Jesus and Christ

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 11:18 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 10:51 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 5:28 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 9:42 pm Jesus and Christ are very similar in appearance to each other in Hebrew. (ישוע and ישו respectively).
I am not sure what you mean here. Christ is the English transliteration of Latin Christus, which is the Latin transliteration of the Greek Χριστός, which was used to translate the Hebrew משיח (Mashiach/Messiah) in the Old Greek. The two words above, ישוע and ישו, are just two variants of the same Hebrew name (Joshua/Jesus); neither of them means Christ/Christus/Χριστός/Anointed.
Excuse me. I meant ישר, yashar, which is translated in the Septuagint as chrestos in the Septuagint. (Proverbs 2:21)

One website I looked at did translate ישו as christ. I can't read or speak Hebrew, so I'm not able to instantly recognize Hebrew words.

So just chalk this up to me being human and making a mistake.
Okay, but ישר appears some 161 times in the Hebrew scriptures, while χρηστός appears some 30 times in the Old Greek, and only once does the latter translate the former (in Proverbs 2.21, as you point out). That is not the usual pairing, and χρηστός is not the same as χριστός anyway.

The usual Old Greek translation of ישר is εὐθύς.

In short, ישר does not mean Christ in any way. It is in the Old Greek translated exactly once as χρηστός, which merely sounds similar to χριστός: the actual basis for the word Christ.
But the Marcionites recognized Isu Chrestos, not Christ. To be honest, unless I want to emphasize a certain point, I use christ and chrestos interchangeably. Maybe to my discredit, but it's easier than jumping from one to the other.

After all, there is evidence that chrestos was used as a mystical substitute for christos in Alexandria by the first century bc.

What I am suggesting is this is a product of midrashic/pesher interpretation, wherein otherwise dissimilar passages are conflated to discover some hidden meaning.

But my original comment, made on a different post, was that ישו and ישר are are not too dissimilar, and that the reference of the Christ/Chrestos being cut off, alluded to the resh (an abbreviation for this principle) being cut off from vav, forming the name ישו, Yeshu.

This could be the reason Jesus/Isu and Christ/Chrestos are used interchangeably in Pauline Christianity, because they were both indicative of the same concept, based on a pesher reading of the Greek Daniel 9:26 andProverbs 12:21. I have also wondered if Genesis 1:3-4, also fed into this, as John seems to equate Jesus with this light, which is "good" (even though it's not translated as chrestos in the Septuagint).

Trying to get into the heads of people who lived over two thousand years ago is nigh impossible. I think I have made it abundantly clear that most of what I write is speculation, to see what could work and what doesn't work.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

Returning in the topic of the thread:

Acts 2:36 :

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

It is evident here that "Jesus" and "Christ" are two different entities even for the proto-catholics. I wonder: can the same sentence be true in a more historical (and not theological) sense? Jesus would be a "historical" person only later ("after the death" in the story, but really "after the 70 CE" by the historicizing sects) identified with the pauline Christ, as:

1) here the pauline Christ is meant (a celestial dying and rising Christ) and not the generic Jewish Messiah.

2) Jesus was already "called Christ" in the eyes of Pilate according to the proto-catholic Matthew, and before the death and resurrection. So if he was "made" Christ after the death, then the definition of Christ (in Acts 2:36) is different from that used to call him so before the his death.

But in Galatians 1:12 Paul sees "Jesus Christ" and not only "the Christ":
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
This passage contraddicts Acts 2:36 since Paul should have seen only the Christ (and accordingly write only "Christ" in Gal 1:12), assuming that a historical Jesus was became one and the same being with "Christ" and therefore without more need of being called "Jesus". Afterall, if you are persuaded that mr. X is the Christ, which is the need of calling him still X?

Was "Jesus" an addition?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Was "Jesus" an addition?
The short answer: no.

The long answer: Jesus Christ, or Isu Chrestus, is entirely applicable to Pauline Christology, wherein the spirit was pre-existent in the realm of heaven (I would argue it existed in the sun), and would descend and enter a righteous enough host, who would be mystically transfigured as Isu. Paul speaks of himself in just such a manner in Philipians 1:20, while speaking of the previous host in Philipians 2:8-11. The name that is above all names is YHWH, which was placed--as if it were a tangible reality--into the angel who lead Moses and the Israelites out of Egypt as a pillar of smoke and fire. Isu Chrestus typifies this too much to be a later addition.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

But you talk about Paul as if he was a Jew. That is fine. But then you can't move the his epistles in 2° CE, unless you make him a Gentile (i.e. Marcion of Sinope).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 9:20 am But you talk about Paul as if he was a Jew. That is fine. But then you can't move the his epistles in 2° CE, unless you make him a Gentile (i.e. Marcion of Sinope).
I don't understand how you can make such a statement. Paul himself speaks of his tutelage in Judaism in Galatians, constantly reiterates Jewish tradition, and his theology is predicated on Judaism. Being a gentile or not has no baring on the dating.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

A gentile Paul may explain precisely that so strong and interested insistence on the his Judaism (as proto-catholic reaction).

The real Jewishness of Paul implies by need that a pre-70 Paul is more probable than a post-70 Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Not at all. Paul makes several comments that only make sense in a post-Kitos era, seemingly supports Hadrian's policies, and at once upholds certain Jewish customs while opposing others. I think you're not realizing that the situation is far more nuanced than you think, all in an attempt to support this false idea of a gentile-first Christianity.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

No, I am not supporting a gentile-first Christianity.

The incident of Antiochia proves that a conflict happened between gentiles and Judaizers. Before the 70.

I am saying that the origins of the Myth of Jesus Christ (crucified by demons) were Jewish. While the origins of the Legend of Jesus (crucified by Jews)* were gentile.

EDIT: idem for the Paul legend, if Paul didn't write the letters but Marcion did.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 9:52 pm No, I am not supporting a gentile-first Christianity.
You have made comments in the past about Christianity being "Judaicized". You even say so here:
The incident of Antiochia proves that a conflict happened between gentiles and Judaizers. Before the 70.
What exactly is a Judaizer? Someone Juaicizing something. But then this implies that, that something, wasn't Jewish before.

Also, the incident of Antioch is a completely mythical event. It never happened.
I am saying that the origins of the Myth of Jesus Christ (crucified by demons) were Jewish.
Then Paul is Jewish.
While the origins of the Legend of Jesus (crucified by Jews)* were gentile.
How? Throughout the Old Testament, Jews constantly knock each other. So why--how?--this be indicative of a gentile origin?

You even made a post arguing that in the Talmud Jews openly admit to killing ben Stada for his blasphemy. So how do you go from that, to a gentile origin of Jews killing Jesus?
EDIT: idem for the Paul legend, if Paul didn't write the letters but Marcion did.
Paul and Marcion are the same person.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus and Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

The community of the Odes of Solomon was a pre-70 Jewish community in the Diaspora that was anti-Jewish (and persecuted by the Jews) and adored the god of the Jews, according to prof Stevan L. Davies. Also the Naassenes were pre-70 Jews from the Diaspora but they hated the god of the Jews.
Throughout the Old Testament, Jews constantly knock each other. So why--how?--this be indicative of a gentile origin?
no, this reference to OT (in association to Jesus) would be indicative of a Jewish APOLOGY to accept an otherwise dramatic "reality" of gentile origin: that "the Jews" killed the Son of God is a gentile and anti-Jewish theme.

The Talmudist is an apologist insofar he explains that Jesus ben Stada was not the true Christ. If the same Talmudist had heard of a Jesus crucified by the Romans, then he would have described him in more positive terms.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply