Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

You sure get bunchy pretty quick. I was kind of hoping to keep this fairly friendly but oh well.

Okay, here your definition:

CHRIST

This title from the Greek Khristos′ is equivalent to the Hebrew Mashi′ach, “Messiah; Anointed One.” “Christ” is not a mere appellative added to distinguish the Lord Jesus from others of the same name; it is an official title.

The coming of the Christ, the one whom God would anoint with his spirit to be the Messianic King, had been foretold centuries before Jesus’ birth. (Da 9:25, 26) However, at his birth, Jesus was not yet the Anointed One or Christ. In foretelling his birth, the angel instructed Joseph: “You must call his name Jesus.” (Mt 1:21) But when the shepherds near Bethlehem were given the angelic announcement, in anticipation of Jesus’ future role they were told: “There was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord,” that is, “who is to be Christ the Lord.”—Lu 2:11, ftn.

The personal name of Jesus followed by the title Christ may call attention to the person himself and that he is the one who became the Anointed One of God. This occurred when he reached about 30 years of age, was baptized in water, and was anointed with God’s spirit visibly observed in the form of a dove descending upon him. (Mt 3:13-17) This is the point Peter made at Pentecost: “God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus,” evidently recalling the expression he had heard from the lips of Jesus, who first used the term “Jesus Christ.” (Ac 2:36-38; Joh 17:3) This expression “Jesus Christ” is also used in the opening and closing words of the Christian Greek Scriptures.—Mt 1:1; Re 22:21.

On the other hand, putting the title ahead of the name and saying “Christ Jesus” instead of “Jesus Christ” places greater emphasis on the office or position held by Jesus. It focuses attention primarily on the office, secondarily on the office holder, as in saying King David or Governor Zerubbabel. It would remind one of the singular official position Jesus holds as the Anointed One of God, an honored position not shared by others of his followers who are also anointed. Only God’s beloved Son is entitled “Christ Jesus.” Paul used this expression in his first inspired letter. (1Th 2:14) Luke also used it, once, at Acts 24:24 (NW; RS), when speaking about Paul’s bearing witness.

The use of the article “the” with the title (“the Christ”) is another way attention is sometimes drawn to the office as held by Jesus. (Mt 16:16; Mr 14:61) The grammatical structure of the sentence, however, may be a factor determining whether the article is used or not, for says W. E. Vine: “Speaking generally, when the title [Christ] is the subject of a sentence it has the article; when it forms part of the predicate the article is absent.”—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 190.

In the Scriptures titles are never multiplied before or after Jesus’ name; but if one title precedes the personal name, then any other title is added only after the name. We never find a combination like the Lord Christ Jesus or the King Christ Jesus, but we do find the Lord Jesus Christ. The expression “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” at 2 Timothy 1:10, in the Greek text has the expression “of us” between “Savior” and “Christ” to identify who the Savior is, in keeping with the expression “Christ Jesus our Savior [literally, “Christ Jesus the Savior of us”].” (Tit 1:4) In the text at 1 Timothy 2:5 mention is made of “a man, Christ Jesus” as the Mediator, but “a man” is not a title. The expression only explains that Christ Jesus was at one time a man on earth.

An exceptional use of the title “Christ” is Paul’s reference to Moses rather than Jesus, when he writes: “He [Moses] esteemed the reproach of the Christ [Khristou′, “Anointed One”] as riches greater than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.” (Heb 11:26) Moses was never anointed with any literal oil as were the high priests and kings of Israel. (Ex 30:22-30; Le 8:12; 1Sa 10:1; 16:13) But neither was Jesus nor were his followers, and yet the Scriptures speak of them as having been anointed. (Ac 10:38; 2Co 1:21) In these latter cases their anointing with God’s holy spirit served as an appointment by God, or a commission, even though literal anointing oil was not used. So, in a similar sense Moses received a special appointment. Paul, therefore, could say of Moses that he was God’s anointed one, or Christ, the recipient of a commission given to him at the burning bush, which appointment he considered to be greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt.—Ex 3:2–4:17.

The term “Christ” is also used when speaking of the Christian congregation and its relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ. “Now you are Christ’s body, and members individually,” in a spiritual sense. (1Co 12:27) Those “baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death,” with hope of being “joint heirs with Christ” of the heavenly Kingdom. (Ro 6:3-5; 8:17) They share in “the sufferings of the Christ,” being “reproached for the name of Christ.” (1Pe 4:13, 14; 5:1) A number of times this relationship is described as being “in union with Christ” or “in Christ,” and also the reverse expression “Christ in union with you,” with its different implications, is used. (Ro 8:1, 2; 16:10; 1Co 15:18; 1Th 4:16; Col 1:27) Weak ones in such association, who should be strong, are called “babes in Christ.” (1Co 3:1) In the course of time all things in heaven and on earth are gathered again “in the Christ.”—Eph 1:10.

False Christs. In his prophecies on the conclusion of the system of things, Christ warned his followers: “Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. For false Christs [Gr., pseudo′khristoi] and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.” (Mt 24:4, 5, 24) Such wicked persons who falsely lay claim to the title and office of the Lord Jesus Christ are included in the anti′khristos (Greek for “antichrist”) mentioned five times by the apostle John.—1Jo 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2Jo 7.

Other Uses of the Term “Christ.” The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures uses the same Greek word khristos′ more than 40 times, frequently as a title of anointed priests, kings, and prophets. Aaron the high priest was “the anointed one,” commissioned and “appointed in behalf of men over the things pertaining to God.” (Le 4:3, 5, 16; 8:12; Heb 5:1) Expressing his judgment on the house of Eli, God promised to raise up a faithful priest who would walk before God’s anointed one (khristos′) for all time.—1Sa 2:35.

The kings shared this same honored title because of their relationship to God in their kingly office. So Samuel spoke of Saul as khristos′ at 1 Samuel 12:3, in the Greek Septuagint. “It is unthinkable, on my part,” exclaimed David, “to thrust my hand out against [Saul] the anointed [LXX, khriston′] of God!” (1Sa 26:11) And David would not allow his nephew Abishai to touch Saul. (1Sa 26:8, 9) David also had the Amalekite slain because that one said he had killed Saul “the anointed [LXX, khriston′] of God.” (2Sa 1:13-16) This title and commission to be king was also bestowed on David, and thereafter he spoke of himself as God’s “anointed one [LXX, khristoi′].” (1Sa 16:12, 13; 2Sa 22:51) King Zedekiah, who sat on the throne as an heir of David, was also called “the anointed one [khristos′] of God.”—La 4:20.

The prophets too were titled God’s anointed ones, as is indicated by the parallelism in Psalm 105:15. God gave the command to his prophet Elijah: “Elisha . . . you should anoint as prophet in place of you,” though the details of the actual anointing are not recorded.—1Ki 19:16.

There are other instances where the Greek Septuagint uses khristos′ prophetically. There are ten references to khristos′ in the book of Psalms, the one in Psalm 2:1, 2 being particularly noteworthy: Nations in tumult and kings of the earth massing together “against God and against his anointed one.” The apostles quoted this prophecy and applied the title to the ‘holy servant Jesus, whom God had anointed.’ (Ac 4:24-27) A more unusual example is where the term is applied to the Persian king Cyrus. Before his birth, the prophecy of Isaiah (45:1-3) declared: “This is what God has said to his anointed one [LXX, khristoi′], to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of.” Cyrus was never literally anointed with holy oil as were the kings of Israel, but as in other instances in the Bible, the expression “anointed one” is a titled form of address given to him because of his commission and appointment from God.

Have fun! It uses the Bible but hey you didn’t tell me why not and anyway the Scriptures are not there to prove anything only to help define what Christ means.

 

I don't really have anything to add to this. I just want to highlight it because of how disturbing I find it.

Point 1: Your implication that one cannot fail to reach this "correct interpretation" of the Bible that you believe in unless they are closed-minded is not only absurd, but a clear and obvious mechanism of unfalsifiability; you cannot prove that someone is closed-minded any more than I can prove they are open-minded, let alone to draw any correlation between open or closed-mindedness and the resultant interpretation of the Bible (since you have no way of observing that a person has interpreted the Bible in one way or another) nor that that interpretation arose as a direct result of open or closed minded, rather than out of coincidence. In other words, it is impossible for you to truthfully make this assertion based on observation.

Point 2: Actually, I don't have a point 2. I was going to say something about it actually really very much being God's responsibility to make himself understood (since by dismissing Barthes as hogwash you've shown that you believe this is not only without God's power, but well within man's as well!). But really, if you can kid yourself that anyone who does not interpret the Bible "correctly" (and while you have skirted around stating that your own interpretation is "correct", I find it very hard to believe that you don't believe that) simply doesn't want to, then I can't for the life of me understand why you'd bother to enter any discussion of the Bible, let alone a discussion started on an Atheist forum. If the situation outlined above is the case, then you'd only be discussing it with closed-minded people who personally prevented themselves from reading the Bible properly, as with only one correct interpretation there would be nothing to discuss. To be honest, this makes me wonder whether you even believe what you're arguing, or whether you've just worked yourself into a logical rut because you couldn't bear to concede a point.

I will ask you, however: do you believe that you have read the correct interpretation of the Bible?

 

Actually, I think he was very patient with your quibbling over semantics.

 

How would you know?

 

Same way you'd know that he was "getting bunchy", I would imagine. Unless I'm wrong and you and he are in the same cybercafé and you can see him bouncing around fuming with rage.

 

Do you really need to be told, at your advanced age, why only citing one reference source throughout an entire exposition is considered bad practice?

You'd have done better just describing how you personally define Christ, since a) that's what he asked you to do, and b) you could've cited no sources instead of one.

 

a) If you ever bothered to read what people say you would have noticed that I asked him if that was what he wanted but he got bunchy and started saying just answer the question so I did. b) He asked a question about my Christianity and Christ. I believe that the Christ and all correct ideas about him come from the Bible so that is what I quoted. c) Why do you feel the need to take over every conversation even if they don't involve you? You know it would be nice since ODB actually asked the question it may be nice if you just let him speak for himself.

 

OK well I guess I will make my point now.

Christ is a consciousness. Not a man just like Buddha. Real simple buddy.

So you wanted to be mean to me? OK here you go ya silly old fart.....

What were the last words of Jesus? There is your contradiction that is monumental, one of many I will cite more if you would like.
Also why would Jesus say God has forsaken him? Are they not one and the same?

**I forgot to add, the bible proves nothing. Find a real source that is FACTUAL. ....but you cannot. So programed and obedient to defend.

 

Why are you getting so bunchy, OWB?

This is a public forum. If you want a private conversation, use a private medium. If you want a public conversation but just don't want me personally to be involved in it, you're a loser.

 

What happened to the old Hoatzin that was above this sort of thing?

 

I don't know. Either you changed, or there were just bigger fish to fry up until now. I've never been above petty recrimination, srsly; you probably just mistook being on my side for me being a cool guy.

 

OWB, I asked you a question because I felt you considered youreslf to be a christian. You confirmed that you consider yourself a Christian.
So you are the one I thought would be best to ask what is the definition of Christ. I would like you to use something other than religious text to define it with out being ambiguous with your answer.

My reason for asking this is because I think most Christians have no fucking clue what Christ is. I ask you because......you are Christian.
You proved my point well the way you never answered the question and argued with me instead. I am sorry if you didn't like it when I mirrored your attitude.

 

Did you like how evasive he was when you asked if he was a Christian? I thought that was pretty funny.

 

Actually it didn't bother me at all. As for never answering the question please see post # 362. Sorry if you don’t like that answer but if you had answered my questions I could have tailored my answer better to answer what you really were interested in knowing, rather than giving you an answer that tries covers all the bases.

 

I made post 362. And you made post 361 after ducking ODB's question two or three times.

 

Evasive? As I pointed out, I merely wanted to know what he meant by “Christian” if he was asking if I believe what the majority of those who call themselves “Christian” believe, then I would have to say; no. I am not what you would call a “Christian” but if he was asking if I believe that I am a follower of Christ according to what the Bible says, I would say that I am certainly trying to be and would hope that others would consider me to be a Christian in that sense.

 

Thank you for the correction, I hope everyone will forgive my typing error.

As for for ducking the question, as I've said before I was merely trying to clarify the question so I could give him a good answer to his question.

 

Why does it not surprise me that you consider yourself a special type of Christian?

 

No, not a special type of Christian, just a follower of Christ; if you consider that to be special, so be it.

 

Funny, because you said:

"As I pointed out, I merely wanted to know what he meant by “Christian” if he was asking if I believe what the majority of those who call themselves “Christian” believe, then I would have to say; no. I am not what you would call a “Christian”"

If you don't like sharing labels with other people, I'd say maybe don't use them at all. You can follow Christ's teachings without being a Christian, after all. Shit, I follow half of them, and I don't believe he was God's son at all.