The Origins of Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

In several places in the bible people are encouraged to "believe on the name of Jesus Christ". This set me thinking ... maybe there is something "special" about this name. Eventually I discovered what it was:

IESOUS CHRISTOS, the Greek name of Jesus, is an ANAGRAM.

What this "holy name" anagrams to will "blow your mind".

IESOUS CHRISTOS anagrams to OSIRIS SET CHOUS ... 'CHOUS' is Greek for "grave".

This leads us into the EGYPTIAN myths about Osiris and Set in the "underworld".

There are other anagrams in the Greek text of the New Testament ... including an anagram that appears to identify the author of the Gospel of Mark. He was 'Mark of Naxos'. Naxos was the mythical birthplace of the Greek god ZEUS. The Isle of Naxos was known as a centre of religious innovation. It may have been that Christianity was "founded" there.

Just as recently founded religions (Mormons and so on) were founded by single individuals maybe Christianity began in the same way?

Um... what?

Doesn't "Christos" just mean "anointed"?

Well ... "Jesus" is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin "Iesus", of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a hellenization of the Hebrew ""יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic "יֵשׁוּעַ" (Yēšûă‘), both meaning "Yahweh delivers" or "Yahweh rescues".

And the word "Christ" is actually derived from the Greek Χριστός (Khrīstos), meaning "the anointed" or "the anointed one", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as "Messiah".

The OP seems to be trying to make an irrelevant case. Anagrams, while interesting, are irrelevant to determining the etymology of words. This is especially true when one considers that Jesus' name was originally in Hebrew, spelled with Hebraic characters, and did not in any way originate with English characters in English - a language that did not even exist until 400 years (or more) after Jesus was executed.

In other words, the OP knowest not whereof he speakest.

Lol, your one to talk

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread, or are you just trying to imitate a troll?

The OP is using a kid's game to "prove" his position. Only this, and nothing more.

OP is fail.

OK, some History Channel fodder maybe...

By the way ... it's "you're", not "your".

Fnord made a pretty solid point. How is that irrelevant? "you're one to talk" doesn't seem to be a particularly appropriate or relevant response in itself

Thanks, Vig!

I'll never understand why some people respond to a fact-based argument with attacks against the person making the fact-based argument, rather than respond with a fact-based counter-argument of their own.

Archeologists and geneticists have recently proven that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England never happened ... but try telling people who have "read the history books" this. To them the FACT that the evolution of a new culture and language happened WITHIN ENGLAND ... not by means of a bloody invasion is preposterous.

... and as for Mohammed - there is no evidence that he ever existed. He is supposed to have died in 632 ad ... and the Koran says ALL mosques were orientated towards Mecca a few years after his death. Archeology shows that this orientation of Mosques towards Mecca came about early in the 8th century (700s) when ALL the Mosques were rebuilt. This points to the fact that the Koran contains deliberate lies. It is also a fact that contemporary commentators were complaining that "holy men" were competing with each other to concoct fictitious stories about Mohammed. There seems to have been a "take over" of the Arab world by a religious movement, having its origins in the vicinity of Mecca sometime around 715 ad. The Koran, as it exists today, was written sometime around 770 ad, apparently by a single author.

God (as an anthropomorphic being) ... on the other hand DID probably live here on Earth, as a mortal human being. He may even be buried somewhere. Excavations of Jericho unearthed several statues of a "holy family", a man, a woman, and a child dating from around 8,000 bc. Jericho is believed by some to be the "first city". Jewish mythology claims that God had a wife.

The Greek concept of God (THEOS) is "the now", "the present moment".

In Nov 1998 only a single digit percentage of people claimed that the Millennium, the 21st century, began on the 1st Jan 2000. In March 1999 a series of adverts on TV urged women to "get busy" ... if they had a baby born exactly at the stroke of twelve 31st Dec 1999/1st Jan 2000 it would be worth "millions", By the end of the year most people thought the year 2000 was the first year of the new century. The Millennium Commission's phone number ended in 2001. ALL scientific establishments said the year 2000 was the LAST year of the 20th century ... but the media (newpapers and television) told the people otherwise.

You're saying a whole lot of stuff, most of which is either trivially true or unfounded. But this paragraph is especially strange. You do realise that this is a definitional issue, right? Which year counts as the "first year of the new century" is not actually a question about reality.

You do realize we know who Jesus was, and where he came from? And you do realize if he rose from the dead, there would be no bones? And a dead god pretty much defeats the purpose of being god?

I agree, but you might not agree with my agreement.

I think that we know that Jesus was born in Nazareth. The only reason to believe otherwise is some extremely suspect and extremely motivated stories about an imaginary census that made Jesus' parent(s) go to Bethlehem. The motivation? Easy, to fulfill a certain prophecy that the messiah had to be from "David's town".

Also, no fair scholarly/historical reason for why Jesus being from Nazareth would be made up. It's historically plausible that he was born in Nazareth.