Virgin Birth: The Expression “Jesus Christ”

Friends. This will be a short one for tonight’s entry at http://www.wallsofjericho.info doesn’t have much. I am giving the link again so anyone can be sure of the argument I am dealing with:

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=32

The claim is that the NT has fostered the idea that Jesus Christ is the name of the central figure in the NT and the name is exclusive to him.

If you mean name as in a birth name, no. A birth certificate of Jesus would not say “Jesus Christ.” Jesus is the given name. Christ is a name describing his position. 

Our writer is correct that Jesus is the variant of Joshua and would be read as Yeshua. It was a common name even in the time of Christ. There are even some reports that Barabbas, whom Pilate released instead of Jesus, was named Jesus and Barabbas was a surname. If that is the case, it would have meant his name was “Jesus, son of the father” in opposition to Jesus, Son of the Father.

Our writer is also correct that there are four other people in the Bible named Jesus. Again, this goes along with it being a common name. 

Our writer is also correct about Christ meaning “Anointed one”, which could have a limited perspective as it did for Cyrus, but the Jews were also waiting a specific anointed one, a greater one that we would call “The Messiah” today and Jesus was certainly claiming Messianic status for himself and there can be no doubt that’s what the Christians at least meant to attribute to him by calling him Jesus Christ.

Our writer wishes to say that since this information was so lost and distorted beyond recognition, then this can explain how the same could happen with a fact like the birth of Christ.

No. Instead, it shows that the church today is ignorant. A friend of mine tonight was talking about Zeitgeist and I said that while it is quite false, most Christians couldn’t answer it. This friend asked me if I really believe most of the church is that uninformed. I sadly had to say yes. I really wish I was wrong. I do. I don’t think I am though.

I don’t think Walls of Jericho gives good arguments against the virgin birth. However, it does tell me that our churches need to be better informed for in our state, we will even succoumb to bad arguments for a false position. Keep this in mind fellow apologists. Just because you see an argument as pathetic, it doesn’t mean the person sitting in the pew next to you does.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Virgin Birth: The Expression “Jesus Christ””

  1. Roland Bouchard Says:

    “If you mean…” (Who is “you” ?).

    The New Testaments, specifically the ‘Holy Gospels’, weren’t written until, at least, ten years After Saul of Tarsus aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul’s epiphany (while on the road to Damascus in hot pursuit of persecuting ‘Christians’ to their deaths) of the crucified ‘descendant of David’ and Jewish ‘messiah’.

    No Jew, at the time of the aforementioned “crucifixion”, ever knew or saw or even heard of “Christ”. “Christ” is Not “a name describing his position” as you ‘assume’ and assert. “Christ” (actually, “Kristos”) is a Greek ‘translation’ of the perfectly known and clearly understood Hebrew appellation ‘messiah’ (anointed… or, blessing conferred upon), -wherein there is not etymological basis or foundation in the Greek language or custom for such an invented word… -it simply doesn’t exist, -save to obfuscate the ‘messiah’ and its history before that time.

    How might you escape your circular (and non-sensical) postulation that “…that Barabbas, whom Pilate released instead of Jesus, was named Jesus…”? If Pilate “released Jesus” -who was called “Barabbas”, Pilate released “Jesus” in stead of “Christ” (which, as it has been shown above that there was No “Christ” standing in Pilate’s presence for judgment in the first place). “Barabbas” is an Aramaic appellation (not a proper name), the meaning of which is Bar = Son + Abba = Father (or God)… therefore, this man Named “Jesus” was called: (the) Son of the Father (or God) whom Pilate released.

    What was the man’s name who was actually “crucified”?

    In order to know, and more importantly understand, one must needs to examine the life of Saul of Tarsus (the actual creator and founder of ‘Christianity’), -aka Paul, -particularly his ancestry… Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, is the namesake of his forefather -who was the first ‘anointed’ king of the Jews.

    King Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, was ‘anointed’ as such by Samuel -at the pleading of the elders for a king and, at the concession of the Lord, -but was eventually rebuked by the Lord (for failing to abide by the Lord’s commandment). Dishonored and shamed, king Saul “fell upon his own sword”, thus bringing everlasting dishonor and shame to his immediate family and tribe as a whole.

    Young David replaced Saul and became the second ‘anointed king of the Jews’.

    King David was succeeded by his son, Solomon.

    King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam.

    Ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam (and rebelled against the heretofore ‘theocratic’ form of governance as instituted by David and maintained and inlarged by Solomon), -thus establishing a parallel ‘secular’ government with Jeroboam as its king.

    This ‘schism’ among the Jews, continued down through the centuries… into the days of Herod.

    Enter Judas the Galilean (a descendant of David and ‘anointed’ one), riding into Jerusalem on an ass, -in an armed insurrection to over throw the ‘secular’ Herodian government…

    What think you what Saul aka Paul thought?… and did.

    The re-writing of History belongs to the victor… we, my friend, have the option to ‘believe’ it or not.

    Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.

  2. apologianick Says:

    “If you mean…” (Who is “you” ?).

    The New Testaments, specifically the ‘Holy Gospels’, weren’t written until, at least, ten years After Saul of Tarsus aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul’s epiphany (while on the road to Damascus in hot pursuit of persecuting ‘Christians’ to their deaths) of the crucified ‘descendant of David’ and Jewish ‘messiah’.

    Reply: Yes. 10 years afterwards. That would be quite conservative. Your point?

    You: No Jew, at the time of the aforementioned “crucifixion”, ever knew or saw or even heard of “Christ”. “Christ” is Not “a name describing his position” as you ‘assume’ and assert. “Christ” (actually, “Kristos”) is a Greek ‘translation’ of the perfectly known and clearly understood Hebrew appellation ‘messiah’ (anointed… or, blessing conferred upon), -wherein there is not etymological basis or foundation in the Greek language or custom for such an invented word… -it simply doesn’t exist, -save to obfuscate the ‘messiah’ and its history before that time.

    Reply: A lot of nice assertions here with nothing to back them. Jesus being called the Christ is in all the gospels and by this, it is understood to mean that he is the Messiah.

    You: How might you escape your circular (and non-sensical) postulation that “…that Barabbas, whom Pilate released instead of Jesus, was named Jesus…”? If Pilate “released Jesus” -who was called “Barabbas”, Pilate released “Jesus” in stead of “Christ” (which, as it has been shown above that there was No “Christ” standing in Pilate’s presence for judgment in the first place). “Barabbas” is an Aramaic appellation (not a proper name), the meaning of which is Bar = Son + Abba = Father (or God)… therefore, this man Named “Jesus” was called: (the) Son of the Father (or God) whom Pilate released.

    Me: Wow. This is totally nonsensical. I put this forward as a thought that had been said by some and did not assert it as definite fact. There were two men on trial. Jesus, who was and is called the Christ, and if the theory is correct, Jesus Barabbas. There is nothing circular in that at all. Barabbas was released and Christ wasn’t.

    You: What was the man’s name who was actually “crucified”?

    Me: Jesus.

    You: In order to know, and more importantly understand, one must needs to examine the life of Saul of Tarsus (the actual creator and founder of ‘Christianity’), -aka Paul, -particularly his ancestry… Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, is the namesake of his forefather -who was the first ‘anointed’ king of the Jews.

    Me: The actual creator and founder of Christianity. Oh please come to TheologyWeb and debate this!

    You: King Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, was ‘anointed’ as such by Samuel -at the pleading of the elders for a king and, at the concession of the Lord, -but was eventually rebuked by the Lord (for failing to abide by the Lord’s commandment). Dishonored and shamed, king Saul “fell upon his own sword”, thus bringing everlasting dishonor and shame to his immediate family and tribe as a whole.

    Me: Yeah yeah yeah. I know the history.

    You: Young David replaced Saul and became the second ‘anointed king of the Jews’.

    King David was succeeded by his son, Solomon.

    King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam.

    Ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam (and rebelled against the heretofore ‘theocratic’ form of governance as instituted by David and maintained and inlarged by Solomon), -thus establishing a parallel ’secular’ government with Jeroboam as its king.

    This ’schism’ among the Jews, continued down through the centuries… into the days of Herod.

    Me: Ooooh. What fascinating history. So nice to assume that I’m ignorant of it.

    You: Enter Judas the Galilean (a descendant of David and ‘anointed’ one), riding into Jerusalem on an ass, -in an armed insurrection to over throw the ’secular’ Herodian government…

    Me: Sorry though. The government of Israel was hardly secular at the time. They were allowed to live under their law although Rome did demand certain things of them. Alexander the Great allowed them to keep their culture. As for this Judas the Galilean, got a reference for this?

    You: What think you what Saul aka Paul thought?… and did.

    Me: I think he did the work of God.

    You: The re-writing of History belongs to the victor… we, my friend, have the option to ‘believe’ it or not.

    Me: How do you know original history if all that is come is from the victors supposedly? Your position leads to historical relativism.

    You: Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.

    Me: Come to TheologyWeb. We really enjoy these types.

  3. dispen4ever Says:

    I enjoy your posts. I have a question. How can two people sitting in a pew have a different understanding of an apologetic if both are operating “in the spirit,” or from the spiritual nature, that nature which has access to or is instructed by “the ‘mind’ of Christ”? 1 Corinthians 2:16.

    Blessings!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: