted Jesus with a certain type of power. Not all His power. But "all" meaning "full authority." In other words, God had given Jesus full authority over this particular situation.

That is also called free will. God gives each of us a certain amount of free will to make decisions to carry out our own will.

But in Jesus' case, he had the freedom to do his own will or do God's will, and he chose to do God's will. He used his authority to act freely in such a way that would be pleasing to God.

In response to this choice, God effectively empowered Jesus.

Thus a better translation of this particular translation to this phrase, as given in the Lost Gospels of Jesus, would be:

Jesus, knowing that the Creator had empowered him ...

Is Jesus a servant?

This is precisely why Jesus referred to himself throughout his missionary as υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, mistranslated to 'son of man.'

The phrase "son of man" has no practical meaning. Every male is a son of a man. Why would Jesus call himself a son of a man?

The "son" portion of "son of man" is translated from the Greek word υἱός (huios). υἱός can indicate a relationship of offspring when one is referring to a physical family, but it can also indicate a relationship of servitude. According to Thayer's Greek lexicon, υἱός can be "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower" - a servant, in other words. Since Jesus would not be referring to "man" as his physical family, we must utilize this translation of υἱός, indicating either "follower" or "devoted servant."

The Greek word ἄνθρωπος can mean "man," "mankind" or "humanity". Jesus is obviously not speaking of a specific man. He can only be speaking of humankind or humanity.

Thus the only logical translation of υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (τοῦ means "of") is servant of humanity.

When "servant of humanity" is translated correctly, the essence of the relationship that Jesus was describing between himself and humanity becomes clear. Jesus saw himself as the servant of all humankind because he was delivering God's message - and thereby saving us. This is why God also gave this same title ("servant of humanity" aka "son of man") to Ezekial; and why both Job and David humbly referred to themselves with the same title.

This brings together Jesus' statement above, and why he felt it was so important that he wash his disciples' feet. He was showing them that he saw himself as a servant of others, and he wanted his disciples to also see themselves as servants of others.

Jesus also saw himself as a servant of God (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ), and many referred to him as such. Once again, the word υἱὸς is being translated to "son" but is better translated to "devoted servant." Remember that υἱὸς can only refer to "son" if in the context of a physical family. The relationship between Jesus and God was a spiritual relationship, not a physical one. God was not the physical father of Jesus' physical body.

What about 'Son of God'?

In the same way, the phrase μονογενής υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ is best translated as "devoted and beloved servant of God" - as remember υἱός indicates "follower" or "devoted servant" in the context of a relationship with God, while τοῦ means "of" and θεοῦ is the Name of God.

In the context of Jesus, other language experts have looked more deeply at the meaning of υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ and determined that its roots in the Hebrew terminology give it a reference to being the Representative of God.

Nevertheless, one can still make the case that Jesus was created by God and is, therefore, his Father - so "Son of God" is not necessarily incorrect. But what Jesus did was serve God - he did the will of God:

"Abba, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14:36)

Doing someone else's will means being their servant. Jesus saw himself as God's servant, and he wanted his disciples to also see themselves as God's servants. Being a servant of God means doing God's will, and God's will is to bring us back home to Him. Thus doing God's will also means becoming a servant of humanity.

And Jesus' disciples will only later understand this as they begin reaching out to others and teaching to them after Jesus left the planet: They became servants of humanity.

In this physical world, practically no one wants to be anyone's servant. We all want to be the master. We all want to be the master of someone or something. This is why winning a "masters" tournament or contest is so important to people, and being called a "master" of something is so important. We want the admiration of others. We want cheering fans to adore us. We want to be the boss so we can tell others how to do things.

This is our disease. We want to be the master. This is because we became envious of God because He is the only true Master. And this enviousness of God is why we fell from the spiritual world and took on these temporary physical bodies.

God created the physical world to allow us to play out our desires to be the master. So we each get to carve out our little niche somewhere - to be the master of someone or something. God is allowing us to exercise our desires in this virtual physical world.

But the physical world is also programmed to teach us that we are not masters. Through its various lessons, we are gradually taught - assuming we want to learn - that we are really not masters by nature.

This is why even the most successful of us, once achieving superstar status like being a big sports star, a big politician, or a business tycoon, will not be satisfied with that status. Superstar status is not fulfilling. We can only look at the lives of many who have achieved this status to see this.

And this is why most who achieve this type of success end up using their status to begin to help people somehow. They have found that helping others is more fulfilling than being the master of others.

Was Jesus the only begotten son?

The references (such as in John 1:14) to Jesus as "only begotten son" is a mistranslation - influenced by Pauline theology and the Roman-influenced doctrine "Nicene Creed" used to dominate religious worship as dictated by the Roman emperor.

The Pauline theology utilized Paul's manipulated letters to proclaim that Jesus was the only son of God and that Jesus' mission was to die for our sins. 

Paul was not a disciple of Jesus. According to Acts, he had a vision of Jesus then later was baptized by Ananias, resulting from another vision (Acts 9:18). 

Paul also argued with Peter and James - Jesus' closest disciples - about Jesus' teachings - in public. As if Paul knew better than them the import of Jesus' teachings?

The next verses underscore the depth of Paul's teachings:

At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. (Act 9:20)

Such a philosophy is pretty shallow. Instead of passing on Jesus' actual teachings - as a true disciple would - Paul elected to create his own version, one that could be accepted by "gentiles" (translated from a Greek word that better translates to "pagans" or "atheists.") 

Yes, Paul was referring mostly to Romans, who were atheists - actually polytheists to be more exact. They were used to believing in the Roman gods - and sons of gods - including Caesar Augustus, Octavian and other Roman emperors. So they could easily accept a philosophy that was focused on another "son of god."

Certainly, if we accept the translation of υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ to servant of God (see above), then we can accept Paul's teachings. But it would be far-fetched to claim that Jesus was the only servant of God. Such a notion contradicts so much of the Bible, as we find Moses, Abraham, David, Samuel, Eli and so many others were servants of God according to these ancient texts.

Rather, we find that Paul and his followers from Rome and vicinity took this statement out of context, proclaiming that Jesus was literally the son of God - and the only son of God at that. 

It is an awkward notion that God could only have one son. Is God impotent? A human can have many sons in a lifetime but God - the Supreme Being - can only have one son? This is an offensive assumption, and it is clearly negated by the many scriptural passages that use the same Greek or Hebrew reference for other devoted followers of God.

In answer to this, some ecclesiastical teachers following in Paul's and the Roman Catholic institution's footsteps have put forth the notion that God can have many sons, but only one "begotten" son. This is the same thing. They are limiting God to being able to directly create only one son.

It is quite simply a mistranslation of the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs), which can mean "only one of its kind," but in use, the word is often used to indicate someone who is very special, or very dear.

In the context that it is being used - one of Jesus' dedicated followers referring to him - μονογενής refers to an intimate loving relationship between Jesus and God, and the fact that Jesus was dear to God, and specially chosen by God to represent Him.

Are we all servants?

According to Jesus' example here, he is teaching us that each of us is a servant.

Every soul who is seeking to understand God and understand themselves will come to realize at some point our position as servants. It is unavoidable unless we want to remain in ignorance.

God created us as His loving caregivers. Our natural position is to care for Him and serve Him. This is what fulfills us.

But since love requires freedom, we can also decide not to serve Him. We have the choice to become envious of Him. So we are sent out of the spiritual realm - our home - to exercise our desire to try to be like Him.

Jesus is trying to bring his disciples - and all of us - back home to our natural positions. But this requires that we make the choice and realize our natural position as servants: Servants of God and servants of each other. This and only this is what will ultimately fulfill us.

For this reason, we find that many people who gain positions of fame and fortune find no happiness there, but once they begin to serve others, they find some happiness. This is because we are servants by nature.

Finding our ultimate position includes this, but the foundation is serving the Supreme Being and serving others in the same vein. In other words, how we serve others must be consistent with serving God because otherwise, we could be harming others spiritually without realizing it.

Being this type of servant is not like being a slave, as indicated by the Greek word, δοῦλος (doulos) - which Jesus used in his parables to indicate a slave. Being God's devoted servant is not forced labor. Rather, the service referred to here is based on love. When we love someone, we naturally want to please them (do their will). When we want to please them, we serve them. This is why Jesus' two most important instructions were:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt. 22:37-40)