stephan huller

This is clearly sub-moronic. There are countless motivations for writing a book. Not every book is written because the person in question claims or claimed to be the messiah. Jesus denies the claim that he is associated with a number of messianic titles and expectations. The question of whether or not the Marcionites believed that Jesus was the messiah of the OT is settled. Your ignorance of that tradition is not an argument.

Let's get one thing straight - Messiah means Christ and Christ means Messiah and the two words only mean Anointed and the usual referent is a secular king. The Queen was anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland at her coronation. There is no Greek word Christos unambiguously meaning what Christian theology uses it to mean. The altar was “christos” when olive oil was poured on it. Flour is “christos” when olive oil is poured on it. Grass is “christos” when the sprinkler is turned on. If it means someone special, then it means any king of any country at any time.

Aside from this, there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word “Messiah”. This is an ARTIFICIAL word only existing in late modern English. There is the Hebrew word משיח Mashiach (approximate pronunciation) and the Aramaic Meshiach (approximate pronunciation) and definite Meshicha (approximate pronunciation) and the Greek phonetic transcription Messias (where the 's' is a Greek suffix). French correctly renders both Mashiach and Messias as “Messie”. German has “Messias” for both.

A source of confusion is that the Aramaic and Greek forms also render the Hebrew Kohen Mashuach, an anointed High Priest. Another source of confusion is that although the word Mashiach = Christos in the Psalms usually refers to any earthly temporal king, in some places it refers to a heavenly figure known from Canaanite mythology and from contemporary writings about Melchizedek, seen as manifestation of a heavenly figure. (King of Salem = King of Peace. Melchizedek means King of Righteousness, as in the Christmas carol “Hark the Heavenly Angels Sing”, which says “Hail the King of Righteousness”. The phrase in the carol is a conscious translation of Melchizedek [Malki-tsedek in modern transcription]). A further difficulty is that some occurrences of Mashiach = Christos have both the earthly and the heavenly meanings.

Jesus NEVER EVER ONCE used the term Mashiach = Christos = Anointed for himself. One could argue I suppose that he did this because the term had too many meanings, some badly misleading. If we go back to the earliest readings of passages later twisted to imply this belief the question is always no.

Finally, all the references to Isaiah at the start of Luke DON’T refer to a heavenly figure. In the context in Isaiah, it is a child already born or about to be born in 700 B.C. What was miraculous then 700 B.C. was the sign of divine intervention in history, symbolised by the birth and the change in political circumstances coinciding. The Prince of Peace etc. is in the first instance this child in 700 B.C. The angel says or Luke says the same power is to act again, more powerfully, in the birth of Jesus.

Let's make this clear. Jesus always rejected the term Mashiach (Hebrew) or Meshicha (Aramaic) or “Christos” (Greek). All these words mean exactly the same thing, someone or something anointed. He rejected the term was because the PRIMARY CONNOTATION is “legitimate TEMPORAL or SECULAR king”. This is its meaning in Daniel 9:25 and 26.

ALL EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMENTATORS AGREE THAT THIS ANOINTED IN DANIEL IS ONLY A TEMPORAL KING. (All early Christian commentators agree with the mainstream Jewish interpretation, that it is meant to refer to Marcus Agrippa). In the contemporary Jewish context, Anointed = Mashiach = Christos meant a new secular king descended from David.

Jesus’s descent from David is of about one percent of importance in defining his status in traditional Christianity. American Evangelicalism is close to heresy in this respect. The traditional model is Moses.

AGAIN THERE IS NOT ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTOS AND MASHIACH. THEY ARE THE SAME WORD IN TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. Daniel 9 says Marcus Agrippa was Christos in one meaning, the usual meaning, a secular king. Jesus (if he existed) and Paul (if that was his name) would have agreed. This is a rare meaning of the term in the Psalms, hardly found anywhere else in the O.T. (Yes, I mean this). Actually the verb is usually used to carry this meaning, not the noun. (“He has been anointed”, not “He is the Anointed”).

Jesus didn’t use the word Christos at all, because the first meaning was wrong in his case and the second meaning would not be relevant or applicable till after the Resurrection and Ascension.

Jesus never repudiated the title Mashiach: he just discouraged the use of it when applied to himself.

maryhelena

Stephan - well, of course JC was not the Messiah - that's just a fine storyline. My point is simply that any attempt to down-grade the assumed historical JC to some secondary non-messianic status is not going to fly re his large fanclub out there....

aa5874

Well, you are actually contradicting yourself. Prophecies are FULFILLED when they ACTUALLY happen.

Examine this passage in gMatthew.

Mt 12:40 - It is IMPERATIVE that we know what actually happened to determine if the prophecy was FULFILLED.

But, you DON'T care what Jesus did. You DON'T care if any prophecies were FULFILLED.

stephan huller

The point isn't what idiots and uninformed people think. Someone like Jesus could not have made the claim that he was this figure. That people later read the text as if he did is also true. But the reality was that there was a pronounced interest in Jesus as a wholly divine figure which goes back to our earliest sources (Marcion, Clement of Alexandria etc). These should have a place at the table when putting together 'what early Christians believed' and 'how the gospel was interpreted.' They are typically ignored because most people want a referendum on the implausible assertion which also happens to be the basis for the faith of ignorant white people (and those they colonized, exploited and then foisted this idiotic belief on to).

I don't see why Clement's understanding of Jesus as God - God the Son - is 'devaluing' Jesus. God is superior to the messiah.

"The LORD and his anointed one are my witnesses today," Samuel declared, "that my hands are clean." (1 Samuel 12.5)

or in one of the most popular scriptures in the early Fathers which allegedly pointed to the Passion:

The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.” (Psalm 2.2 - 3)

Come one people. This isn't kindergarten. Our inherited understanding of the original paradigm is completely wrong. There was God (Jesus) and his anointed (the Christ). Just read Irenaeus and see for yourself how prevalent this interpretation was in the late second century.

Do we have to go along with the orthodox interpretation (that Jesus was both God and messiah)? Why? Especially when we know that this was the minority opinion at the time Irenaeus was writing.

aa5874

Marcion and the Marcionites were CALLED CHRISTIANS even by CHRISTIANS who believed Jesus was the Messiah.

stephan huller

And they called Jesus, Chrestos. Do the math fucknuts

stephan huller

And as for the Jewish kings who wore crowns of gold, set with precious jewels and richly ornamented, they were the christoi, symbolically carrying Christ on their heads without knowing it, in the sense that their heads were adorned with an ornament representing Christ. [Clement of Alexandria Paed. 2.64]

aa5874

What math you do?

Kindly, if you may produce the book of antiquity which show the math that the Marcionites called Jesus the Messiah, Chrestos.

You can do maths?

Based on your own words.... "Do the math fucknuts"

Produce your evidence of antiquity that Marcionites called Jesus the Messiah, CHRESTOS.

Will your evidence from antiquity ADD up?

avi

Thank you MaryHelena, for the two references.

As you know, I am a bit slow. I have trouble these days with watching the clock to make sure to take all my medicines, and empty the spitoon, lest I slobber onto the keyboard, but, despite my progressive mental detrioration, I still can perform a tiny bit of mathematics, umm, but, I can't fathom which arthmetic to perform here....

What numbers are we trying to compute?

Now, I believe, but have no reference to support that belief, that "chrestos", or "chrestians", was brilliantly examined, about a year or so ago, by Sheshbazaar, one of his MANY famous exposes, here on the forum. My memory is not up to recounting his coup here, but, a search may provide you with some relief, as it seems you have some sort of indigestion....

Meantime, may I humbly ask how you go from Origen's account of what Marcion thought, to establishing as factual, a particular line of inquiry? Isn't it all just gossip? We possess, to the best of my impoverished knowledge, no text authored by Marcion, so why are we engaged in disputing what Marcion said, or wrote, or thought? Was not Origen writing AGAINST Marcion?

Oh, I see. Ok, yeah. I am one of those "idiots and uninformed people", yes. Alright then. Sorry. Forget it....not important...

avi

stephan huller

I truly don't understand your line of reasoning here. Perhaps if you read the passage in English you'd understand better. I have said that Jesus never applied the title 'the Christ' to himself. Mark 8:29:

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ."

And then for good measure there's the line that follows Mark 8:30:

καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ λέγωσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ.

And He strictly forbade them to tell this about Him to any one.