Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Guest Jeckyl]

>>>>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of

>>>>him.

>>> Then why doesn't he describe the person?

>>What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of

>>from others?

> You tell me - you're the one making the claims that he knew of the

> historical Jesus that he doesn't describe, from those who knew him.

 

Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only talks

of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it). He says

little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what he was

teaching.

[Guest Jeckyl]

> Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only

> talks of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it).

> He says little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what

> he was teaching.

 

argh . .typos .. let me try again and say a little more

 

Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes Jesus physical appearance. The

Gospels talk of what he did during his live, where he went, what he said,

what he did.

Paul only talks of the Jesus he knows from his vision, and how he

interpretted it. He says little about Jesus as a person because it was not

relevant to what he was teaching. Perhaps also it was only those

non-worldly issues that needed to be talked about in his letters (as that

may have been what his followers were having trouble with most).

[Guest Father Haskell]

On Feb 20, 9:32 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of

> >>him.

> > Then why doesn't he describe the person?

>

> What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of

> from others?

>

> Paul himself claims not to have seen/met the human Jesus .. only to have had

> a vision.

 

IOW, a temporal lobe aura.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:38:49 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>>>>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of

>>>>>him.

>>>> Then why doesn't he describe the person?

>>>What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of

>>>from others?

>> You tell me - you're the one making the claims that he knew of the

>> historical Jesus that he doesn't describe, from those who knew him.

>

>Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only talks

>of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it). He says

>little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what he was

>teaching.

 

Please demonstrate that this is the reason he says little about Jesus.

[Guest Jeckyl]

>>Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only

>>talks

>>of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it). He

>>says

>>little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what he was

>>teaching.

> Please demonstrate that this is the reason he says little about Jesus.

 

Why not .. can you demonstrate a better reason?

[Guest Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 8:14

pm Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change

>>> any emphasis.

>> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through

>> the

>> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based

>> upon an actual person.

>

> Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known

> of him.

>

> Well said.

 

The tow of you are confusing the fantasies found in Acts with character

of the Pauline school of scribes. There is zero evidence for the

mention of any Jesus, anywhere until the epistles from the Pauline

school in the second century. The human Jesus was invented later. The

character Paul heard nothing of Jesus. Why is it so difficult for you

to understand the plain words the scribes made Paul utter about hearing

nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

[Guest Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 1:41

pm weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>

> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote

>> weatherwax weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

>>>>> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a

>>>>> Christian word and refers to the literal Son of God.

>>>>

>>>> No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed

>>>> one' or 'chosen one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew

>>>> 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of God'. Anyone with

>>>> christian knowledge would know that.

>>>

>>> You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-

>>> Greek. I did not say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said

>>> that it "refers to the literal Son of God."

>>

>> And you would be wrong. Christos (Christ in English) was

>> applied to King Darius, King David, a donkey, two pillars, a

>> rock and a loaf of bread in the Old Testament. And in Acts

>> Christos was applied to two other individuals other that

>> Joshua. You are now going to suggest a loaf of bread is a son

>> of god? Or a donkey?

>>

>>> It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.

>>>

>>

>> It's too bad you don't read Greek. Otherwise you would not

>> have made that statement.

>

> I was attempting to show that in English the word "Christ" does not

> have the

> same meaning as the word "messiah".

 

It certainly does have the exact same meaning. Had you studied Hebrew

and Greek you would have discovered for yourself that the Greek

Septuagint translated the Hebrew messiah which meant oiled one or oiled

thing as christos. It had the exact same meaning.

> It is true that in the Old

> Testament rocks, kings and priest were "anointed", but you would never

> call any of them "Christ", and I do not know of an English translation

> which does.

>

Of course not because most translations want the reader to think this

christos is more like a proper name than an adjective. But since you

do not know Greek you cannot see that the word christos was used in all

those circumstances. In Hebrew the OT uses messiah in each of those

instances. It is because of your lack of knowledge of the biblical

languages you make such nonsentical assertions. However you are wrong.

 

> In the New Testament it is never difficult to determine where the

> Greek writers are referring to a person who had been anointed, and

> where they are

> referring to "The Amointed", i.e. "The Christ." This is reflected in

> every translation I have even seen.

>

Only because the apologist translators want you to think of christos as

something special. The same way they translate the OT Joshua as Joshua

and translate the exact same name in the NT as Jesus. However if you

could read the Greek you would find the definite article "the" used in

front of Joshua as they usually do for proper names but exclude it in

front of christos. Christos is used more like an adjective, not a

proper noun especially not a name. Besides the original manuscripts

were written with every letter as a capital. The did not use

capitalization as we do in English as you did with Anointed or Christ.

Nor in fact for god.

 

> --Wax

 

Why do people who cannot read the Hebrew, Greek or Latin of scripture

always think they are such experts in the field?

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

[Guest weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

>> You are reading translations of the Koran. Not the Koran.

>> I forget what word the Koran uses, but I understand that it

>> basically means "anointed". Therefore, a literal translation would be

>> "anointed".

>

> Just as 'christ' means. So its the arabic word that means the same things

> as christ does.

 

If we were speaking clasical Greek, "al-Masih" would mean the same thing as

"Christos" does.

>> "Christ" and "Messiah" are titles, not names.

>

> Yes

>

>> They both have the ancient meanings of "anointed"

>

> Yes

>

>> but by calling Jesus "Christ" we are referring to him as the

>> supposed "Son of God."

>

> That christians claim Jesus is Christ and is Son of God doesn't

> mean that the term 'Christ' means 'Son of God'. They are just two titles.

>

>> Matthew 16:16

>> Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son

>> of the living God."

>

> Yes.. so he is the Christ, and he is the Son of the living God.

 

The two are not separable. The Christ IS the Son of God. They are one and

the same thing.

>> The Koran is not referring to Jesus as "the Son of the living

>> God."

>

> No .. it is referring to him as Christ or Messiah. Just as

> the Bible does. Note the english translations also use the

> capitalised version 'Christ'

>

> You seem to be unclear in what you are saying .. that the title

> Christ means son of god, then it doesn't, then it does.

>

> Basically, the claim that the Quran does not refer to Jesus as Christ or

> Messiah is disproved. Unless you redefine the terms

> to suit what you are saying.

 

By your own admission, the passages you quoted sometimes translates the

Arabic "al-Masih" as "Christ", and other times it translates it as

"Messiah". Is it your claim that "Christ" and "Messiah" and "al-Masih" mean

the same thing?

 

The Christ is the purported Son of God.

The Messiah is the proposed future Jewish savior.

In the Koran, Jesus is a prophet.

 

Three different meanings.

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:57:58 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <12tmrug7c9a1h35@corp.supernews.com>

>> They have nothing to do with Christianity.

>> Nor did they cease to change.

>

>Then why are you arguing about them. owever, other mythical figused have

>many elements in common with the stories around Jesus birth and death. Also

>the Jesus stories have many elements in common with other OT stories. I

>think it likely that the truth was embellished in the Gospels.

>

>>>> Honesty and integrity does not

>>>> involve making claims and then claiming that

>>>> the other guy must always be the one providing

>>>> proof. (:

>>>But that is what you're doing.

>> No, I called you on your claims.

>

>Exactly .. you make claims and then call on me to come up withproviding

>proof.

>

>I'm happy to show evidence of what I make as claims (other than personal

>beliefs and theories, which I will usually describe as such).

>

>What particular claims are they that I've not backed up with some links as

>yet. It is truly hard to keep upwith the posts here to know who said what

>in what thread

 

Could you PLEASE quote as to whom you are responding?

It is terribly annoying.

 

--

[Guest Father Haskell]

On Feb 21, 1:17 am, "weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> If we were speaking clasical Greek, "al-Masih" would mean the

> same thing as "Christos" does.

 

Tasty new snack chip... mmm...

[Guest Jeckyl]

> There is zero evidence for the mention of any Jesus

> anywhere until the epistles from the Pauline

> school in the second century.

 

The majorty / accepted datings for Paul's letters are the first century.

And the gospels later first century or maybe early second century.

 

Where do you get your later datings? Wat evidence is there for them being

written that late?

> The human Jesus was invented later.

> The character Paul heard nothing of Jesus.

 

There certainly seems to be references to Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ our

Lord, and Lord Jesus Christ in the Pauline eplistles.

> Why is it so difficult for you

> to understand the plain words the scribes

> made Paul utter about hearing

> nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

 

Which words are they?

[Guest Jeckyl]

> By your own admission, the passages you quoted sometimes translates the

> Arabic "al-Masih" as "Christ", and other times it translates it as

> "Messiah".

 

Yes .. it depends on the translation

> Is it your claim that "Christ" and "Messiah" and "al-Masih" mean the same

> thing?

 

It would certainly seem that way.

> The Christ is the purported Son of God.

> The Messiah is the proposed future Jewish savior.

 

Why do you insist these are (or need to be) different things?

> In the Koran, Jesus is a prophet.

 

Why does the word get translated as christ or messiah and not prophet in all

the Quram translations I have seen.

[Guest Jeckyl]

> Could you PLEASE quote as to whom you are responding?

> It is terribly annoying.

 

I'm quoting the person I am replying to .. in this case 'Bible Believer'.

Are you using some news reader / service that does not show the three tree?

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:47:37 -0500, Darrell Stec

<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

- Refer: <5424l9F1uf7kaU1@mid.individual.net>

>After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 8:14

>pm Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>

>>>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change

>>>> any emphasis.

>>> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through

>>> the

>>> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based

>>> upon an actual person.

>>

>> Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known

>> of him.

>>

>> Well said.

>

>The tow of you are confusing the fantasies found in Acts with character

>of the Pauline school of scribes. There is zero evidence for the

>mention of any Jesus, anywhere until the epistles from the Pauline

>school in the second century. The human Jesus was invented later. The

>character Paul heard nothing of Jesus. Why is it so difficult for you

>to understand the plain words the scribes made Paul utter about hearing

>nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

 

Some sort of mental pathology arising from willful ignorance, perhaps?

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:03:46 -0500, Darrell Stec

<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

- Refer: <5425jiF1ul8clU1@mid.individual.net>

>After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 1:41

>pm weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>

>>

>> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote

>>> weatherwax weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>>>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

>>>>>> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a

>>>>>> Christian word and refers to the literal Son of God.

>>>>>

>>>>> No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed

>>>>> one' or 'chosen one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew

>>>>> 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of God'. Anyone with

>>>>> christian knowledge would know that.

>>>>

>>>> You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-

>>>> Greek. I did not say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said

>>>> that it "refers to the literal Son of God."

>>>

>>> And you would be wrong. Christos (Christ in English) was

>>> applied to King Darius, King David, a donkey, two pillars, a

>>> rock and a loaf of bread in the Old Testament. And in Acts

>>> Christos was applied to two other individuals other that

>>> Joshua. You are now going to suggest a loaf of bread is a son

>>> of god? Or a donkey?

>>>

>>>> It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.

>>>>

>>>

>>> It's too bad you don't read Greek. Otherwise you would not

>>> have made that statement.

>>

>> I was attempting to show that in English the word "Christ" does not

>> have the

>> same meaning as the word "messiah".

>

>It certainly does have the exact same meaning. Had you studied Hebrew

>and Greek you would have discovered for yourself that the Greek

>Septuagint translated the Hebrew messiah which meant oiled one or oiled

>thing as christos. It had the exact same meaning.

>

>> It is true that in the Old

>> Testament rocks, kings and priest were "anointed", but you would never

>> call any of them "Christ", and I do not know of an English translation

>> which does.

>>

>Of course not because most translations want the reader to think this

>christos is more like a proper name than an adjective. But since you

>do not know Greek you cannot see that the word christos was used in all

>those circumstances. In Hebrew the OT uses messiah in each of those

>instances. It is because of your lack of knowledge of the biblical

>languages you make such nonsentical assertions. However you are wrong.

>

>

>> In the New Testament it is never difficult to determine where the

>> Greek writers are referring to a person who had been anointed, and

>> where they are

>> referring to "The Amointed", i.e. "The Christ." This is reflected in

>> every translation I have even seen.

>>

>Only because the apologist translators want you to think of christos as

>something special. The same way they translate the OT Joshua as Joshua

>and translate the exact same name in the NT as Jesus. However if you

>could read the Greek you would find the definite article "the" used in

>front of Joshua as they usually do for proper names but exclude it in

>front of christos. Christos is used more like an adjective, not a

>proper noun especially not a name. Besides the original manuscripts

>were written with every letter as a capital. The did not use

>capitalization as we do in English as you did with Anointed or Christ.

>Nor in fact for god.

>

>

>> --Wax

>

>Why do people who cannot read the Hebrew, Greek or Latin of scripture

>always think they are such experts in the field?

 

My cardiologist is relieved that I have killfiled Granny Weatherwax,

although I feel not 'a little' guilty at leaving the didactic burden

upon your more than learned shoulders.

 

You are a better man than I, Gungha Din, to put up with this

chronically ignorant bovine excreta in the relatively pleasant manner

that you are able.

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:26:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <12tn56jouap5i56@corp.supernews.com>

>> You are reading translations of the Koran. Not the Koran. I forget what

>> word the Koran uses, but I understand that it basically means "anointed".

>> Therefore, a literal translation would be "anointed".

>

>Just as 'christ' means. So its the arabic word that means the same things

>as christ does.

 

Why can't you learn to attribute your posts properly?

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:23:14 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <12to3s9260q4ue4@corp.supernews.com>

>> Could you PLEASE quote as to whom you are responding?

>> It is terribly annoying.

>

>I'm quoting the person I am replying to .. in this case 'Bible Believer'.

>Are you using some news reader / service that does not show the three tree?

 

Yes.

Almost all of them.

The real ones at least.

 

Please quote (at least) the nym of the person to whom you are

respinding.

I like reading your contributions, and it would be a pity to have to

killfile youu because I cannot make head nor tail of who you are

responding to.

 

Has it not occurred to you as to the reason why most people do this?

(And that you are the odd man out?)

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:17:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <12to3h2s4cm9v72@corp.supernews.com>

>> There is zero evidence for the mention of any Jesus

>> anywhere until the epistles from the Pauline

>> school in the second century.

>

>The majorty / accepted datings for Paul's letters are the first century.

>And the gospels later first century or maybe early second century.

>

>Where do you get your later datings? Wat evidence is there for them being

>written that late?

 

Where is your evidence for the early datings?

I have asked you before, after informing you that they are PURE

GUESSES, by partisan interests, hell bent on proving their fabricated

fanatasies.

 

Where is your evidence?

 

I can demand that in the confidence that you have absolutely NONE!!

 

And you have the gall to ask for evidence that your wishful guesses

are in error?

 

Oh, gimme a break!

 

You appear to have been sucked int, hook line and sinker by the church

inspired con artists.

 

"Where is the extant evidence?" is the question that one must ask

throughout the whole process.

 

You have exactly zero for your bizarre claims.

 

>> The human Jesus was invented later.

>> The character Paul heard nothing of Jesus.

>

>There certainly seems to be references to Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ our

>Lord, and Lord Jesus Christ in the Pauline eplistles.

 

You have the original copies, do you?

I'd be glad to pay a lot of money for them.

A fuck of a lot of dosh.

I'd pay a couple of billion dollars for a genuine Pauline letter,

written in his own hand.

Insantantly.

>> Why is it so difficult for you

>> to understand the plain words the scribes

>> made Paul utter about hearing

>> nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

>

>Which words are they?

 

Exactly!!

 

--

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:07:06 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>>Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only

>>>talks

>>>of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it). He

>>>says

>>>little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what he was

>>>teaching.

>> Please demonstrate that this is the reason he says little about Jesus.

>

>Why not .. can you demonstrate a better reason?

 

Not my problem. You made the claim, so back it up.

[Guest Jeckyl]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:io8ot2pi1glb0sadr8it3nl5ppf5827fai@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:23:14 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

> Please quote (at least) the nym of the person to whom you are

> respinding.

 

I'll do so from now on .. if for no other reason than to ensur eyour

continued enjoyment of my posts :)

 

Most groups I usually frequent (non-theological) do not have that problem,

and encourage people to be minimalistic in what they quote from other

messages (if anything at all). I'll have to get back into the habit again

[Guest Jeckyl]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:t68ot2todns0p83tqm3dvq8ju1tup8hoeh@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:26:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

> wrote:

> Why can't you learn to attribute your posts properly?

 

I have taken your advise and are doing so now. I can learn (and do my best

to do so). But I may slip up on occasion my accident

[Guest Jeckyl]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:ov8ot2l29eflnhddgsr8q80sqet06jgftn@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:17:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

> wrote:

>>Where do you get your later datings? Wat evidence is there for them being

>>written that late?

> Where is your evidence for the early datings?

> I have asked you before, after informing you that they are PURE

> GUESSES, by partisan interests, hell bent on proving their fabricated

> fanatasies.

 

I have provided the evidence for that dates .. you may not accept them, but

I can find nothing that suggests different dates.

 

You've so far not provided any evidence for your contrary claims.

 

I would definitely be interested in reading why they are corect and what

appear to be the generally accepted dates are incorrect.

> And you have the gall to ask for evidence that your wishful guesses

> are in error?

 

They are not my wishful gueses. You are the one showing some gall here ..

as you are making claims that are contrary to generally accepted estimates.

> You have exactly zero for your bizarre claims.

 

Do you have any?

> You have the original copies, do you?

 

Do you have original copies that show otherwise?

>>> Why is it so difficult for you

>>> to understand the plain words the scribes

>>> made Paul utter about hearing

>>> nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

>>Which words are they?

> Exactly!!

 

So are you saying these 'plain words' that I do not understand do not exist

... that could explain why they are difficult to understand.

 

Could you please explain what it is you are really trying to say in slightly

more verbose form than 'Exactly!!'

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:14:46 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change

>>> any emphasis.

>> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through the

>> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based upon

>> an actual person.

 

And your evidence for these so far baseless assertions, is?

>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of

>him.

>

>Well said.

>

[Guest weatherwax]

"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote

> weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>>

>> I was attempting to show that in English the word "Christ"

>> does not have the same meaning as the word "messiah".

>

> It certainly does have the exact same meaning. Had you

> studied Hebrew and Greek you would have discovered for

> yourself that the Greek Septuagint translated the Hebrew

> messiah which meant oiled one or oiled thing as christos.

> It had the exact same meaning.

 

Keep in mind that Jeckyl and I were debating modern translations of the

Koran when it describes Jesus as "al-Masih", which means "the anointed".

Would it be proper to translate it as "the Christ"? Or as "the Messiah"? I

say that with the modern meanings of the words, neither translation would be

correct.

 

The Septuagint was a Hebrew-Greek translation of the Old Testament which

dates before the Christian era. You are correct when you point out that in

it the word "Christos" has the basic meaning "anointed" and refers to Hebrew

kings and priests as "messiah" does. And it often refers to the expected

king who would sit on the throne of David and restore the kingdom of Israel,

i.e. the Messiah.

 

However, words have a way of changing meaning. In English translations the

word "Christ" is never used in the Old Testament. "Messiah" is usually

translated as "anointed".

 

In the New Testament the word "Christos" became identified with a God. This

is a new interpretation which is not found in the Old Testament, or even in

the Septuagint.

>> It is true that in the Old

>> Testament rocks, kings and priest were "anointed", but you

>> would never call any of them "Christ", and I do not know

>> of an English translation which does.

>>

> Of course not because most translations want the reader to

> think this christos is more like a proper name than an adjective.

> But since you do not know Greek you cannot see that the

> word christos was used in all those circumstances. In Hebrew

> the OT uses messiah in each of those instances. It is because

> of your lack of knowledge of the biblical languages you make

> such nonsentical assertions. However you are wrong.

 

It is not my lack of knowledge of biblical languages. I primarily agree

with you, except that Jeckyl and I were talking about modern translations of

the Koran into English. You have just shown how words change in meaning.

>> In the New Testament it is never difficult to determine where

>> the Greek writers are referring to a person who had been

>> anointed, and where they are referring to "The Amointed",

>> i.e. "The Christ." This is reflected in every translation I have

>> even seen.

>>

> Only because the apologist translators want you to think of

> christos as something special. The same way they translate

> the OT Joshua as Joshua and translate the exact same name

> in the NT as Jesus. However if you could read the Greek

> you would find the definite article "the" used in front of Joshua

> as they usually do for proper names but exclude it in

> front of christos. Christos is used more like an adjective, not a

> proper noun especially not a name. Besides the original

> manuscripts were written with every letter as a capital. The

> did not use capitalization as we do in English as you did with

> Anointed or Christ.

> Nor in fact for god.

 

Most Christians are aware that "Christ" is a title, but to them it means

"The Son of God."

 

Matthew 16:16

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son

of the living God."

 

--Wax

>

>

>> --Wax

>

> Why do people who cannot read the Hebrew, Greek or Latin

> of scripture always think they are such experts in the field?

[Guest Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:in9ot2hjrq4cchcfhjag5ocvuuvmbsfdio@4ax.com...

>>Why not .. can you demonstrate a better reason?

> Not my problem. You made the claim, so back it up.

 

I am just suggesting a possible and plausible explanation for your question

as to why Paul doesn't describe Jesus.

 

My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not need a

description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no first-hand knowledge

of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples). However, there are numerous

references to Jesus as Christ, Jesus as son of God, Jesus as a man, and of

his crucifixion and raising from the dead (key to Paul's idea of

Christianity). His letters were addressing specific issues for the

communities to whom he was writing, and to whom his 'gospel' had already

been delivered.

 

That seems to be self-consistent and also consistent with what little we do

know.

 

Your explanation says Paul doesn't have a description of Jesus or his life

because Jesus doesn't exist, an wasn't invented until later.

 

Yet that is problematic because Paul mentions Jesus and his crucifixion so

many times in the epistles.

 

Are there versions of the epistles by Paul that I've not been looking at yet

which do not mention Jesus and his death on the cross?

 

If not, then your explanation appears to be lacking.