Jesus Christ

Christ comes from the Greek Χριστός, meaning "anointed." It is the translation of a Hebrew title with the same meaning (מָשִׁיחַ, messiah), and refers to the anointing of oil common to sanctification and appointment to sacred office. In this way, it's an endorsement of his spiritual authority and a title, not a name. In everyday speech, he would've been the Aramaic equivalent of Yeshua bar Maryam ("Jesus, son of Mary"), the Nazarene ("...of Nazareth"), or the Galilean ("...of Galilee"), because while many Yeshuas came from those places, he made a name for himself relatively quickly.

I'm currently reading a book called "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth." Written by Reza Aslan, a Muslim who converted to Christianity and back again, it looks at a de-mystified, non-messianic historical Jesus through the lens of the historical and political climate of Judea at the time. Very interesting, very eye-opening. I adore it.

Mareeka wrote: I didn't follow this thread story either. . . .

Although . . . .i have been told three stories, from three different wise men, in different years, in different circles and with different lineage, about this name . . .

The first wise man, was a woman raised in a christian family of teachers and masons. . she said "it is best think of Christ as meaning "spirit" not as a last name

The second wise man was Jewish lineage, raised in Judaism and indoctrinated in the traditional Kabbalah ways . . he said to me: Christ is not his last name. . . .christians were around thousands of years before he was born or before a church was made. . . . the meaning of christ awareness and the thousands and thousands of name equal to it are beyond what gets limited to "christians"

The third wise man of native american descent, a trained and anonymous shaman, historian, veteran, and devotee/teacher to the disadvantaged. . . . said. . . "look at the time of the romans and the first E. Council and the founding of their church, they gave him a new name. . .his name was Jesus of Nazareth. . that says a lot"

interesting . . .

thanks steamboat, these stories as one . . inspired by your post
for me personally. . .am seeing aquaducts like sithy veins lol
more importantly is this era . . .what is transmitted and what is left to find

The second guy was wrong, Christian as a term refers to the devotee of a church recognised at least 33 years after Christ was born in Antioch. He's thinking of Nazarenes and Persians ( they are not Christian, they are "messianic"). A Christian will always be of Nazarene and persian traditions, but not all persians and nazarenes are of the christian tradition. And no, lol " Christ" wasn't his last name....

" hey have you seen the Christs? The wife just got pregnant out of nowhere....says it was the holy spirit, poor las"

The church was also not founded at the first ecumenical council, lol. How the hell do you have a christian ecumenical council without a church? The Church was fully established in terms of the five holy sees at that point. Asides, the statement he made kinda backed up my initial argument lol.

the content of the second is not placed in time, or culturally or religions . . . it is about people aligning themselves with the Force . .

the third is about the romans purpose for founding a church . . . . .

Mareeka wrote: the content of the second is not placed in time, or culturally or religions . . . it is about people aligning themselves with the Force . .

the third is about the romans purpose for founding a church . . . . .

If I understand what you mean then nobody "aligned themselves with the force" in said fashion until 33 AD in Antioch haha.

As for the third...what? The roman's didn't "found" the church and you were referencing the ecumenical councils...which were held by the holy see of Constantinople, not Rome.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, the purpose of said foundation was to establish a church in Rome ( that's literally it...) and the theological approach to Christ in the Church of Rome only held racial importance when Marcion offered his critique.

re: way before the year and in many schools since . . again the content

regarding the third . . . the circle was broader . . .and not isolated

Mareeka wrote: re: way before the year and in many schools since . . again the content

regarding the third . . . the circle was broader . . .and not isolated

Thing is though, if you're going to claim "content" as we have defined it and located, please provide where else. Because I have done so and also refuted that which was previously labelled. How was it wrong to refute that? or Is there more "content" in terms of christians? Because what schools? Where was it seen before 33 AD?

And I don't understand what you mean about the third one....

the reference to content is reference to the content (center) of the post with three stories

perhaps having a different focal point, the content of the one post is obscured. . not sure . . could be other reasons?

yes, think in terms of a broader meaning to the word Christ . . before and after 33 AD and read again the three stories . . tell me if anything pops or not

i do see the don't understand . .but an explanation may not be needed if it the one post is looked at differently

Mareeka wrote: the reference to content is reference to the content (center) of the post with three stories

perhaps having a different focal point, the content of the one post is obscured. . not sure . . could be other reasons?

yes, think in terms of a broader meaning to the word Christ . . before and after 33 AD and read again the three stories . . tell me if anything pops or not

i do see the don't understand . .but an explanation may not be needed if it the one post is looked at differently

Ah, I see. Thing is it was one of the first things I addressed in my critique... Was my argument wrong?

i don't know . . not sure why it is being asked . .

Mareeka wrote: i don't know . . not sure why it is being asked . .

Because I argued how he recognised and defined christians