sotto voce

The original post now seems to be deliberate misrepresentation of Christianity.

Which is one way to express fervent faith, one supposes.

mountainman

Clarification



sv do you believe in the One True Jesus F Christ?

And/Or the HJ?



And aside from the letters of John, what other references are you associating to when you use the very specific letters of John term "antichrist"?

sotto voce

The word 'christ' in effect means one who atones, who is thereby redeemer, and therefore lord. A christian is therefore one who deems himself or herself to have been redeemed, or 'bought', and deems that allegiance is owed to the one perceived to be christ.

Any concept that detracts from the perception that atonement has not been achieved, or that it has been achieved, but does not entail exclusive spiritual lordship to the one who atones, is antichrist.

Obviously, any who say that Jesus was not present in human form, who say that he was not also divine, deny atonement, because only a perfect, actual sacrifice can make atonement. Any who concede that Jesus was Immanuel, 'God, with us', died and was raised to life, but interpose themselves in lieu of Jesus as mentors or gurus, are also antichrist.

There were various permutations of antichrist belief, that started to emerge even before the end of the ministry of the apostles, and are still being devised now. One antichrist faction, the circumcision party, attempted intervention almost before that ministry began. Reliance on any human act in attempt to achieve atonement completely negated the role of Jesus in atonement, and was therefore antichrist. After this attempt had been quashed, another faction said that there was no resurrection, which in effect denied atonement; yet another taught that Jesus had never even lived.

tanya

Many, many very learned folks on this forum profoundly disagree with me on this, so, you are welcome, sv, to join the queue.

1. The English word, "christ", from the Greek, christou, means anointed one.

IT DOES NOT MEAN "messiah", i.e. SAVIOUR.

2. The Hebrew word for "messiah", saviour, is "moshiah", NOT "MASHIAKH", which means anointed, i.e. christou.

3. The English word Messiah, is derived from the Greek word, messias, in turn, according to me, and no one else, so far as I am aware, derived from Moshiah, not Mashiakh, which means ANOINT, not saviour. The jews will never agree with me, on this issue, even those few who understand phonemic transformation, (the guttural "K" phoneme, produced by pharyngeal musculature, controlled by the 9th, 10th, and 11th cranial nerves, is NEVER converted to the phoneme, "s", (regulated by cranial nerve 12) in any language) because of an accident in history: Maimonides, the single most famous, and perhaps most talented scholar the world has ever known, at least in modern times, until Einstein, had been living in MUSLIM Spain. He relied upon MUSLIM documents. The internet in those days, had strict regulations about language, word usage, and philosophy.

The idea that Mashiakh corresponds to "saviour", i.e. not just "anointed one", is coming from Maimonides quill. He is the source of this error. But, one ought to consider, the incredible pressure he was under. The Muslim sabre was hanging over his head, at all times. I forgive him. I think he was a great man, notwithstanding this little error.

4. ALL kinds of problems arise, in discussing ancient figures and their writings, if one insists on using this word, CHRIST to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, who was executed, impoverished and lonely, despised by his fellow Jews, regardless of whether they ordered his execution or not. Since it is all fiction, ANYWAY, it matters not a whit, one way or the other. Do we care whether the guy who forgot to fill up the aviator's plane with fuel was responsible or not, for the ensuing death of the pilot, in Catch-22?

5. It is MUCH easier, to discuss any issue related to the genesis of christianity, by using INSTEAD, the words "son of God", or "Jesus of Nazareth", to describe this man, NOT "CHRIST". Christ could have a significant meaning, if this guy Jesus, had actually been anointed by the folks of Jerusalem. But, no. He was not anointed, according to the story line, instead, he was butchered by them. He was slaughtered like a common thief. WHY? I don't know. I sure have no idea. If I had written the story, he would have married his sweetheart, and lived happily ever after.

So, now we come to the gist of your remarks, about "antiChrist", and the first problem, right? is that you insist on employing a definition of "christ" as a synonym for the son of god, jesus of nazareth.

I insist on your cessation of use of that term, unless you are willing to acknowledge, that the so called "christ" figure, to whom you refer, was NEVER anointed by anyone, but rather, was spit upon, in derision, by the townsfolk of jerusalem. The point, then, is that "christ", at least to me, if no one else, MEANS, the anointed one, NOT THE SAVIOUR. Jesus, at least based on the gospels, was never anointed by anyone, human. Maybe the bird excrement, as the dove fluttered about, counts as oil, I don't know that much detail about judaism. I do know that they adhere to particularly idiosyncratic, illogical, and profoundly ignorant ideas about consumption of food stuffs.

You cannot explain what is "anti-christ", i.e. the opposite of anointed, without first explaining why you insist on confounding anointment with "saviour". Certainly, Jesus NEVER served as "saviour" to the jewish people, in the tradition of Alexander of Macedonia, for instance. Jesus never rode up to the gates of jerusalem, on a white horse, leading an army of angels, or jews, or anyone else, against the Romans. Ergo, he was no "messiah". Jesus never even raised his voice, against the Romans, or their quislings.

So, your use of the word, "antichrist", makes no sense to me. Jesus was never anointed, never a "christ", so in fact, at least to my way of thinking, Jesus, himself, was an "antichrist", precisely because he was rejected, not anointed, by his fellow "chosen people".

:huh:

sotto voce

Maybe you or someone will let me know when that has changed.

mountainman

Did the ministry of the apostles involve casting lots to determine which apostle would convert which nation, as many of the non canonical texts state?

sotto voce

What????? The imperial magisterium allowed for happenstance? Good gods!

mountainman

Have a look at this the archive post - The image of "casting lots" in the canon (Mt27:35) and the NT non canonical .

The author István Czachesz appears to have made a mistake when he says that "the act of casting lots " is missing from the Acts of Thomas.



Are the non canonical Christian apostolic soldiers casting lots for the raiment of the world ?

sotto voce

Just answer the question. There cannot be two mutually exclusive models of reality.

You're in the Roman Army now.

mountainman

Do the canonical books and non canonical books of the new testament represent two mutually exclusive models of reality about Jesus and the Apostolic Boneheads?



Time to take the sacraments eh.