Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thentian · 07-12-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

It depends how truthful you wish to be. There are names that sound like Christ but would have had little interaction with the Jewish model of Messiah.

There were several people in the 1st Century and even early 2nd century (Bar Kochba ) who seemed to pick up this title on their own (Josephus provides a good list). But they were Jewish versions (Messiah)and it's doubious they used the Greek version(Christ)... perhapse Bar Kochba.

What is questionable about your question is that you don't seem to care if the title "Christ" has anything to do with the title that Jesus seemed to have aquired. Context is everything. You might be able to find several people the Greeks might have called "annointed" but it's doubtful they had anything to do with the Jewish concept of Messiah.
The first part of being a good historian is to understand the context. Context is everything.
But if you wish to be dishonst you can make up all kinds of good stuff. Chronos, Kronus, Chrestius, Chrispus. All of these sound like Christ so if we're not looking at contextual usage go ahead and use these it'll work.

It depends on what one wants to use such a list for, of course. Maybe it could be a resource for historians and others, for example to clear up mistaken claims that some Chrestus mentioned somewhere is the real Christ?

stonewall1012 · 07-12-2008, 04:04 PM

thentian: "for example to clear up mistaken claims that some Chrestus mentioned somewhere is the real Christ?"

Wow... talk about totally ignoring me... CONTEXT is EVERYTHING. If you found a chinese document mentioning "Christ" in the 5 century B.C.E. would that disprove or prove anything? Without context its words on a page.

Secondly, your language has already presupposed the answer. You're not looking for the "truth" you want to "clear up" a false claim. If you don't have the evidence... how do you know it is a false claim? You have presupposed it is false without evidence that it IS false.

Anyone here remember my post on a priori beliefs affecting historical research? This is what I'm talking about...

vid · 07-12-2008, 04:04 PM

Well, according to some source I remember, Chrestos was common slave name, and there are about 80 funeral inscriptions for various Chrestos, so finding someone called "Chrestos" isn't that special.

My point is exactly finding people called Christ/Christos/Annointed that *do not* have anything to do with Christian Jesus, in order to support (or not support) claim that calling someone "christ" wasn't that outstanding, and Josephus "brother" reference can refer to someone else.

There are people here who claim that it could refer to someone else, and calling some priest or ruler "christ"/annointed is possible, or even likely. But I have yet to see anyone else being called that.

stonewall1012 · 07-12-2008, 04:26 PM

Vid: "and Josephus "brother" reference can refer to someone else."

Ok apparently I have to spell it out... Josephus was Jewish... he was writing about the Jewish war. He was a Jewish commander in the Jewish rebelion against the Roman occupation. His history of the Jewish War is about the Jewish rebellion as his Jewish History is about the history of the Jews. What in the world would a Non Jewish person claiming the non Jewish title of "Christ" perhapse in Gaul have ANYTHING to do with a Jewish writer writing about a Jewish war, History, or Jewish anything? CONTEXT is EVERYTHING!

Secondly, the question we should be asking is NOT: Who was Josephus NOT refering to in his quote. It should be: Who was Josephus refering to in his reference to James the Brother of Jesus called Christ? Period end of report.

This, once again, is yet another example of how a priori biases influence the search for historical truth.

thentian · 07-12-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

thentian: "for example to clear up mistaken claims that some Chrestus mentioned somewhere is the real Christ?"

Wow... talk about totally ignoring me... CONTEXT is EVERYTHING. If you found a chinese document mentioning "Christ" in the 5 century B.C.E. would that disprove or prove anything? Without context its words on a page.

Secondly, your language has already presupposed the answer. You're not looking for the "truth" you want to "clear up" a false claim. If you don't have the evidence... how do you know it is a false claim? You have presupposed it is false without evidence that it IS false.

Anyone here remember my post on a priori beliefs affecting historical research? This is what I'm talking about...

My mistake! Clearing up mistaken claims is of course a bad idea! How about verifying correct claims? Is that OK with you? Or does my last question mean that I have now presupposed something about a claim that I have not yet heard about which someone other than me is going to use my list of people named Christ to either falsify or verify?

A chinese document mentioning "Christ" in in the fifth century BCE would prove that chinese documents from that time can contain "Christ".

I don´t remember the post you mentioned. I may look at it if you can convince me that it is of better quality than the one you just made.

How about making a post about how sloppy thinking leads to rash conclusions?

stonewall1012 · 07-12-2008, 05:27 PM

thentian: "Clearing up mistaken claims is of course a bad idea!"

How do you know the claim is mistaken without evidence that it IS mistaken?

Is that clear enough?

vid · 07-12-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall

Ok apparently I have to spell it out... Josephus was Jewish... he was writing about the Jewish war. He was a Jewish commander in the Jewish rebelion against the Roman occupation. His history of the Jewish War is about the Jewish rebellion as his Jewish History is about the history of the Jews. What in the world would a Non Jewish person claiming the non Jewish title of "Christ" perhapse in Gaul have ANYTHING to do with a Jewish writer writing about a Jewish war, History, or Jewish anything? CONTEXT is EVERYTHING!

That's why I am also interested in people called "annointed one" in jewish area too, i think i DID mention it somewhere by beginning of this thread (sorry if no). Claim is that "that could easily happen", so I'd like to know if it did happen. I agree you got point with greek "christos" though, good point.

Quote:

Secondly, the question we should be asking is NOT: Who was Josephus NOT refering to in his quote. It should be: Who was Josephus refering to in his reference to James the Brother of Jesus called Christ? Period end of report.

Both names were so common their combination is not unlikely. Bit further we see Jesus son of Damneus who could be same Jesus mentioned before. But then, he would have to be called "annointed". That's why I am trying to find anyone being called annointed about that time. If we find anyone called "annointed" about same time, I think that rises odds for option that Jesus called Annointed, brother of James, is the same Jesus, son of Damneus.

Now please... I am simply interested if there was anyone except christian Jesus called Annointed by that time, regardless of any implications. I am not interested in meditations about context or importance of this. I just want pure facts - any source that there was someone else called "annointed".

thentian · 07-12-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

thentian: "Clearing up mistaken claims is of course a bad idea!"

How do you know the claim is mistaken without evidence that it IS mistaken?

Is that clear enough?

I don´t and nobody does. That is why it is useful to have resources which might provide the desired evidence. A collection of facts might be just such a resource.

Is that too clear for you?

stonewall1012 · 07-12-2008, 06:03 PM

As I posted before... Josephus is your best source. I'm not in the context where I can give you their names. However, Josephus mentions several people who MAY have picked up the title. There are several they, like Jesus met a violent and untimly end. The last one is the Bar Kochia revolt in Egypt in about 100-125 A.C.E. (I don't have access to my stuff right now) If I recall properly I don't think Josephus calles any of them Christ but he does seem to say they claimed a kingly title, which in Jewish theology was an anointed title. I do know that one of Maccabeas claimed to NOT be the annointed one (no access right now sorry)
So, yes there were several people who seem to have picked up the title of Christ perhapse Messiah. Of an interesting historial note none of these other possible Messiahs had followers who claimed their leader rose from the dead nor that their deaths served a higher purpose other than: "Romans are good at killing people". sorry I can't give you the names right now but I hope i pointed you in the right direction.

stonewall1012 · 07-12-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonewall1012

thentian: "Clearing up mistaken claims is of course a bad idea!"

How do you know the claim is mistaken without evidence that it IS mistaken?

Is that clear enough?

I don´t and nobody does. That is why it is useful to have resources which might provide the desired evidence. A collection of facts might be just such a resource.

Is that too clear for you?

If you don't have evidence than why are you calling it a "mistaken claim"? Its not a mistaken claim it is a claim clear and simple... Its not mistaken until you can prove it. Right? Or do you assume claims are mistaken and then find evidence to prove it? If that's the way you conduct historical research that's a poor methodology indeed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2008, 04:04 PM	#32
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	thentian: "for example to clear up mistaken claims that some Chrestus mentioned somewhere is the real Christ?" Wow... talk about totally ignoring me... CONTEXT is EVERYTHING. If you found a chinese document mentioning "Christ" in the 5 century B.C.E. would that disprove or prove anything? Without context its words on a page. Secondly, your language has already presupposed the answer. You're not looking for the "truth" you want to "clear up" a false claim. If you don't have the evidence... how do you know it is a false claim? You have presupposed it is false without evidence that it IS false. Anyone here remember my post on a priori beliefs affecting historical research? This is what I'm talking about...

07-12-2008, 04:04 PM	#33
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	Well, according to some source I remember, Chrestos was common slave name, and there are about 80 funeral inscriptions for various Chrestos, so finding someone called "Chrestos" isn't that special. My point is exactly finding people called Christ/Christos/Annointed that do not have anything to do with Christian Jesus, in order to support (or not support) claim that calling someone "christ" wasn't that outstanding, and Josephus "brother" reference can refer to someone else. There are people here who claim that it could refer to someone else, and calling some priest or ruler "christ"/annointed is possible, or even likely. But I have yet to see anyone else being called that.

07-12-2008, 04:26 PM	#34
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	Vid: "and Josephus "brother" reference can refer to someone else." Ok apparently I have to spell it out... Josephus was Jewish... he was writing about the Jewish war. He was a Jewish commander in the Jewish rebelion against the Roman occupation. His history of the Jewish War is about the Jewish rebellion as his Jewish History is about the history of the Jews. What in the world would a Non Jewish person claiming the non Jewish title of "Christ" perhapse in Gaul have ANYTHING to do with a Jewish writer writing about a Jewish war, History, or Jewish anything? CONTEXT is EVERYTHING! Secondly, the question we should be asking is NOT: Who was Josephus NOT refering to in his quote. It should be: Who was Josephus refering to in his reference to James the Brother of Jesus called Christ? Period end of report. This, once again, is yet another example of how a priori biases influence the search for historical truth.

07-12-2008, 05:27 PM	#36
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	thentian: "Clearing up mistaken claims is of course a bad idea!" How do you know the claim is mistaken without evidence that it IS mistaken? Is that clear enough?

07-12-2008, 06:03 PM	#39
stonewall1012 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Marion Posts: 114	As I posted before... Josephus is your best source. I'm not in the context where I can give you their names. However, Josephus mentions several people who MAY have picked up the title. There are several they, like Jesus met a violent and untimly end. The last one is the Bar Kochia revolt in Egypt in about 100-125 A.C.E. (I don't have access to my stuff right now) If I recall properly I don't think Josephus calles any of them Christ but he does seem to say they claimed a kingly title, which in Jewish theology was an anointed title. I do know that one of Maccabeas claimed to NOT be the annointed one (no access right now sorry) So, yes there were several people who seem to have picked up the title of Christ perhapse Messiah. Of an interesting historial note none of these other possible Messiahs had followers who claimed their leader rose from the dead nor that their deaths served a higher purpose other than: "Romans are good at killing people". sorry I can't give you the names right now but I hope i pointed you in the right direction.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.