Sheshbazzar

I really did not wish to get involved in this thread. But would feel derelict of integrity if I did not address such bold assertions.

I AM MOST CERTAINLY A NATIVE SPEAKER OF ENGLISH, one raised in a church going Christian family. And to the best of my recollections the word 'messiah'
(capitalized or not) has ALWAYS meant someone (anyone) anointed by having oil poured over his (or her) head.
Of course I was exposed to a more than average amount of attention to and discussion of the details of the 'OT' Biblical texts, and that combined with a song tradition containing many references to the oil of anointing being poured out, and actual anointings with olive oil being performed in our meetings.
The concept and connection came as natural as the learning of my ABCs.
(we also practiced saying prayers over handkerchiefs and sending them to the sick in far away places, in answer to requests for such)

Incidentally, tanya and I have already had a lengthy 'go around' about her insistent attempts to substitute moshia for mashiach.
(no time to find it for a linky right now)
I really do wish that she would make the effort to at least become minimally proficient in the reading of Hebrew texts before so dogmatically making up her mind about such matters.


Sheshbazzar the Hebrew.

tanya

Did you then, also find fault with the argument put forth here?


Well, I am obviously WRONG, then, for here is an attestation to the fact that "messiah" DOES correspond to the notion of simply pouring olive oil over someone's head, NOT SAVING THE CHOSEN PEOPLE, by a special human, empowered by God.

Then, one must ask, in all humility, why write: Jesus the Christ and the Messiah?

IF Christ and Messiah are simply synonyms, there would be no point in juxtaposing them in the same sentence.

Contrast:

Jesus the anointed and the saviour;

with

Jesus the anointed and the anointed;

The latter makes no sense. It is senseless repetition.

I will never be convinced, by spin, or Sheshbazzar, or anyone else, that when the Christians speak or write the word "messiah", with or without capital M, that they THINK of someone having oil poured over their head, rather than someone who will save them from eternal damnation.

I was obliged to attend various christian worship services for fifteen years, and to attend religious studies as a youth and teenager, and evidently, I missed that part about pouring oil over one's head as being anything other than treatment for delousing.

I am keen to learn of the passage in the gospel of Mark which explains where the crowd of Jews poured oil over Jesus' head, in honor of his great victories.

I seem to recall something about an older gal helping him wash, and something else about a dove fluttering about, but, the only crowds offering acclaim, that I recall reading about, centered on the idea of urging local officials to execute, not anoint, Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you have any etymological evidence to support the notion that the Greek word Μεσσίας, from which comes our English word messiah, is derived from mashiakh, rather than moshiah? For if the folks reading the LXX, writing the gospels, imagined that Μεσσίας meant only anointed, not savior, then why invent Χριστός ? Are these two words really nothing more than synonyms, two ways of writing "anoint" and "pour oil on someone's head", devoid of any concept of saviour?

Don't you find it peculiar that the two Greek words are so dissimilar in sound, one of them sharing at least a couple of phonemes in common, with moshiah. Don't you find it strange that the harsh terminal consonant on mashiakh, so distinctive, and unique, would have been confounded with the meaning of moshiah, lacking entirely that harsh terminal consonant?

J-D

On the contrary, the use of synonyms in this way is a common figure of speech, for which the technical term 'synonymia' is used. Illlustrative examples can be found here
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/synonymia
and here
http://changingminds.org/techniques/.../synonymia.htm
and here
http://blog.inkyfool.com/2011/07/fan...synonymia.html
and here
http://literaryzone.com/?p=243Not at all. This kind of confusion is to be expected occasionally as a result of translation and transliteration, particularly where different languages have different patterns of sounds and of word formation.

Sheshbazzar

First of all here is the LINK to my previous discussion with tanya referenced above.
Anyone interested may see how much detail has already been went into.

The writer is obviously Jewish, and is addressing the matter of Gentile Christian ignorance on the subject from a Jewish perspective.

Most non-Hebrew literate Christians (although certainly not all) are entirely too ignorant, and too shallow in their knowledge of the Biblical texts to understand the distinctions between the Biblical terms, and he is therefore for his purposes, intent upon establishing the more accurate transliteration "mashiach" to differentiate it from ignorant mainstream English speaking Christian misconceptions regarding the the proper understanding and usages of the word Messiah.
Other than that, what he has to say, agrees perfectly with my position and refutes yours.
And you are here wrong again. It does NOT simply "correspond to the notion of simply pouring OLIVE OIL OVER SOMEONE"S HEAD".
First of all, The Anointing Oil used within the scriptures is -exclusively compounded- and -restricted- and is not simply any old olive oil (see Exodus 30:22-33)
Secondly, to those that are permitted, and that are designated to be Anointed with this exclusive and שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת־קֹדֶשׁ "Oil of Anointing Which is Set-Apart", there is no specification nor limitation as where it must be poured, painted, or rubbed.

No, the anointing itself is not directly associated with saving The Chosen People, but that -individual-, predicted as being_ הָמָשִׁיחַ_ THE MASHIACH, will deliver ('save') His people.

Simply dumping olive-oil on someone -or anyone's- head, or feet, or rubbing it anywhere else on their person does not serve to 'save' them.
By the accounts of Scripture, it takes that One who is The 'set-apart' קֹדֶשׁ to perform the Helping/Delivering/Saving/Victory.
It might help if you were to identify whom and exactly what source it is you are supposedly quoting from.
Not all sources are equally qualified.
I doubt most Christians ever give much thought at all to what 'holy anointing oil' is, or to what being 'anointed with oil' means, or to what manner of crap it is that so often comes out of their pie-holes.
Then if your recall and your understanding of what was alleged to have been accomplished in these texts is really that shallow and weak, I can only advise that you pick up a Bible and begin to learn of a few thousands of the details that you have so obviously overlooked.
This was discussed in the previous thread. Virtually all scholars and the native speakers of these languages are unanimous in their understandings of the distinctions and usage of these terms, discounting correcting flights of fantasy by a few unlearned English speakers, there is nothing there that needs addressing.

I am not a Greek. If you think you have a better grasp of the Greek language than that of those native Greek speakers that wrote and have copied Biblical texts for the last two millenia, and that you are qualified to correct their language and writings, you are certainly welcome to take your speculations and arguments to them. After you actually learn to read, understand, and speak Greek, you will be better able to appreciate why they will either laugh at, or be offended by your barbarian notions.

mountainman

Hey Sheshbazzar,

This line reminded me of the embalming and mumification process UNDERTAKEN by the Egyptians and others to preserve a King's dead body.

Might this in any way refer to "the annointed one"?




Especially on Crete where lying was first invented according to some NT reference. I would like to be able to read Greek and Hebrew but I must rely on translators. I have faith that if one translator is lying then another will point out the fact, and so professionalism is assured within the conceptual framework of the hegemon.






Best wishes


Pete

Sheshbazzar

Also extremely relevant in this vein is that the alphabets do not directly correspond in all points.
Although I am not a Greek, it is my understanding that transliterations into Greek letters simply cannot reproduce certain sounds that are represented by the semitic Hebrew letters.
A prime example of this is 'shibboleth' as the Greek alphabet lacks a letter equivalent to the ש 'shin' or a combination of Greek letters normally able to convey the 'SH' sound.
Greeks must learn the pronunciations of certain words foreign to their native language through the study of, or the hearing of these words being spoken in other languages, not through their native written texts.
Usually these words are not considered to be all that critical as to their Greek spelling or pronunciation, hence we recieve the term 'semitic' from our Greek heritage whereas the actual term derives from 'SHem' of the Hebrew.

Sheshbazzar

One may wonder.

Ah yes, the old hegemony. The perpetual bane of scholarship.
It keeps those that are in the rut, forever in the rut.
No fear here Pete. I am not a Greek.
By the way ever watch "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"? there is a lesson there on 'traditional' Greek attitudes, and how Greeks go about their transliterating and translating.




Sheshbazzar


.

tanya

So here are the three Greek words in question:

christos........anointed

messias........messiah (anointed)

soter...........saviour

There are but two Hebrew words: mashiakh...anointed, and moshiah...saviour, so the question then, is this:

How did the English word messiah come to embrace the concept of saviour? Here is what Shesh explained:

So then the problem is that some folks, including Shesh, apparently, believe that mashiakh embraces this notion of moshiah, (i.e. "saviour") whereas, I believe that this concept (mashiakh also includes the definition of saviour) is relatively new to Judaism, probably inserted there by the Christians. My contention is that it is the Christians who confounded the two Hebrew words, because every tom dick and harry could be anointed, but there were only a very few "moshiah" in history, David being the most famous, until Jesus appeared on the scene.

I did ask you, Sheshbazzar, to comment on that chap, Tracey Rich's web site, because he explicitly denies an association of mashiakh with moshiah--saviour:

His web site confirms your explanation of "The Mashiakh", as a human, not god, He also confirms that this idea of "The Mashiakh" is someone, who does have an association with "saviour":

Rambam is an abbreviation for Maimonides, the brilliant Spanish/Jewish physician, scientist, philosopher and translator, who is, I believe, responsible for inserting this idea of "The mashiakh" with the qualities associated with moshiah, into modern judaism.

But from which source did Rambam acquire this confounding idea--inserting into the anointing process (mashiakh) a simple, public, pouring of olive oil onto the head of a dignitary, official, or cleric, as a token of recognition of services rendered, the concept of "saviour"?

So, the guy, obviously both a polyglot and a genius, read voraciously, and synthesized extensively. I contend that there exists no such idea, that "The Mashiakh" will be a saviour to mankind, as a central concept of Judaism, until Maimonides.

It remains a linguistic conundrum to clarify how mashiakh became messias, rather than my opinion: moshiah, not mashiakh, became messias.

Can a military general be regarded as a "saviour", WITHOUT having had olive oil poured on his head, either before or after his numerous military conquests?

Can any old church official, having undergone daily delousing treatments with olive oil, be regarded as "THE Mashiakh", upon his death?

I claim that a true Messiah, is someone who receives anointment only as an AFTERTHOUGHT, not as a primary step on the trail to saving mankind.

In other words I claim that a messiah is "THE Moshiah", not "THE Mashiakh". I am arguing, in other words, that Maimonides erred, a result of his literary sources, in the Moorish state, heavily influenced by Islam, in turn derived in part from Christian and heretical sources.

Oh, the concept is not really beyond comprehension, but I claim that the concept of "The Mashiakh" is Christian, not Jewish, in origin.

The English word Messiah, means "The Moshiah", not the guy with olive oil dripping in his ears.

Sheshbazzar

The list contains only two Hebrew words because you only listed two Hebrew words. This is your doing, and your problem.
Not every Hebrew word gets carried over into English text. That fact doesn't entail that they do not exist, only that you are unaware of them.
As I have said. Learn Hebrew. I am not going to attempt to teach you an entire language in this thread.

Woah, and stop right there. The English speaking hegemony through ignorance and evolved 'traditional usages' has arrived at false conceptions concerning the ancient Biblical terms over a period of many years.
You want to know how this came about? Uneducated preachers lacking in foreign language skills, and their congregations misused the terms, and it eventually became customary and 'traditional' usage.
One would need only to trace back through the millions of Christian sermons, articles, writings, and personal correspondences and locate each and every mistaken usage. I'm not going to do that for you, although I come across myriad gross errors of transliteration, translation, interpretation, and application every single day.

I live with the fact that I live in the midst of a 'Christian nation' that is incredibly ignorant, and mostly content to simply parrot, or conform to whatever mistakes or lines of 'traditional' horse-shit that they have heard from other ignorant English speaking Christians all of their lives.
And ingrained 'Christian TRADITION' has little tolerance for any corrections.

Simply pronouncing a Hebrew name correctly, and not conforming to a received TRADITIONAL pronunciation is enought to get one ostracized or even tossed out of a great many Christian Church denominations.
They don't want to know what is correct or true, because they are the authorities on their religion and on what in their view is proper.
They want and demand ass-kissing conformity.

I had a friend, a lifelong Bible reading, Bible believing Christian, whom I taught just -one single word- of Hebrew.
Within a month swastika's were being sprayed on his door by his 'loving' Christian neighbors.

Where in the hell do get that idea about my 'belief' from?
I never even suggested such a thing.
Now you are slapping more of your uneducated English misconceptions on Judaism. You 'believe' something, but can't read a even a single paragraph of either Hebrew or Greek, but because you BELIEVE your uneducated opinion, both the Hebrews and the Greeks certainly must all be wrong.
No doubt at all the mistake was made by Christians, mostly of the ignorant Protestant American stripe.
You are ignoring quite a bit about the details of Scriptural anointing, and no, NOT every Tom, Dick, or Harry, could receive the Scripturally ordained form of anointing.
No American ever has. Are you ignoring that fact on purpose?

As far as "moshiah's", if you were proficient in the Hebrew language you would realize that there have been millions of 'moshiah's' among the Hebrew peoples.
In your ignorance of Hebrew you are attempting to force a limitation upon the application of the term 'moshiah' which simply does not even exist within the Hebrew usages. In its most common sense anyone that 'helps' anyone or anything is one being 'moshiah', as the term means 'one-which-is-helping'.
ONLY when the term moshiah is prefixed with the letter 'heh' (H) as HA'Moshiah does it refer to THE ONE and THE ONLY 'Saviour', and this particular form NEVER applies to anyone else. But anyone else by simply assisting or 'helping' others is a 'moshiah'.
Unlike Scripturally performed anointing, making a very limited and select few into 'meshachim'> 'Messiah's'> 'Anointed one's', ANY tom, dick, or harry CAN become 'moshiah's' simply by assisting or helping others. If they pull a cow out of a ditch, or help an old lady across a street they are being 'moshiah's' - 'one's helping others'.

So the guy knows what he is talking about, and only further confirms what I have been attempting to explain to you in these multiple posts.
Again, you believe something, and that something you believe just happens to be the same something that you wish to believe. How conveinient.
If Rambam was familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures_ and I have no reason to believe he was not, he himself would have told you that the Scripturally ritual anointing process was not all that simple.
You make the common goy mistake of not considering how detailed and exacting Jewish interpretations, beliefs, and practices are with regards to such things, wherein the slightest oversight or flaw is to be scrupulously avoided, or if by circumstances unavoidable, publicly announced and admitted, with a plea for pardon from on High over the unavoidable.
You have provided no quotations nor examples from Rambam to support your claim that he ever did 'aquire' any such alleged ideas. If you have such, please present them for further discussion.

<snip> a lot of 'claims' assertions, and questions already answered

Not really all that funny, and certainly not any accurate conveyeance of either words usagages or meanings within either the Greek or the Hebrew texts.
It really doesn't matter what the English word has became perverted to mean.
English (American) Christian ignorance thankfully is not the standard by which any such things are to be determined or judged.

Your profile signature tanya, is apparently most apt.




Sheshbazzar the Hebrew

Shesh etzeboth batzr, v'ha'Shvei huah'Qodesh.
Me ha'ish ha'chakam v'y'bin ha'debar.

Blessed is that soul that seeks knowledge, and with the getting, gets understanding.


.