Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Boro Nut · 09-29-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

That will make good sense if running low on oil, because chrism is oil. The words 'christ' and 'messiah' have the same meaning, 'anointed'- touched with oil, anciently a characteristic of specially honoured persons such as kings and high priests. The Greek christos is merely a literal translation of Hebrew masi(a)h and the corresponding Aramaic masiha. The transliterated word 'Messiah' was introduced by the Geneva Bible.

It certainly isn't "merely a literal translation of Hebrew masi(a)h". Try to find a classical Greek reference to christos not meaning "ointment or salve". The translators of the LXX got inventive, by starting with a Greek verb (xriw) that meant basically the same as the Hebrew M$X, "smear with oil". It's just that the result didn't mean to Greeks what the Jews used it for. (The Greeks win: it's their language.)

Here's Euripides, Hippolytus, l.516:

Phaidra:
potera de christon h poton to farmakon

Which is this drug, an ointment or a potion?

(You could also check out Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound l.480.) Hard to get past the fact that christos meant ointment, isn't it? Not "merely a literal translation of Hebrew masi(a)h".

(Oh, and could someone quote this for Clouseau to see?)

spin

Done.

Boro Nut

Ray Moscow · 09-29-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Hmmm ... I always thought that the NT just used the terms interchangeably.

In the Hebrew Bible, doesn't the "messiah" idea start with the Persian king Cyrus the Great? As in Isaiah 45:1:

Well, whaddaya make of passages such as 1 Sam 2:10, 35, 24:6, 10, 26:9, Ps 20:6, 28:8, 84:9, etc?

spin

I don't know how much evidence there might be to this: but how much of this "Lord's annointed" idea was picked up from the Persians and later incorporated into the Judean pseudo history?

Psalm 2 is a good example of such a concept that runs counter to what we usually think of as Jewish monotheism.

Ray

Chris Weimer · 09-29-2007, 07:34 AM

You could have pointed him here.

However, I disagree with this: "(The Greeks win: it's their language.)"

Coming from spin, I'm amazed at the sophistry. Languages evolve - including Greek, depending on how people use the language. Take the Latin imperium - it means everything from merely "power" to "empire" to "(in plural) people having said power". The people aren't the actual power, but they entitled that power.

I have to run to work now, but said examples are abundant.

Clouseau · 09-29-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It certainly isn't "merely a literal translation of Hebrew masi(a)h". Try to find a classical Greek reference to christos not meaning "ointment or salve". The translators of the LXX got inventive, by starting with a Greek verb (xriw) that meant basically the same as the Hebrew M$X, "smear with oil". It's just that the result didn't mean to Greeks what the Jews used it for. (The Greeks win: it's their language.)

Here's Euripides, Hippolytus, l.516:

Phaidra:
potera de christon h poton to farmakon

Which is this drug, an ointment or a potion?

(You could also check out Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound l.480.) Hard to get past the fact that christos meant ointment, isn't it? Not "merely a literal translation of Hebrew masi(a)h".

(Oh, and could someone quote this for Clouseau to see?)

spin

Done.

Boro Nut

Why do you think this worth repeating, Nut?

Boro Nut · 09-29-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Why do you think this worth repeating, Nut?

I suspect he thinks you have him on your ignore list.

Boro Nut

Clouseau · 09-29-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Why do you think this worth repeating, Nut?

I suspect he thinks you have him on your ignore list.

Boro Nut

If you can think of a reason why it should not be ignored, let me know.

spin · 09-29-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Why do you think this worth repeating, Nut?

I suspect he thinks you have him on your ignore list.

Boro Nut

Sorry, Boro, but one needs to keep him focused. He goes on tangents at the drop of a line. Thanks for your efforts, but it's irrelevant that I suspect he has put me on his ignore list.

My take to the thing you responded to (ie "Can we not track back a history of how these terms changed their meaning?") may perhaps have been more to the point of meaning changes than his "change? what change?" approach. But anything is good if it lets him ignore data.

spin

judge · 09-29-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Are we not looking at the slow invention of a super god man priest king?

But isn't this a much older concept, found in the character, Melkizidec?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Hebrews definitely discusses the priestly nature of Christ. Where is the kingly nature discussed? Is it discussed jointly or is it John brings them together?

I think there is an implication in Hebrews that they are discussed jointly (by way of the association with Melkizidec), and the kingly aspect seems explicitly metioned in Hebrews 1:8-9

Quote:

8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."

aa5874 · 09-29-2007, 09:38 PM

In the NT, the word 'Christ' appears to be the same as 'Messiah'. It seems that the Jews were looking for a 'Christ' before Jesus, the son of the Ghost, was conceptualised.

According to gJohn, even John the Baptist, was under consideration to be a 'Christ' by the Jews.
John 1.19-20, "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
And he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ.

Even in Church History book 3.19, by Eusebius, Domitian ordered the execution of the descendants of David, through which the Jews still, even to this day, expect a 'Christ', not Jesus, the son of a Ghost.

Clouseau · 09-30-2007, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the NT, the word 'Christ' appears to be the same as 'Messiah'. It seems that the Jews were looking for a 'Christ' before Jesus, the son of the Ghost, was conceptualised.

According to gJohn, even John the Baptist, was under consideration to be a 'Christ' by the Jews.
John 1.19-20, "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
And he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ.

Even in Church History book 3.19, by Eusebius, Domitian ordered the execution of the descendants of David, through which the Jews still, even to this day, expect a 'Christ', not Jesus, the son of a Ghost.

A ghost. That's why people so love the KJV.

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

09-29-2007, 07:34 AM	#13
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	You could have pointed him here. However, I disagree with this: "(The Greeks win: it's their language.)" Coming from spin, I'm amazed at the sophistry. Languages evolve - including Greek, depending on how people use the language. Take the Latin imperium - it means everything from merely "power" to "empire" to "(in plural) people having said power". The people aren't the actual power, but they entitled that power. I have to run to work now, but said examples are abundant.

09-29-2007, 09:38 PM	#19
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	In the NT, the word 'Christ' appears to be the same as 'Messiah'. It seems that the Jews were looking for a 'Christ' before Jesus, the son of the Ghost, was conceptualised. According to gJohn, even John the Baptist, was under consideration to be a 'Christ' by the Jews. John 1.19-20, "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ. Even in Church History book 3.19, by Eusebius, Domitian ordered the execution of the descendants of David, through which the Jews still, even to this day, expect a 'Christ', not Jesus, the son of a Ghost.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.