Ulrich

A flawed premise that leads you to a correct conclusion is still a flawed premise.

spin

It's better to know something about the subject and not be so dependent. :wave:


spin

yummyfur

No, not at all, the only word this person comes to the same conclusion about is that christos was used to mean annointed in the Christian era. All his other word conclusions dealing with Hebrew are highly dubious. Since his main goal is looking at Hebrew and not Greek, he doesn't really discuss much about the word christos.

His end conclusion makes no sense, he says christos should have never been used as a title for Jesus, despite the fact that it was. He claims it was the church's attempt to get rid of Jewish influence. But if that was true, they could have just used the Greek word soter to replace the Hebrew if his point had any validity. Why use the so called inappropriate word christos, that had religious meaning to Greek speaking Jews as well, when it was unneccasary if his premise was correct?

Chris Weimer

Then again, there may have been confusion with Christos and Chrestos?

MortalWombat

At least one early church father, Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180-185 CE), felt so too.

From THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS. BOOK I.

He never mentioned Jesus or Christ in his whole apology, interestingly.

judge

A question

Spin can you explain how M$X is a cognate of an arabic word when the Arabic language comes after hebrew which comes after Aramaic?

Thanks

spin

The English word "head" is a cognate of the Latin word "caput", even though English didn't exist when the Romans were using caput for "head". (The German cognate "haupt" is a little more apparent as being related.) The word wasn't borrowed by the English. They inherited it just as the Romans did "caput". It's just that the distance in time between the two manifestations of the one word hides the relationship.

However, Assyrian king Shalmaneser III mentions a Gindibu' of Arabia who provided 1000 camels for a coalition against the Assyrians. Tiglath-Pileser III mentions a queen Zabibe of Arabia. Etc.

Arabs and their language I'd say have been around for longer than Mohammed!


spin

Chris Weimer

Because Arabic didn't borrow it from Hebrew. It was a totally different branch of Semitic.

judge

As it is pretty well accepted that Aramaic is the oldest of the three languages the most parsimonious solution is that the Aramaic came first.

In Aramaic, "oil" is "Mish-kha" (the root of Me-shi-kha)
In Hebrew, "oil" is "Mi-shakh" (the root of Me-shi-ach)
In Arabic, "oil" is "Mis-kha" (the root of Me-sikh)

It is pretty obvious they all have a common origin. That origin is most likely Aramaic as it is the oldest language.

We don't know this to be true of course Arabic may be older, but there seems to no reason to start from this umproved premise whilst at least we have some reason to think Aramaic is older.

Added in edit:
Actually I don';t think anyone would seriously suggest Arabic or Hebrew is older than Aramaic.
Would they? :huh:

judge

Is there any evidence these people spoke Arabic though?