NationStates Jolt Archive

"Christus, from [which the name of the Christian religion] had its origin."

He says there was a man named called Christ who founded the Christian religion, and was subsequently crucified by Pontius Pilate.

However the Bible depicts Christ, it sounds to me like he existed.

Xristos is a Greek name. Although most dictionaries define "Christ" as "Messiah", in most contexts and for most contemporary readers, "Christ" lacks the Old Testament connotations that "Messiah" legitimately brings with it. Part of this problem stems from "Christ" having come into English from Greek as a transliterated word. The problem is that the meaning which XRISTOS had
for 1st-century readers of Greek is not necessarily that which the word "Christ" has for us. This is partly because New Testament readers of the first century had an Old Testament context for XRISTOS since it was the word used in the LXX to translate MASIAX (Messiah, Anointed) and other related terms. Today's English-language reader, however, lacks an Old Testament frame of reference for the term. In fact, many today would say that the use of "Christ" in reference to the Old Testament seems out of
place because it implies reading the New Testament back into the OT.

Xristos is a Greek name. Although most dictionaries define "Christ" as "Messiah", in most contexts and for most contemporary readers, "Christ" lacks the Old Testament connotations that "Messiah" legitimately brings with it. Part of this problem stems from "Christ" having come into English from Greek as a transliterated word. The problem is that the meaning which XRISTOS had
for 1st-century readers of Greek is not necessarily that which the word "Christ" has for us. This is partly because New Testament readers of the first century had an Old Testament context for XRISTOS since it was the word used in the LXX to translate MASIAX (Messiah, Anointed) and other related terms. Today's English-language reader, however, lacks an Old Testament frame of reference for the term. In fact, many today would say that the use of "Christ" in reference to the Old Testament seems out of
place because it implies reading the New Testament back into the OT.

"Christos" isn't actually a name, it's an adjective meaning "annointed," from the verb "chrio," to touch or to rub or to annoint. It's the standard 1st century Greek translation of the Hebrew "Messiah" (as you say). So I think it meant the same thing to early Christians as it would to modern ones.

And the Church Fathers were perfectly happy to read the New Testament back into the Old Testament. After all, from their point of view, the Messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so all the OT prophecies about the Messiah applied to him.

Jesus Christ is the source of a useful expletive.

He deserves no less respect for his fecund role in the etymology of exasperation than does God Damnit or Irwin Fuckyouheimer.

"Christos" isn't actually a name, it's an adjective meaning "annointed," from the verb "chrio," to touch or to rub or to annoint. It's the standard 1st century Greek translation of the Hebrew "Messiah" (as you say). So I think it meant the same thing to early Christians as it would to modern ones.

And the Church Fathers were perfectly happy to read the New Testament back into the Old Testament. After all, from their point of view, the Messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so all the OT prophecies about the Messiah applied to him.

Although Xristos does mean the annointed one, this is not the context in which the early Christians of the I century saw it. The historians aren't even sure. It's just a better way to translate the Hebrew term for ''messiah''.

In modern English, this is an easier term to understand. The Greek expression ''Xristos anesti'' (The Messiah has risen) is an example of this. But we must have in mind that ''messiah'' doesn't necessarily refers to Jesus.

Although Xristos does mean the annointed one, this is not the context in which the early Christians of the I century saw it. The historians aren't even sure. It's just a better way to translate the Hebrew term for ''messiah''.

In modern English, this is an easier term to understand. The Greek expression ''Xristos anesti'' (The Messiah has risen) is an example of this.

According to Wiki (which is, as everyone knows, the Fount of All Knowledge), "Christos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_(title))" as a translation of "Messiah" is to be found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Tanakh). The Septuagint was translated in the 3rd to the 1st century BCE, and would have been very familiar to Jews outside of Judaea.

So I'm confused, if the word comes from the Greek version of the OT and means "messiah," how is that not the context the early Christians understood it in? Or have I completely misunderstood you somewhere?

Since there are so many religious threads and related threads I just wanted to make this interesting poll.

On a note I believe he was a major messenger of God (or very spiritual high being that realized the spiritual reality sometimes called God)
He's like Horus, Mithras and Simon are to me.
Looks more like a warning than an example ...

After doing some basic research, I was surprised to discover that the question of whether or not Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud is hotly debated (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html). I had previously believed that he had been, which meant that the Talmud constituted evidence of Jesus' existence from a non-Christian (in fact, anti-Christian) source, which would have been pretty difficult to counter.

I looked at the five passages mentioned in the above link. The main problem is the dating - many of the events can be dated to a century before or after the time when Jesus supposedly lived.

I'm still of the opinion that Jesus existed, and that the Gospels are based on actual events, but were exaggerated to provide the basis for an actual religion. Events which I believe did not occur:
- That Mary was a virgin. I don't think Mary was a prostitute or anything like that - would Joseph have married her if that were the case? More likely, Mary and Joseph didn't wait until marriage.
- The nativity story. The Wise Men and the star are clearly divine signs, which I do not accept. The lowly birth in a manger makes Jesus to be from humble origins - similar to the story of Abraham Lincoln being born in a log cabin.
- Herod killing all the children under 2. Please. There would have been a revolt in like five minutes, and there's no particular reason the Romans would have backed him. The smart thing would have been to support the rebels, and appoint one as the new king.
- All the miracles.
- The resurrection.

basically pretty much a socialist pacifist who was wrongfully executed by a paranoid government. neither the first nor last of such by any means. he was also, just so happened, when he was around 30, big friendly and invisible, otherwise refered to as god, picked him to be its channel to that age and time and place. also neither the first nor last to have been either.

there are probably a few more things that can be infered between the lines. most of what is attributed to him, has indeed its actual origens in what risotta and several others, have mentioned above.

form the one incident that (and at that only one of them) the four chronicallers of his cadre mention of the first 30 years of his life, if one puts two and two togather with what is known historically of the temple and the situation in the land at that time, it is a quite reasonable possibility that in early adolescence he may have been something of che guevara. this may have contriguted more then the sacred text atributes, to the reguard in which the earthly powers that were at the time considered him. of course THAT is only speculation.

i do reguard him as having been one of those ligitimately god choosen revealers of belief, with the caveat of: "if that is actually the way of such things", but personally no more nor less then any other one of them.

i have a belief, a faith, that is only partially based on the teachings of Baha'u'llah. i feel somewhat more confidence in natural diversity and strangeness that can be observed even in our tangible surroundings.

without in any way having to reject the notion of big, friendly and invisible existing. i do not at any rate, however, see anything that ever walked this planet on two legs, as being one and the same with that ultimate invisible essence.

- That Mary was a virgin. I don't think Mary was a prostitute or anything like that - would Joseph have married her if that were the case? More likely, Mary and Joseph didn't wait until marriage.


Ouch, that's a lot of errors in one paragraph. Even a agnostic like me, who's only "grazed" the bible on a few occasions, knows you're combining two people from two generations here. :D

- That Mary was a virgin. I don't think Mary was a prostitute or anything like that - would Joseph have married her if that were the case? More likely, Mary and Joseph didn't wait until marriage.

You're confusing Mary Magdalene with Mary, mother of Jesus :p
Some believers assume that the she indeed was not a virgin, but became pregnant without having had sex at the time Jesus should have been conceived. Or to rephrase: that she did something now forbidden in a certain Islamic country: not having sex with your husband every few days at least.

Others assume that Josef married Mary before she had entered puberty, and had not yet consummated the marriage. God "got in" before her first period.

- The nativity story. The Wise Men and the star are clearly divine signs, which I do not accept. The lowly birth in a manger makes Jesus to be from humble origins - similar to the story of Abraham Lincoln being born in a log cabin.

The animals seen in the standard Christmas day play are also pretty symbolic. They probably represent twisted versions of the Egyptian Gods, which were quite dominant in that region.

According to Wiki (which is, as everyone knows, the Fount of All Knowledge), "Christos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_(title))" as a translation of "Messiah" is to be found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Tanakh). The Septuagint was translated in the 3rd to the 1st century BCE, and would have been very familiar to Jews outside of Judaea.

So I'm confused, if the word comes from the Greek version of the OT and means "messiah," how is that not the context the early Christians understood it in? Or have I completely misunderstood you somewhere?

You completely misunderstood me. Although the Christians see the word Xristos and immediately think of Christ as the messiah, the word isn't, according to the Greek language, just a reference for Jesus Christ. It is also the word for someone who is considered an annointed one. That wasn't solely of Jesus's case.

After doing some basic research, I was surprised to discover that the question of whether or not Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud is hotly debated (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html). I had previously believed that he had been, which meant that the Talmud constituted evidence of Jesus' existence from a non-Christian (in fact, anti-Christian) source, which would have been pretty difficult to counter.

I looked at the five passages mentioned in the above link. The main problem is the dating - many of the events can be dated to a century before or after the time when Jesus supposedly lived.

I'm still of the opinion that Jesus existed, and that the Gospels are based on actual events, but were exaggerated to provide the basis for an actual religion. Events which I believe did not occur:
- That Mary was a virgin. I don't think Mary was a prostitute or anything like that - would Joseph have married her if that were the case? More likely, Mary and Joseph didn't wait until marriage.
- The nativity story. The Wise Men and the star are clearly divine signs, which I do not accept. The lowly birth in a manger makes Jesus to be from humble origins - similar to the story of Abraham Lincoln being born in a log cabin.
- Herod killing all the children under 2. Please. There would have been a revolt in like five minutes, and there's no particular reason the Romans would have backed him. The smart thing would have been to support the rebels, and appoint one as the new king.
- All the miracles.
- The resurrection.
the birth of jesus stories are probably made up whole cloth. the whole virgin birth thing covers the "prophecy" that the messiah will be born of a virgin and the whole visitation by god to mary is a common "my guy is the physical son of god" thing that was so popular in greek/roman theology.

jesus' ministry is much more important anyway especially if you are discounting the whole "jesus really is god" thing.

It is also the word for someone who is considered an annointed one. That wasn't solely of Jesus's case.
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

You completely misunderstood me. Although the Christians see the word Xristos and immediately think of Christ as the messiah, the word isn't, according to the Greek language, just a reference for Jesus Christ. It is also the word for someone who is considered an annointed one. That wasn't solely of Jesus's case.

Ah ha. I'm reminded a little of the bit in the first act of The Pirates of Penzance where Major General Stanley and the Pirate King get confused by the words "often" and "orphan."

Anyway, okay, yes, in the 1st Century if you said "christos" to a Greek speaker, that person probably would have said, "Annointed? So? I got annointed the other day at the baths." Still, I think Christianity pretty much appropriated the word to me Jesus and did so rather quickly, given it was a phone-less, e-mail-less, tweet-less world.

"Christos" isn't actually a name, it's an adjective meaning "annointed," from the verb "chrio," to touch or to rub or to annoint. It's the standard 1st century Greek translation of the Hebrew "Messiah" (as you say). So I think it meant the same thing to early Christians as it would to modern ones.

And the Church Fathers were perfectly happy to read the New Testament back into the Old Testament. After all, from their point of view, the Messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so all the OT prophecies about the Messiah applied to him.



I agree with you. You are doing an excellent job.


To further this, fine the word may not be exclusive to Jesus but you have to look at it in the context in which it was written. You have to ask yourself who were they talking about? If the rest of the text was talking about Jesus, and Jesus's life and trials and tribulations then why wouldn't this have referred to him?


I think he was very much a real guy.

... he's a very naughty boy!

As you are, Chumbly!:D

A nice guy who did a fair job instilling morals in the 19th century and beyond. Before then, his lessons didn't seem to be taken too seriously. The matter of his existence isn't really that important to me - all we have are his works at this point anyway. Don't worship the guy, but he didn't worship me, either.

Anyway, okay, yes, in the 1st Century if you said "christos" to a Greek speaker, that person probably would have said, "Annointed? So? I got annointed the other day at the baths." Still, I think Christianity pretty much appropriated the word to me Jesus and did so rather quickly, given it was a phone-less, e-mail-less, tweet-less world.

Yes, since Christianity is Christianity, the word Xristos is attributed to the persona of Jesus. But the word is of Greek origin, and if you were to encounter a Greek person say, during Aristophanes's times, and you used the word 'xristos', they would understand it as you referring to someone you considered enlightened, an annointed one as we have postulated in more than one occasion throughout the thread.

Nowadays, granted and that's why I used the phrase "Xristos anesti!" (used by the Greeks) for Passover, 'Xristos' does brings to mind the figure of Jesus.

A mix of the first two options basically. To me, Jesus is God the Son. You got a problem with that ,tell me. But don't call me a "Jesus nut" or anything cause I will tell the mods. Name-calling, I don't think is allowed here. I have had this belief for years. You can accept it or not.

A mix of the first two options basically. To me, Jesus is God the Son. You got a problem with that ,tell me. But don't call me a "Jesus nut" or anything cause I will tell the mods. Name-calling, I don't think is allowed here. I have had this belief for years. You can accept it or not.

You're a Jesus nut.

You're a Jesus nut.

I can think of other things to call him, but Behaved might kick up a fuss.

I can think of other things to call him, but Behaved might kick up a fuss.

She's a she.

As you are, Chumbly!:D

:eek: Chumbly is Jesus?!?!? :eek:

A mix of the first two options basically. To me, Jesus is God the Son. You got a problem with that ,tell me. But don't call me a "Jesus nut" or anything cause I will tell the mods. Name-calling, I don't think is allowed here. I have had this belief for years. You can accept it or not.

Jesus Nut!!! :p
go ahead report me, it's merely a joke...

:eek: Chumbly is Jesus?!?!? :eek:
Nah... I rose on the fourth day.

(Slept in...)

He was the main character in the world's best-selling fiction novel.

no you just eat him. he's made of crackers and wine. that's why people can't find him they ate him

The lord's a little stale today. Somebody check the date on that lord.

I've always liked C.S. Lewis's take on the subject(among others):

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
CS Lewis is referring to what the gospel of "John" says that Jesus says. Lewis ignores the possibility that Jesus never said a single word of what "John" attributes to him.

Jesus is like, i don't know, Jesus to me!

:eek: Chumbly is Jesus?!?!? :eek:

He was one of the runner ups. *nod*:D

I've always liked C.S. Lewis's take on the subject(among others):

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Yeah, well, I like Jack Lewis and all, but I think he's being a little disingenuous. What he says is true for modern times but in ancient times, in Jesus' time, prophets and men who communed with the "gods" were not so lightly regarded.

He was the main character in the world's best-selling fiction novel. /originality fail

Fixed.

Uh-oh, someone remembered the zippy one-liners from Da Vinci Code!

A mix of the first two options basically. To me, Jesus is God the Son. You got a problem with that ,tell me. But don't call me a "Jesus nut" or anything cause I will tell the mods. Name-calling, I don't think is allowed here. I have had this belief for years. You can accept it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut

:)

A fusion of pagan saviour deities with Jewish messianic prophecies, probably with some additional influence from various people claiming to be the messiah during the Roman occupation. Add a generation or two where nobody writes anything down and voila.

litterally. Highlevel B.L.E.N.D tech and then Anti-Blend protocols that were mixed up by a clerical error. Jesus was actualy meant to be A blacksmith unfortunatly instead of mixing wood worker and miner they accidentally mixed some gods, a bunchaton of prophecies and ALOT of ink.

So 95 people do not believe in Jesus Christ as many Christians believe is necessary for salvation(all answers other than Son of God or Trinity concept). 27 do.

So 95 people do not believe in Jesus Christ as many Christians believe is necessary for salvation(all answers other than Son of God or Trinity concept). 27 do.

No, those numbers of people have voted in the poll in a certain way. This does not necessarily represent their actual views or beliefs.