Duvduv

Is the term "anointed" used in Psalms 105 and 132 translated into Greek as "Xristos"? And is "redeemer" (psalms 18 and 19) the same thing as "savior" (Soter) in Greek?

Diogenes the Cynic

There are none that suggest that the future Messiah - the heir to the throne of David - will be a suffering Messiah. The word in that context denotes a king, bot a spiritual "saviour" or redeemer of sins.

Part of the problem is the the word "Messiah" is misleading in these conversations. That is not word with special significance in the Hebrew Bible except where it references the future.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes to the first part (both cases are translated to Christos), but not to the second. The Hebrew word for "redeemer" (gaal) is translated as lutroumenos (meaning a "payer of a ransom").

Duvduv

Interesting, so therefore Kind David would be described as "my xristos" or David Xristos or the anointed one.
And the messiah who is the redeemer is the lutroumenos as well, but I guess the Jewish messiah term is never Soter referring to David or anyone other than Jesus in Greek.

Diogenes the Cynic

Correct. Even the word for "redeemer" in the Hebrew does not have a spiritual, soteriological meaning, but is a word (without any real translation in English) indicating a kinsman who is taking care of some kind of unfinished business for a relative (can refer to paying a debt, but can also refer to taking revenge).

King David is definitely a Christos, though - the original one, in fact.

aa5874

What are you talking about?? HJers are claiming their HJ was an OBSCURE preacher man who people knew was NOT a Jewish Messiah.

HJers imply that Paul and the disciples started the Jesus movement by fabricating Lies and Embellishments.

In the NT a character called Paul, based on HJers, would INVENT fiction stories of revelations and travel all over the Roman Empire Lying to the teeth about Jesus.

And after Paul was Lying about Jesus, and known to be a Liar by those who knew Jesus, the authors of the Jesus story documented more Lies.

Amazingly, if Jesus was just a man, then in Acts, Paul was extremely deceptive he tried to persuade Agrippa to become a Christian.

The HJ argument does NOT make much sense.

Not even the deified Emperor of Rome could forgive sins yet HJers want people to believe Christians worshiped an OBSCURE dead Jew as a God and Universal Savior and refused to worship the Emperor of Rome.

We have gMark and it contradicts the HJ argument.

ApostateAbe

I claim that A is predominantly B. If so, I would not necessarily claim that B is predominantly A (see fallacy of composition). For example, most American conservatives are not Obama-birthers, but almost all Obama-birthers are indeed American conservatives. Most Americans against George W. Bush are not 9/11 truthers, but almost all 9/11 truthers are anti-Bush. And so on.
A lot of atheists stand ideologically against the Christian religion, and, if it is commonly believed that Jesus was only a myth, it would very much pull the rug out from under the scriptural authority of the Bible and the traditional Christian religion.

This ideological dynamic seems self-evident to me, you are not the only one in this forum who seems blind to it, and it continues to be puzzling. I had always thought atheists would be the sort of people most conscious of their own biases, but maybe not. In response to the blindness, I created a thread some time ago that became a large collection of explicit examples of the connection between Jesus-mythicism and anti-Christianity (or anti-conservative-Christianity). Here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=283440

aa5874

HJers themselves ridicule people who believe the Bible is fundamentally true but still rely heavily on the Bible for their historical Jesus.

In any event, the HJ argument is a most Devastating argument against the credibilty of Early Christians and the supposed followers of the Jesus if he did live..

If HJers can show that Jesus was just an ACTUAL ordinary man who was KNOWN by his disciples and people of Galilee to have NO ability to heal the sick, was KNOWN to have a human father, was NOT a Jewish Messiah, did NOT walk on water, did NOT transfigure, was NOT sacrificed for mankind, did NOT resurrect and did NOT ascend to heaven then Christianity would have been derived from a Falsehood--from Deception.

If Jesus was KNOWN as an ordinary man with a human father then the Pauline writings can be dumped as fraudulent letters.

An ordinary man cannot offer Salvation to mankind.

The HJ argument will destroy Christianity if Jesus has no ability to Remit Sins.

John 3:16 KJV The Historical Jesus destroys the very heart of the Jesus story, the very heart of Christianity.

dog-on

How do you know that, precisely?

Provide the evidence that shows, for example, that the author of Matthew is not the author of Q, or that the author of Q is independent of the author of Matthew.

Duvduv

It is interesting that the promise of eternal life in GJohn 3 has an echo in the epistle to the Romans chapters 3 and 6. This is despite the total absence of GJohn notions such as the Logos Word from the epistles, among other things.
And in the Synoptics Jesus never says this but promises eternal life by things like proper behavior or dedication to himself or following the commandments of the Torah.