Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#221  Postby duvduv » Jun 06, 2016 1:27 am

Was Chrestos/Chrestus simply the name of the God of the Old Testament revered by sect of Greeks??
duvduv
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#222  Postby RealityRules » Jun 06, 2016 1:43 am

duvduv wrote:Was Chrestos/Chrestus simply the name of the God of the Old Testament revered by sect of Greeks??

There are claims that Serapis was known as Serapis Christos/Chrestus but, if so, where or when is hard to determine.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#223  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 06, 2016 2:17 am

dejuror wrote:
duvduv wrote:Is it possible to reconstruct the whole environment and person of Chrestus to gain a clearer perspective of who he and his followers were, and when they ceased to exist to be replaced in the conventional narrative by Jesus of the NT and the Christians?


The Lord God the Creator is Chrestos [χρηστος ]according to the Greek OT.

The Greek OT was written before the fables called Gospels.

http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/19_105.htm

Greek OT Psalms
105:1 αλληλουια εξομολογεισθε τω κυριω οτι χρηστος οτι εις τον αιωνα το ελεος αυτου


Psalms 105.1
Praise ye the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.



Sometime in the 2nd century Christians ...



Or later.


.... invented a character called Jesus Christ who was their LORD GOD and Creator.


John 1 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made..



The Christians hijacked the Greek OT and made their Jesus equal to the Lord God Creator--the Good One [ Chrestos] [χρηστος ].
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#224  Postby duvduv » Jun 06, 2016 6:20 pm

So therefore there was no actual individual who had the name Chrestus in Rome or elsewhere who had followers who were "Abrahamic" sympathizers of the Old Testament?
duvduv
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#225  Postby RealityRules » Jun 06, 2016 10:41 pm


"...the problem whether the Chrestians ... of the Roman historian [Tacitus, Annals 15.44] were really Christians in our meaning of the word or were distinct from them. Edwin Johnson regards the Chrestians as followers of the “good god” (Chrestus), as the Gnostics called their god in opposition to Jahveh, whom they looked upon as the perversely conceived creator of the Jews. [Johnson] thus traces the name to a sect, the founder of which he considers to have been Simon the Magician, flourishing in Rome in the time of Claudius, whose members, as representatives of a spiritualised Judaism, were very obnoxious to the traditional Jew.[78] [Johnson] supposes that Tacitus transferred to the time of Nero the hatred of the Christians which animated the Jews of his own time, and thus the Chrestians (Gnostics) were confused with the real Christians. Possibly, however, the name is only another expression for Messianists, and the Chrestians of Tacitus are Jews exalted by eschatological ideas, living in expectation of a speedy end of the world by fire, and so contracting the suspicion of having set fire to the city. They may have formed a “multitude ingens” and incurred “the hatred of the human race” by being led in their fanaticism to express their satisfaction at the burning of the metropolis; possibly they even took part in it. However that may be, there is not the least proof in any case of a Neronian persecution of the Christians."

Arthur Drews in The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Witn ... /Section_2

referring to Edwin Johnson's 1887 Antiqua Mater - http://www.radikalkritik.de/AntiquaMater1.pdf
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#226  Postby dejuror » Jun 07, 2016 4:57 pm

duvduv wrote:So therefore there was no actual individual who had the name Chrestus in Rome or elsewhere who had followers who were "Abrahamic" sympathizers of the Old Testament?


Christian writings do show or claim that Marcion and even Valentinus worshiped the Good God [Chrestos].


See "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03121.htm

Against Marcion 1
Marcion makes his gods unequal: one judicial, harsh, mighty in war; the other mild, placid, and simply good and excellent.


See "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ephraim2_4_marcion3.htm

Against Marcion III
IF the organs 1 of the body suffice for the gifts of the Good (God), O Marcion, that is to say, the eye for His light, and the ear for His voice, why then does the body not live at the last ?



See "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm


Refutation Against All Heresies 7
But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one.


See "De Pricipiis" attributed to Origen.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm

De Principiis 2.7
For although we should concede to Marcion or to Valentinus that it is possible to draw distinctions in the question of Deity, and to describe the nature of the good God as one, and that of the just God as another, what will he devise, or what will he discover.......


Christian writings do show that so-called Heretics like Marcion and Valentinus worshiped Chrestos [the Good God] and that followers or worshipers of Chrestos [the Good God] did not accept the Jesus story.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#227  Postby Chx » Jun 16, 2019 5:33 pm

It just occurred to me that this distinction might bear upon the three books of Theophilus of Antioch, who talks about "Christians" and never refers to Jesus or the Christian faith or texts. Perhaps these were indeed referring only to CHRESTIANS in the empire, and it was adopted to Christianity as an "ancient text". How can you actually have a text discussing the goodness of Christians without ever mentioning Jesus even once, UNLESS it doesn't refer to either Jesus or the religion venerating him? I think there was another text like this that also discusses "Christians" without mentioning Jesus even once.
I found an old (1879) book scan online ( https://books.google.com/books?id=XgcZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=theophilus+of+antioch+meaning+of+the+name+christian+good+and+serviceable&source=bl&ots=FZ6MwBL21l&sig=ni4JLdSA7PQ4INY4fQwJyTYMDww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO9Lz1nPnbAhXFCDQIHXvNDXU4ChDoAQgvMAI#v=onepage&q=theophilus%20of%20antioch%20meaning%20of%20the%20name%20christian%20good%20and%20serviceable&f=false ) which identifies Theophilus using "chrest"-based terms (which you WON'T find in any Christian source), and the author notes as well that Justin Martyr used "chrest"-based terms, which you won't see in the modern translations/transliterations either. Could Theophilus' reference to widespread anointing ("christening") among the faithful (and not only reserved to their authoritarian leaders as developed later in Christianity) have been a feature of the gnostic egalitarianism that produced the Cathars of the Languedoc region in the 11th Century (targets of the Albigensian Crusade http://www.cathar.info/) and the modern Quakers?

Even the so-called "Christ Magus" bowl clearly says "CHREST", so this source's transliteration of the inscription reads "CHRST", simply leaving out that problematic "eta": Image
A bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., is engraved with what may be the world's first known reference to Christ. The engraving reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26972493/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/earliest-reference-describes-christ-magician/#.XQZ2rNNKg9U Notice that "CHRSTOU" leaves out the "eta" that makes it "CHRESTOU" (the actual text). It's patently dishonest - someone omitted the "eta" deliberately.

What's interesting to me here is that Theophilus of Antioch is matching up "chrest" (good and useful) with "christ" (anointing). One of his other surviving texts is a "Chronology of the World", a listing of the generations from Adam to Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, without any mention of any "Jesus Christ". An odd omission for a "Christian" to make, wouldn't you think?

The texts of Theophilus of Antioch exist only in copies - two partials from the 10th Century CE and one full copy from the 11th Century CE, if memory serves, and they're currently residing somewhere in Venice, Italy, and not available to public viewing. That copy of Tacitus where "Chrestianos" has been modified to read "Christianos" is from Florence, Italy: Image
CHRESTIANS OF CHRIST. Book XV of Tacitus’s Annals is preserved in the 11th–12th-century Codex Mediceus II, a collection of medieval manuscripts now housed in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, Italy, along with other manuscripts and books that belonged to the Medici family. Highlighted above is the Latin text reading “… whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate …” Photo: Codex Mediceus 68 II, fol. 38r, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, Italy.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/ It is interesting to me that it took this long for that "correction" to be made (assuming, of course, it was Medicean editors who were making those changes). I can't confirm their spelling of "Christ" (first word in the second line inside the box) - the handwriting is a bit sloppy, but "Chrestus" is certainly not ruled out. If anyone else can make it out, I'd love to hear your opinion on what the spelling of that word is.
Chx
 
Name: Doris Fromage
Posts: 1

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#228  Postby Svartalf » Jun 16, 2019 6:53 pm

there was no name change, there was a change in the pronunciation of the Greek letter Eta
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 951
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#229  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 18, 2019 2:10 am

Svartalf wrote:there was no name change, there was a change in the pronunciation of the Greek letter Eta


The OP deals with written manuscripts.

    1.00) Manuscript Evidence: "Chrestian" exclusively dominates earliest evidence from 3rd/4th centuries

    1.01) SB XII 10772 ................. "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
    1.02) P.Laur. II 42 ................ "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
    1.03) P.Oxy.XLIII 3149 ............. "Chrestian" [5th century?]
    1.04) SB XVI 12497 ................. "Chrestian" [3rd century?]
    1.05) P.Oxy XLII 3035 .............. "Chresian" [28 February 256 CE]
    1.06) P.Oxy.XLIII 3119 ............. "Chrestian" [3rd century?]
    1.07) PGM IV. 3007-86 .............. "The Good" ("Chrestos") [4th century]
    1.08) Manichaean Mss: Kellis ....... "The Good" ("Chrestos") [4th century?]
    1.09) [#01] Codex Sinaiticus........ "Chrestian" [4th century?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#230  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 18, 2019 2:45 am

RealityRules wrote:
duvduv wrote:Was Chrestos/Chrestus simply the name of the God of the Old Testament revered by sect of Greeks??

There are claims that Serapis was known as Serapis Christos/Chrestus but, if so, where or when is hard to determine.


Although this question was asked 2 years ago just recently the following vid came to my attention:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMqgCxxK4TY

SERAPIS CHRISTUS = JESUS
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#231  Postby Svartalf » Jun 18, 2019 8:02 am

Indeed there's been a change in spelling, from Eta to Iota. but I suspect that Eta shifting in pronunciation might have had something to do with it, they started pronouncing christ instead of chrest, and mechanically started spelling with the most common version of the i sound.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 951
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#232  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 18, 2019 10:24 am

Svartalf wrote:Indeed there's been a change in spelling, from Eta to Iota. but I suspect that Eta shifting in pronunciation might have had something to do with it, they started pronouncing christ instead of chrest, and mechanically started spelling with the most common version of the i sound.


For CHRIST's sake the name they were trying to write was the name of their new god called the historical Jesus Christ - CHRISTOS. They all knew there was already an existing Greek word CHRESTOS. "Good; excellent; useful".

How mechanical could the early christian scribes have been if they spelt the name of Christ wrong for 4-5 centuries?

Where was the quality assurance before Eusebius picked up the pen of a specialised historian?

I understand - like you say - there was a phonetic shift in the Greek language at that time. But the scribes didn't get the shift to the written form of CHRIST until the century in which Codex Alexandrinus was manufactured. This codex is dated, not by C14, but by the dogma of the church, to the 5th century. That's a whole heap of spelling mistakes for a long time. In the codex Vaticanus we find a hybrid but again Vaticanus has not been C14 dated.

And that's why I think there has to be another explanation for the trend in the data.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#233  Postby dejuror » Jun 23, 2019 6:23 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Svartalf wrote:Indeed there's been a change in spelling, from Eta to Iota. but I suspect that Eta shifting in pronunciation might have had something to do with it, they started pronouncing christ instead of chrest, and mechanically started spelling with the most common version of the i sound.


For CHRIST's sake the name they were trying to write was the name of their new god called the historical Jesus Christ - CHRISTOS. They all knew there was already an existing Greek word CHRESTOS. "Good; excellent; useful".

How mechanical could the early christian scribes have been if they spelt the name of Christ wrong for 4-5 centuries?

Where was the quality assurance before Eusebius picked up the pen of a specialised historian?

I understand - like you say - there was a phonetic shift in the Greek language at that time. But the scribes didn't get the shift to the written form of CHRIST until the century in which Codex Alexandrinus was manufactured. This codex is dated, not by C14, but by the dogma of the church, to the 5th century. That's a whole heap of spelling mistakes for a long time. In the codex Vaticanus we find a hybrid but again Vaticanus has not been C14 dated.

And that's why I think there has to be another explanation for the trend in the data.



It is very strange the supposed phonetic shift surrounds the Greek word for "the Good one or good " .

The phonetic shift "explanation" is most laughable.

It must be noted that in the Greek Old Testament the Greek word for " the Good one or the good" is CHRESTOS [χρηστός] and the Greek word for "the Anointed one or Anointed" is CHRISTOS [χριστοῦ].

It was known for hundreds of years and before the fables called the NT, that the spelling, pronunciation and meaning of the Greek word [χρηστός] was different to [χριστοῦ].

If one examines the Greek Septuagint it is seen that Greek words [χρηστός] is translated as " good" and [χριστοῦ] as "anointed" multiple times.

Psalm 106:1
Praise ye the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good [χρηστός]: for his mercy endureth for ever.


Psalm 2:2
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed [χριστοῦ] , saying..


So supposed copyists of the 5th century Codices would know the difference in spelling, meaning and pronunciation of those very words.

It would appear to me that there was no phonetic shift but that Christian writers most likely falsely claimed that people called CHRESTIANS [followers of the Good] were really Christians when it was realized that there were never ever any Jesus Christ or followers of their Jesus in the 1st century.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#234  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 28, 2019 4:47 am

dejuror wrote:So supposed copyists of the 5th century Codices would know the difference in spelling, meaning and pronunciation of those very words.

It would appear to me that there was no phonetic shift but that Christian writers most likely falsely claimed that people called CHRESTIANS [followers of the Good] were really Christians when it was realized that there were never ever any Jesus Christ or followers of their Jesus in the 1st century.


This is the provisional conclusion that I arrived at however continued research into this subject has yielded another piece of evidence to be explained.

Just a prior word of clarification. The word "Christ" in the New testament is almost always rendered by means of an abbreviated term. In English this would look something like "CT" with a line (over-bar) over it. For more information on this in the original Greek language of the NT have a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina_sacra

As a result of this we dont know if this code "CT", strewn through the NT, abbreviates either "CHRIST" or "CHREST".

Although the word "Christian" appears to be rendered as the word "Chrestian", and the word "Christ" appears to be rendered as "Chrest" (ie: references to "Jesus the Good" in extra-biblical sources) ) there is a place in the NT where the word Christ is rendered in the earliest codices. This place is only in the letters of John as follows:

THE WORD ANTICHRIST is not found as "ANTICHREST"

John - The words antichrist and antichrists appear four times in the First and Second Epistle of John (King James Version) .

    "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
    even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." (1 John 2:18)

    "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
    He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22 )

    "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
    whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." ( 1 John 4:3 )

    "For many deceivers are entered into the world,
    who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
    This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

Does anyone have an explanation for this inconsistency in the evidence?

Why does the editor of the NT Bible make "Christ" explicit only in the "Letters of John" and in the term "AntiChrist"
What does anti-annointed mean? What does anti-good mean?

WTF is going down in the NT editor's mind?

Why is it so?
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#235  Postby dejuror » Jun 28, 2019 11:56 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Just a prior word of clarification. The word "Christ" in the New testament is almost always rendered by means of an abbreviated term. In English this would look something like "CT" with a line (over-bar) over it. For more information on this in the original Greek language of the NT have a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina_sacra

As a result of this we dont know if this code "CT", strewn through the NT, abbreviates either "CHRIST" or "CHREST".


In so-called apologetic writings of antiquity references were made to the NT the character called Jesus who was claimed to be Christ the Messiah of Jews as supposedly prophesied by the prophets in Hebrew Scriptures.

There was no character called Chrestos who was believed to be the Messiah of the Jews in the time of Tiberius .




Leucius Charinus wrote:
Although the word "Christian" appears to be rendered as the word "Chrestian", and the word "Christ" appears to be rendered as "Chrest" (ie: references to "Jesus the Good" in extra-biblical sources) ) there is a place in the NT where the word Christ is rendered in the earliest codices. This place is only in the letters of John as follows:

THE WORD ANTICHRIST is not found as "ANTICHREST"

John - The words antichrist and antichrists appear four times in the First and Second Epistle of John (King James Version) .

    "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
    even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." (1 John 2:18)

    "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
    He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22 )

    "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
    whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." ( 1 John 4:3 )

    "For many deceivers are entered into the world,
    who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
    This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

Does anyone have an explanation for this inconsistency in the evidence?


The claims im the Epistle about the antichrist is evidence that apologetic writers referred to their Jesus as the Christ not Chrestos.


CEB
John 1. 41 He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Christ )...


Leucius Charinus wrote: Why does the editor of the NT Bible make "Christ" explicit only in the "Letters of John" and in the term "AntiChrist"
What does anti-annointed mean? What does anti-good mean?

WTF is going down in the NT editor's mind?

Why is it so?

The explanation is quite simple. The author/authors of the Epistles were themselves deceivers. The NT authors manufactured fables about the end of the world and their non-historical Jesus.

(1 John 2:18)
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."


What "last time" ???!!! What anti-Christ??!!

There has not been a "last time" nor antiChrist for at least 1500 years.

By the way the so-called Epistles of John are regarded almost universally as forgeries or false attribution and may have been in the 4th century or later.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#236  Postby Svartalf » Jun 29, 2019 8:43 am

You forget the Terror of year 1000, and the times of the Great Plague of 1349... both times they definitely thought it was the end times.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 951
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#237  Postby dejuror » Jun 29, 2019 8:32 pm

Svartalf wrote:You forget the Terror of year 1000, and the times of the Great Plague of 1349... both times they definitely thought it was the end times.


Wikipedia has a list of some more deceivers who made or are still making false claims about the second coming of the fiction character called Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming_of_Christ

Now, it must be noted that in supposed Christian writings of antiquity, outside the NT, the authors did not refer to themselves as CHRESTIAN and also did not identifyl people who believed the Jesus Christ story as CHRESTIANS.


Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians -- " The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct".

Clement First Epistle --" Let your children be partakers of true Christian training".

Justin's First Apology ---"For all are called Christians".

The story in Acts about believers in the Jesus Christ story were called Chrestians is unsupported by Christians writers and was fabricated because there was no Jesus Christ and no followers of him at least up to the beginning of the 2nd century.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#238  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jul 01, 2019 1:07 am

dejuror wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Why does the editor of the NT Bible make "Christ" explicit only in the "Letters of John" and in the term "AntiChrist"
What does anti-annointed mean? What does anti-good mean?

WTF is going down in the NT editor's mind?

Why is it so?


The explanation is quite simple. The author/authors of the Epistles were themselves deceivers. The NT authors manufactured fables about the end of the world and their non-historical Jesus.

(1 John 2:18)
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."


What "last time" ???!!! What anti-Christ??!!



Can it be perceived that the authors have embedded a "Bogey-Man" into the new testament just in case someone of the gentiles or the Greeks would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh." It's like the standard pagan curse. The new testament contains a prescription within it for those who would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh.". This of course is equivalent to the opinion that Jesus did not appear in history.

There has not been a "last time" nor antiChrist for at least 1500 years.



    "And ever since [the Council of Nicaea] has Arius's error been reckoned for a heresy
    more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist.
    "

    -- The Orthodox "Father" Athanasius - "Discourses"


By the way the so-called Epistles of John are regarded almost universally as forgeries or false attribution and may have been in the 4th century or later.


Why for heaven's sake is early Christian literature characterised by an almost endless collection of pseudonymous story books. Not one author can be fixed in an historical context, except of course for the letter exchange between Paul and Seneca.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#239  Postby Scott Mayers » Jul 10, 2019 2:00 pm

RealityRules wrote:.
The significance is the different meanings of the root words -

  • Chrestus came from Χρηστος, meaning "good", "useful", or "worthy". It is often found in writings in relation to slaves. It was also a common name or descriptor.
    .
  • Christus comes from the Greek word Χριστος which generally means "anointed, or chosen one". The root of the word, χριω, means "to be oily [annointed]". Kings, Priestly rulers, or Prophets were often literally oiled (ie. anointed) ceremonially, or even regularly.

    There are other variations eg. http://biblehub.com/greek/5548.htm. Note the biblical references.

They are of the same root. The 'name' "Jesus Christ" and "Christian" are lost descriptive titles, not names as we select arbitrarily AT birth. "Jesus Christ" meant one of two things to those of the ancient times: (1)"I am equal to the King by Nature/God" or (2) "I AM the true (or real) King".

For those favorable to Caesar, the Caesar, or to authority by Rome or its influences, the second interpretation is of some idiot street preacher or mentally challenged individual without his medication who goes around in rags asserting he is the real King literally deluded and potentially hazardous/terroristic, in modern terms.

For those favorable to the struggle of the average person's equality to nothing but nature (or 'god') itself, a "Jesus Christ" takes the first meaning. But this may still be implicitly derogatory of someone at odds with the reality in spite of the dream of being equal.

Regardless, we cannot trust the historical record alone on religious accounts because the essence of any particular belief in power at one time necessarily requires dismissing all other accounts as false propaganda, lies, or mistaken interpretations that get censored out with more extremes then regular secular matters. The etymology and logic of religious evolution suggests something along the lines of what I suggest above. As such....

"Christ" and "Christian" and all its variant common-sounding forms are related to come from "to crown" or "officiate someone at the highest authority by Nature (or a god, gods)." "Jesus" is literally, "I am". So "Jesus Christ" at least is the phrasal, "I am as significantly authoritative (a king?) by nature or God" or "I AM the significant authoritative one 'naturally' or by God's authority."
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 1

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#240  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jul 29, 2019 2:41 am

Scott Mayers wrote:"Christ" and "Christian" and all its variant common-sounding forms are related to come from "to crown" or "officiate someone at the highest authority by Nature (or a god, gods)." "Jesus" is literally, "I am". So "Jesus Christ" at least is the phrasal, "I am as significantly authoritative (a king?) by nature or God" or "I AM the significant authoritative one 'naturally' or by God's authority."


As in an Emperor. Do we need a name?


Ecclesiastical History (Sozomen) > Book III.Chapter 1

    We have now seen what events transpired in the churches during the reign of Constantine. On his death the doctrine which had been set forth at Nicæa, was subjected to renewed examination. Although this doctrine was not universally approved, no one, during the life of Constantine, had dared to reject it openly. At his death, however, many renounced this opinion, especially those who had previously been suspected of treachery.

The Old Regime gave way to the New Regime subsequent to Constantine's military victory in the Eastern provinces:

    I marvelled, seeing at the cross-roads Jove’s brazen son, once constantly invoked, now cast aside, and in wrath I said : “Averter of woes, offspring of three nights, thou, who never didst suffer defeat, art to-day laid low.” But at night the god stood by my bed smiling, and said : “Even though I am a god I have learnt to serve the times.”

    Palladas AP 9.441


Did Constantine consider himself one of the "Good Guys"?
He was certainly very useful with a sword.

The question is was Eusebius (and other Constantinian propagandists) also good - almost excellent - with the pen?

Eusebius fabricated a great and meritorious national history for the new and strange "Nation of Christians".

Could Hans Eusebius Anderson have also fabricated the books of the canonical new testament - the Emperor's New Books?
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests