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

he wasn't using the term christian related to religions or cultures . . . the problem with the attachment to terms and definitions is exactly what he was talking about . . .

there is no thing wrong with the facts you presented. . .never crosssed my mind . . (in fact . .ty)

Mareeka wrote: he wasn't using the term christian related to religions or cultures . . . the problem with the attachment to terms and definitions is exactly what he was talking about . . .

there is no thing wrong with the facts you presented. . .never crosssed my mind . . (in fact . .ty)

and the problem was that he doesn't seem to understand that " christian" is specifically a religious or cultural term. Take ToTJO for example, temple of the jedi order are all seperate words that transcend the form of what we find in this group currently. Yet when organised, and given a recognisable tradition that has been worked towards and established , we now have a new name that we approach the words with. Christ or the suffix of "ian" can transcend the form of Christian, yet it's recognised as the religion and that recognition can only be attributed to the tradition that gives the phrase meaning in order to be identified.

The thing that you're friend is being ignorant of is that the groups he is calling "christian" already have a very deep and valued society and religion, they they claimed phrases that they attribute to their culture to be identified. Because at the very same time as they had similarities they also had vast differences.

A muslim (for the most part) believes Jesus was born in Nazareth by a virgin and evangelised then sacrificed himself at the age of 33, which is what they share with a Christian. Yet the difference being how the venerate Jesus makes a distinct difference both culturally evolving and religiously, showing at times a completely different tradition than what culturally evolved in the west.

This distinction is important, otherwise it's like saying since every Christian is a ceremonial Magician, every ceremonial Magician is a Christian. The connection and similarity is there, just non existent in the dynamic you presented.

sidvkili wrote: This distinction is important, otherwise it's like saying since every Christian is a ceremonial Magician, every ceremonial Magician is a Christian. The connection and similarity is there, just non existent in the dynamic you presented.

Only the sacramental ones are ceremonial magicians. Protestants are a different breed of strange.

steamboat28 wrote:

sidvkili wrote: This distinction is important, otherwise it's like saying since every Christian is a ceremonial Magician, every ceremonial Magician is a Christian. The connection and similarity is there, just non existent in the dynamic you presented.

Only the sacramental ones are ceremonial magicians. Protestants are a different breed of strange.

I don't even want to go there, lol

Star Forge wrote: You know, I'm an admitted and outspoken racist, and I don't have the preoccupation with race that the world seems to have. Not meaning to attack the OP, just getting that out.

Sid's right- the Eastern churches, some of them anyway, depict Christ as non-white. For instance, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church depicts him as black, and the Antiochian church depicts him as Arab. I believe the Egyptian Christians also depict him as an Arab. My belief is that the images of Jesus we see today are so old that they came from a time when people weren't likely to regularly encounter a person of another race, if at all. That's why the European Jesus is white, the Ethiopian Jesus is black, et cetera.

As for his actual race, I imagine he'd look like a modern-day Sephardi or Mizrahi Jew, as in, the ones that are native to the middle east, not the Ashkenazim that we are more familiar with, which look European. There's a theory that he was more European looking due to his Amorite heritage, but personally, Isa al-Masih is Isa al-Masih to me, no matter what race he was.

Yeah sorry to bring this topic up again but I wanted to clarify something I missed.

The ethopian Churche's iconography of Christ was actually independant of the relevant council, it was done out of pure traditon. However the Ethopians never depicted Christ as black, they show him with tan skinned, dark long wavy hair and well hairy. Sounds arab to me.

steamboat28 wrote:

sidvkili wrote: This distinction is important, otherwise it's like saying since every Christian is a ceremonial Magician, every ceremonial Magician is a Christian. The connection and similarity is there, just non existent in the dynamic you presented.

Only the sacramental ones are ceremonial magicians. Protestants are a different breed of strange.

I consider myself an active Catholic and I have always considered especially the sacrament of the eucharist as being a very high form of ceremonial magic. For anyone interested in exploring this topic further I could strongly recommend "The Science of the Sacraments" by Rev. C.W. Leadbeater (Bishop of the Liberal-Catholic-Church and high ranking member of the Theosophical Society). In this book he explores the rites of the Catholic liturgy from a magical and "energetic" perspective.

Much of the "magical" content of the mass has sadly been lost in Protestantism and also in the Catholic liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council.

A Pdf-version of Leadbeater's book can be found here:

https://archive.org/details/sciencesacramen00leadgoog