I am posting on a current events subject here.
I do write on religions. In those books I put a notice early on that this book is not suitable for those with religious beliefs. If someone bought it, they can return it. If they borrowed they don’t have to go past 10 per cent and so don’t pay.
I am only looking for readers with open, inquiring minds.
You are coming in here looking for an argument.
I know exactly where the word “Christos” came from. A bunch of half illiterate numskulls in Alexandria out to make a fast buck decided to throw the Torah into Greek. The Jews never read it because it was such a botch, but the Greeks did.
They came to the Hebrew noun “anointed.” They didn’t know enough Greek to translate it so they went for a verb which means “to rub” as in a bath. Reference is Paul Carus if you know who that is.
Christos is a nonsense word which if it were made into a noun which come out Rubbie.
I am not an atheist. I am what you call a heretic. They don’t burn us today, sorry.
On the contrary pal - you're the one looking for trouble.
I know exactly where the word “Christos” came from. A bunch of half illiterate numskulls in Alexandria out to make a fast buck decided to throw the Torah into Greek. The Jews never read it because it was such a botch, but the Greeks did.
Further display of poor historical understanding idov. Your bias is clearly on display with this bleat. It is a straight across translation of mashiyach - which also means 'annointed'.
They didn’t know enough Greek to translate it so they went for a verb which means “to rub” as in a bath.
Only if you are stupid enough to look at the root word idov. Still 'annonted' in hebrew = annointed in Greek. Your verb is chriō while Christos is an adverb.
Paul Carus
Epic facepalm - sorry but his theories/philosophy of the late 19th/early 20th century are out of date as too his thoughts about the origin of Christos - something about the New Testiment being the defining of the word, since it was written in Greek origionally - and conveyed the Jewish understanding of 'annointed'.
I am not an atheist. I am what you call a heretic. They don’t burn us today, sorry.
AFA this piece of junk you've posted - it really doesn't matter what you are - except that it exposes you for who you are.
And blog pimping too boot.
I am sure in your research of the NT gospels you noted the authors of the gospels explained christos=mashiach.
The nonsense here is your etymological “analysis” of Christos. You know, of course it is derived from the verb chrio, which is simply to smear or annoint. It is used in numerous texts of Scripture having nothing to do with the Messianic title Christos. The act, for example, of Jesus smearing the eyes of the man born blind with mud. Conversion to nounal form simply takes the root and infers a subject to the act of anointing or smearing, oil or some medicinal substance typically implied as part of the process. So not your nonsensical “rubbie,” but rather “[one subjected to] smearing or anointing.” Hence a valid title for Messiah, who is anointed by the Spirit of God. And Christos would be well understood as a direct translation of that title, especially as a noun.
BTW, I am at work now, but if you are open to it, I have a number of lexical resources that I can bring to bear to back up the foregoing assertions. If you are interested, you can look it up for yourself in the Low-Nida lexicon based on semantic domains, which is helpful to overcome the novice error of looking to strict etymology as opposed to analysis of usage in the full range of contemporaneous literature, of which we have much more than we did a century ago. It’s important to stay current with our expanding knowledge in ancient Greek, whether Attic or Koine.
From WHICH religion?
You are referring to the root word (Chrio):
khree'-o Probably akin to G5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service: - anoint.
The root word is "to anoint," "Chrio," which I suppose is where you get your idea that it means "to rub." It is always used to mean "to anoint", and never only "to rub," although there is rubbing going on when there is anointing. It is used throughout both the Old (in the LXX) and New Testament to mean the same thing: to rub with oil for the purposes of consecrating. The New Testament was written by Jews who, by the way, also spoke common Greek.
Carus has been dead for a hundred years and is an atheist. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you do not have any contemporary scholars to help you on this.