WILLOWTREE

Hi Jackalope !

Ointment/Anointed with ointment for what reason ?

Why don't you refer to the standard beginners source - Strong's Dictionary and look up "Christ" ?

"Christ" is a title/office:

Many a persons read this verse and get confused.

Moses could not of known Jesus obviously.

Moses was a "Christ"/Messiah, it is a title/office, the author of Hebrews is saying that Moses accepted his destiny to be the messiah who God would use to DELIVER Israel from the bondage of Egypt.

Thus "Christ" and "Messiah" mean "deliverer" which is the function of the Messiah. The anointing is the actual designation via ointment or in Jesus's case the Dove of the Holy Spirit who descended on Him at His baptism.

"Oil" in scripture is the type of the Spirit, which came upon David after his anointing to be messiah - Israel's greatest warrior.

Moses delivered the Hebrews.

Jesus THE Christ delivered mankind from the penalty of sin.

"Jesus" is the greek cognate for "Joshua".

"Joshua" is derived from "Yeshua" which is from "Jehovah" (via the german), which is from God's consonant name YHWH.

YHWH is pictoral and defined as something "wanting to burst forth".

The point is that God named His Son after Himself.

Thus the literal meaning of Jesus Christ is:

"Wanting to burst forth with Deliverance".

CX

Interesting line of lexical reasoning, but I'm afraid it's rather bereft of any truth value. "Christ" is an english word. It derives from XRISTOS which means something close to "moistened". I'd have to check my middle Liddell to find out for sure. As someone rightly pointed out it was the best attempt of Greek writers to translate the Hebrew MOSHIACH which as was also pointed out means "Anointed". All Jewish Kings and a few foreign ones were "anointed" or called "anointed" in the Jewish tradition. The Persian King Cyrus (I think, judaica is not really my area) was called MOSHIACH. It does not in anyway connote deliverer. It was a monarchial title for a favored ruler of Israel. Incidentally a human one.

Jesus, incidentally IS a transliteration of Yehoshua (or Yeshua), but it does not mean what you say it does. Yehoshua means, "YHWH (is) salvation". Most names in the period and geography in question were theophoric, meaning they related in some way to the deity worshipped by the person so named (or his or her kinsmen). Yehoshua was quite quite popular one (in the top three for the time as I recall).

Amaleq13

I have split off the tangential posts about the Great Pyramid to this location if anyone wishes to continue that line of discussion.

CX

One more minor niggle. IHSOUS and YEHOSHUA are not cognates. IHSOUS is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew YEHOSHUA. Cognates are two words that derive from the same word in an ancestral language. Hebrew and Greek do not share a common lineage so it is nonsensical to say that any Greek word is a cognate of a Hebrew word. Not only that but cognate implies words that are similar in form because of their mutual etymology (e.g. Spanish "como" is cognate with Italian "como").

myndreach

Oh, am I to understand that Satan has the power to corrupt god's message? If that's the case, my argument stands. God chose this method to communicate with us, and god knew it would be corrupted by satan. God made satan...therefore he is responsible for the bible's corruption.

If I find evidence for life on mars, but know it will be corrupted on the way to earth on a ship, aren't I responsible for it's corruption if I bring it to earth that way? Now, if I am omnipotent, isn't it easier to just have it teleported to earth?

So, I will state again...

All that this thread does for me is add to my assertion that the bible is not god's word. The bible is the most misunderstood, mistranslated, convoluted, contorted, re-arranged, confusing book ever written.

Hardly a way for an infallible, loving, caring god to communicate his message of salvation from the hell's he has prepared for us...

ps: if I've counted correctly you've posted in this thread alone about 7 or 8 times since so dramatically stating you were leaving this antiseptic forum on page 1

myndreach

I'm not sure how genesis 38 is so lurid? Lurid means disgusting, doesn't it? It seems no worse to me than things described elsewhere in the bible.

So because this chapter makes not sense, you say it's proof god wrote the bible, as man never would write something so strange? Am I understanding correctly? If so, then that's the biggest cop-out I've ever seen and you are completely closed minded. How can you ever see a diff viewpoint if anytime something proves you wrong you can just say "Oh that's god being silly."

Okay I'm tired and rambling, and if I misunderstood what you meant about that chapter, then I take back what I said.

Jack the Bodiless

Unlikely, as you DO have the time, but didn't do this. Instead you took the time to go off on a rambling tangent that is STILL no evidence of any prophecy fulfillment.

My statement stands: "Matthew" was a liar.

Sandslice

There's also another Matthew-ism.

Just after (actually during) Jesus's polemic against the Pharisees, in Mt 23, Matt has Jesus referring to the death of "Zechariah son of Berechiah" (v35) in a location "between the Temple and the Holy Place."

The problem here is that a Zechariah DID die in that location --- but he was the son of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chronicles, ch. 24.)

Better yet, the Bible does also refer to a Zechariah son of Berechiah --- he is said to have lived during the second year of Darius (ie, 520 BCE) and is attributed to having received the revelation that produced the book of Zechariah.

What happened here? Did Jesus mess up, or did Matthew? :P

WILLOWTREE

One sentence dismissal of my semi-lengthy post demonstrates the truth contained therein.

Your post repeats the exact generic renderings which my response already enlarged upon. (Note: I didn't say refute, I said "enlarged upon")

Your post lacks any source of reference for its content except yourself which makes it ambiguous and subjective.

My post demonstrated from the Bible what "Messiah" means and is.

The ending segment concerning the naming of Jesus and the definition of Jehovah - source: Dr. Gene Scott.

WILLOWTREE

Not even christianity's worst critics (Jesus Seminar) say Matthew is a liar.

Do you know WHY they won't ?

Once again, to deem someone a liar, which is the whole of your argument, greatly evidences in itself the lack of any respectable argument to that end.

My position, in addition to that which I have already argued (and you have completely ignored - wonder why ?), is that Matthew is a fucking God-damn Satan loving liar OR he is an honest reporter telling the truth - with nothing in between.

Therefore, while I vehemently disagree with you I nonetheless respect your opinion.