Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Problem With Christ
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
The Problem With Christ
David, Thanks for starting the thread, I just happened to find it! For those of you interested in joining the discussion I can send you a copy of the PDF, or you can get the Kindle version on Amazon, or (BIG NEWS) the print version is now available. Here are the links:https://www.createspace.com/4300689
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CW512ZS
With the release of the book today and a new blog post to be released in the morning, I am up to my eyeballs. I will start engaging in the discussion tomorrow, and am really looking forward to it!
For the king--Chris
I've only read chapter one, but I don't really see anything terribly controversial yes. Maybe as I get further into the book I'll uncover an argument over why "King" is more descriptive than "Christ."At this point, I'll just state my acceptance of the thesis so far by confirming the following formula:
king = anointed one = son of God = son of man = Messiah
So, yes, Messiah means king. When Nathaniel says "you are the king of Israel" and "you are the Son of God" he is not making two separate claims, but one. However, I've ordered my list according to rank, like concentric circles. Israel has had many kings, but by the time we get to the word Messiah, we're down to just one person: that one, special king who is the dreamed-of savior of the world; the man whom God selects to usher in the new age and reign forever. So THE messiah is greater than A king.
But we'll see where Chris goes with this in his book.
David, I will deal with your comment first, and then move on to Lee's. Thank you both for your investment of time on this.David, do you accept the thesis that Christ is a transliteration rather than a translation of christos? If so, the question becomes how should it be translated? I have heard no other suggestions that come close to conveying the sense of understanding held in the 1st-century. Do you have one we should consider?
The fact is that king is well understood, and a brief sampling of five year olds will evidence that it is better understood by them than the more "democratic" president or prime-minister. Ask that same five year old what Christ means and you will be told "Jesus." The fact is, the very mythology of western culture (I cannot speak to eastern) is rooted in the concept. Simply look at the popularity of "Game of Thrones" or "Lord of the Rings." No one needs an explanation of the role destined for Aragorn.
Lee, thank you. When I wrote chapter one, I did not think it would be received as controversial either--I have been rudely awakened.
You are tracking well, and getting ahead of me, as you will see when you get to the next chapter, however two points should be kept in mind. First there is a danger of conflating our English word Messiah, which means "promised one," with its Hebrew and Aramaic origin which means king. We will see in the next chapter that David and Solomon, and in fact the entire royal line were in fact called such. Which bring me to the second point; we looking back can see Jesus as THE messiah (and He is), but semantically each enthroned decedent of David was also a messiah in the sense of the original word.
Again thank you for the comments, and I would remind others wanting to participate that the PDF is available for free. Just let me know.
Chris,I think you are referring to David's comments. I haven't ordered the book as yet because I've been busy with matters concerning my own book's adventure through publishing. As long as we don't call Christ Imperial Wizard or Grand Poobah I'm happy.
Sorry Robert, of course you are correct. I will edit it promptly. One more thought for Robert and others: notice how Robert just used the word "Christ." He used it in grammatical form and usage as a name. It is being used as an alternative for "Jesus," and implies no other meaning. Its use as a title in English would require "the" or some other modifier to be used in conjunction with it.
Chris, I agree with everything you wrote in the book. Please don't see my question as an attack; I am just trying to think of fodder for discussion. Its a transliteration and I would love to see it translated "king". I read your book months ago and only skimmed chapter one to get the discussion going, so my memory is hazy. But my question comes more from the tone of the book - I got the impression that you were implying that the church is, and has been, in a bad place spiritually and if we just translated Christ to King that would fix everything. My point is that we would still need to explain what king means.
Obviously people understand what a king is, though I think your comment above goes too far.
I don't think the popularity of GOT or LOTR is due to their use of king. Is Doctor Who popular because we all have an understanding of time travel? Heck, when I read/watch GOT, it makes me not want a king as they are all evil (Joffrey, Aerys), incompetent (Robb) or just stuffy jerks (Stannis).
Maybe that's my point - king is still just a word. What sort of king is Aragorn going to be? What jobs does that entail? Jesus may be king, but he is a unique king. I can't approach the King of England or Aragorn or Joffrey with my problems, but I can approach Jesus.
Again, my point is that translating it as "king" is not a magic bullet. I agree it is a better translation then Christ, but we still need to learn (and/or teach) what sort of king Jesus is.
David, not to worry, I did not take your comments as an attack, and I hope my response did not imply that. To be honest I forgot that I had sent you the book, and you sent a very gracious response. I have been so busy with the book and blog that it somehow got lost in my backlog.I agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly. Our SERVANT king certainly breaks the mold for all terrestrial and ethereal potentates. Our kingdom is certainly "upside-down."
It was certainly in large measure Jesus' failure to live up to their kingly (messianic) expectations that led to their rejection of Him. Unfortunately it has been my experience that evangelicals typically explain this difference in terms of its spirituality, by which they seem to mean figuratively, or non-physically. It is a spiritual kingdom but the opposite of spiritual is not physical, but fleshly. The term alludes to nature and motivation not location or time (eg heaven or future).
Yes, much teaching is required, but you can't teach those who think they already know. My strategy with this book is to provide what we call in science education, a discrepant event: an observation that doesn't meet with expectations and provides a teachable moment.
I find that those who suddenly realize that they don't understand the central word of their faith are often open to seeing what else they might not understand. You know--simple things like love your enemies, do good to those who seek to take advantage of you. All those crazy things that don't fit with our flesh. But then that's another book... :-)
Wow, and I thought the Christ was my SAVIOR who laid down His life for me so I could overcome the death that was sin. He never demanded I become his subject as would a king. I, as a follower, had a myriad of choices as to who my leader would be and I eventually, afer exhausting all the rest, chose Jesus. That choice entails certain behavioral modifications which I gladly undertake as a humble servant to God and as gratitude for God's sons' sacrifice. Maybe He ought to be Immanuel as in Mathew 1:23, although I suppose that's as murky as Christos.King doen't resonate with this Christian, though.
King and Savior are not mutually exclusive - the king is the savior. The King is your savior who laid down his life for you so you could overcome the death that was sin.Christ is just a transliteration of Christos. It is a word that means king, whether it resonates with us or not. Perhaps the fact that it doesn't resonate with us is part of the problem Chris' book is trying to solve - we limit Christ to the spiritual realm so we can go back to worrying about worldly kings (presidents) and kingdoms (countries) as if they matter in the grand scheme of things.
Perhaps saying "my king" is personalizing it too much. The point is, the Jews yearned for a king over the world who would set things right again. Perhaps it's not so much that they wanted to be ruled, but that they wanted all the evil people to be ruled.Granted, Jesus brought a different slant to the messiah, but Christians were stubbornly insistent: Jesus fulfilled/fulfills the role of Christ.
Although I don't necessarily agree with all that has been stated so far, at least we seem to be on the same playing field which isn't bad for a far righty, a far lefty, a moderate righty, and a middling lefty. Wonder if we'll still be so cordial after Chapter 2?
Robert, what don't you agree with?I only see three points made so far:
Chris' point that "Christ" is just a transliteration of "Christos". This is undeniable - it is not a translation, it is a transliteration. Our English Bibles have the word God for Greek "theos", we don't read "Theos created the world". You can't really disagree with this point.
The second point is that Christos ought to be translated king. If you disagree with this, then how would you suggest translating it.
My point was that translating it as "king" will still need explanation to people in regards to what it means for Jesus to be king.
What do you disagree with?
Primarily, I just disagree that king as any improvement over Christ. With "King of the Hill", "King of Queens", Elvis and Bob Wills as "kings", King Richard Petty, King Kong, pawn king, porn king, bull dyke king, etc. the word has lost forever any luster it may have once had. I'll just call my Savior The Christ or Immanuel because I kinda like "God among us". As I said, David, slight disagreements mostly based on my personal preferences. No deal breakers here or even major bones of contention.
If we are fixated on transliteration and translation then just let christos be Christ and don't translate it at all. God needs to be searched for so start with this singular meaning.
I suspect Robert is proving Chris's point by insisting that he doesn't want to call Jesus his King. I just finished chapter three, and it seems so far that the point of the book is to awake us to the true meaning of Christ, so that we can understand the title properly ... or perhaps even discard it in favor of "Jesus my King."
I gotcha Robert, and I agree with you to some degree (see my above post). I've only skimmed chapter one after reading the book months ago, so I don't want to miss anything, but my thought is:It just makes sense to translate the word Christ. People look at "Christ" and say, "what does that mean?" or "is that Jesus' last name?" If you translate it to "king" you eliminate one question, leaving the "what does that mean?" question. Or perhaps, "what sort of king" because there are lots of sorts of kings out there.
All words need explained. I think a good follow-up could be The Problem with God as I think "God" is also a term that is nearly useless. Everyone believes in God (almost). Whether King or Christ, thinking and teaching is still needed...I am just with Chris in saying that King is a better place to start.
I would be interested (and I can't recall if Chris discusses this) - why is Christ transliterated? Not all titles are for Jesus - Lord is not a transliteration, neither is savior. Why translate all other titles and not that one?
Yes, Lee, by all means tell me the true meaning of Jesus, ye who doesn't even believe in His divinity.
David - Why do all words need to be explained? Lightning is lightning - one good jolt of it explains itself and you never forget what it is. The Christ is perhaps The Christ - when the awakening occurs, you know who He is. Until that happens, you're foundering, and no amount of transliteration or translation can right your ship.
Of course I believe in his divinity. But if you want to discuss the "true meaning" of the word Christ, you might read the assigned reading, Robert. ;)
What would you like explained to you, Lee? I know you can't do anything quantitatively, but I thought you could at least read at a moderately high level.
Christopher - I have finished Chapter Two and applaud you on your scholarship; I'm enjoying the read! At this point I only have a question. Isaiah 42:1-4 states:"Behold My Servant whom I uphold. My elect one in whom my soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles;
He will not cry out, nor raise His voice;
Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.
A bruised reed He will not break.
And smoking flax He will not quench.
He will bring forth justice for truth.
He will not fail or be discouraged,
Till He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands shall wait for His law."
Could then christos be broadened out from annointed one to elect one? This might open up new pathways for research. (I'm planning your sequel; of course, I want a cut!)
Why do words need to be explained? Is that a serious question? I can never tell with you Robert, you have a snarky streak that I admit I like, but is confusing in an internet forum!
If I have a question about what a word/concept means, I seek an explanation from someone who knows. So my answer is yes.
Ok, David, serious answer. Of course, it is useful to know the root, usage and definition of all words, that's why we look things up in our Funk and Wagnalls or similar lexicon. But a word like lightning is better demonstrated than talked about. Any verbal description falls short of the actual event (especially if it's real close). I was putting Christ in the same category. When one becomes a believer, the subsequent lifestyle change and Christ-awareness, mocks any attempt at a dictionary's translation of the event. So, to put it in the perspective of this book discussion, to translate Christ into "king" is perhaps proper for scholarly purposes, but "king" falls far short of the glory of Christ.
I've read 4 of the 5 chapters and don't feel like I've gotten to the punch line yet. So the proper translation of Christ is king; what does that MEAN to us and how does it change our lives? When the N.T. writers insisted Jesus was the Messiah (eg: king) were they making a claim about the distant future or their present? If the latter, they obviously didn't mean "king" in the traditional sense, but in some radical reinterpretation.
David - why don't you expand upon your take of why Christ is the only transliteration of the commom names for Jesus of Nazareth? Even if it's not covered in Christopher's book, it seems central to our current theme.
Lee - even if the N.T. writers were referring to Jesus as a newly deceased, the enormity and scope of His teachings, miracle performance, and 3 day revival would have necessitated a radical interpretation of "king". Can we agree on this?
Yes, I am in agreement. So we seem to have come full circle. We agree that Messiah should be interpreted as "king", then we radically reinterpret "king" back to a different kind of Messiah. So what's the point?
Gentlemen, I am encouraged to see you carrying on in my absence, and it sounds like you are in good measure getting the gist of what I am trying to communicate. I have some catching up to do and will try to address specifics as I can.First Robert (Msg.#22) thank you for the complement. Isaiah 42 is often (and I think correctly) viewed as prophetic of Jesus, however the word meshiak is not found in the Hebrew nor christos in the Septuagint. Because of the conflation of christos with the person of Jesus we are tempted to pour all our understanding of one, into the other. Jesus is our prophet priest and king, therefore christos must mean that. You can see an example of this problem at this link:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3FRCZWS...
You and several others do however bring up an important point. I am suggesting king as the "gloss" for christos--not a full translation. Words rarely have a one-to-one correspondence in any two languages. Christos should more fully be understood as "God ordained, legitimate, king."
At this point there seems to be general agreement with my thesis. So what do you think of my suggestion that followers of the christos make every effort to remove "Christ" from their vocabulary?
Robert, mesg.#26. I am not sure what you are getting at here. What do you mean by "common names of Jesus?" He is "called" many things, but those things are not His name. Christos is unique because it is treated gramatically as a name and we as English speakers have been deprived by its lack of translation of understanding the kind of king we serve.You have each made the point that we must be taught what kind of king Jesus is. That is precisely what the N.T. is trying to do, but we have missed it because the word has been treated as a name.
I am becoming more and more convinced that the misuse of standard Greek rules of translation of the article (the) in association with christos, is one of our enemies greatest successes in confounding the authors intentions.
Lee, msg.#25, Surely you know the punchline is saved for last! ;-)
Robert, in response to message 26...between being the parent of a two-year old during the day and working 1.5 jobs the rest of the time, I don't have time for such an undertaking!Chris' book connects with another book I am reading about the 400s-500s and all the controversies about Jesus that led to the Council of Chalcedon. What is interesting is that many argued that "Jesus" was the man and "Christ" was the God presence. So the Gnostics and others argued that the Christ overwhelmed the man Jesus (leading to something like Docetism where Jesus is not really human). That is a whole other discussion...I just bring it up because it is a historical example of what happened when "Christ" was disengaged from its original meaning - instead of seeing Jesus as the long-awaited Jewish king (king of the world too) they recast it as Jesus floating 2 feet above ground.
Historically, I am not sure how that happened - I suspect it was simply when Greeks and Romans lost connection to Judaism so they did not understand Hebrew anymore.
BTW, I do like what you said in Post 24
Lee, I think the point would relate to the confession "Jesus is Lord" which was very common in the early church. The corollary of this is that Caesar is not. The true Lord of the world is Jesus, the king.I can't help but read this from an Anabaptist perspective - I think nationalism is one of the greatest sins of Christians in America (and at many other points of history). We believe in Jesus but we allow our national values and beliefs to shape how we live more than we allow Jesus. We live in such a way that our true Lord is our country. Examples could be myriad - whether consumerism, militarism, obsession with sex and on and on. I believe both liberals and conservatives fall prey to this.
I think getting back to Jesus as Lord and King, with our allegiance to him above all other allegiances, that would change how we live.
Chris - I loved your book. That said, I am not convinced we must remove "Christ" from our vocabulary. That reads too much like a magic bullet to me. But speaking of Jesus as King (and Lord) more often (and explaining why we do so) would help.I think you are on to something many others are - Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel; NT Wrights' How God Became King and even Shane Claiborne's Jesus for President.
Robert msg#24, you make a good point. I am not trying to simply make an academic point here. My goal is to introduce you to the person whose ambassador's wrote the N.T. Even that word ambassador has been obfuscated. Your bible simply provides a transliteration of the Greek word apostolos.If we are simply having an academic discussion, it will tickle our ears and provide momentary amusement. If we let His truth knock our feet out from under us and we willingly grovel as unworthy failures who have acted in rebellion against Him, He is trustworthy and just in pardoning us, as only a king can. Only then can we begin to walk in the power and authority that He grants us.
This, and all that goes with it is the message of the new contract the king is offering His people in the N.T. Without the experience it means nothing.
Robert msg#24 again. "..."king" is perhaps proper for scholarly purposes, but "king" falls far short of the glory of Christ." If by this you mean the words fall short of the reality you are of course correct. But read your words--you just did it again. You used Christ as an alternate name for Jesus. Check out that word "glory" in both old and new testaments it is an attribute of a... king! You are using Christ not as his ambassadors used christos, but as an English dictionary uses the name Christ.
You are right the word king and all words used to describe Him fall far short of the glory of our king--Jesus. Sadly it is my conviction that the word "Christ" is used to obscure that glory rather than communicate it. "Christ" is just a name that hides biblical truth.
Chris, would a compromise be acceptable? Messiah instead of King? I do like ambiguous words, being a non-conformist sharing fellowship with conformists. I like "Paraclete", "God", "Messiah", words that bestow a proper reverence but still have some wiggle room. Hey, I'm just being honest.
Robert msg#34 "...with our allegiance to him above all other allegiances,..."This is one of my pet peeves. ;-) Please read the following:
http://radicalfish.net/ultimate-alleg...
Lee, I have no doubt that Messiah will be the next step at attempting to preserve the obfuscation present in Christ. It is already being used in a number of translations. The problem here is that Messiah while it has the advantage of being a title, does not mean in English what it meant in Aramaic. In Aramaic it meant king. In English it means promised one. While it is true that our king Jesus was promised, that is not what His ambassadors meant when they used the word.I am willing to compromise on king, but not on the meaning of christos. We could use sovereign, monarch, potentate, or you might be able to come up with some others. As I state in the book: messiah is only used twice in the N.T. and in both cases we are given the translation as christos. Why do we think 21st-century English speakers are more familiar with its meaning than 1st-century Greek speakers?
Hey, I appreciate your honesty :-) I just don't want to give you anymore wiggle room than the N.T. authors did. ;-)
lol. Here's the problem. "King," to the majority of 1st-century citizens, did not mean what it meant to Jesus' followers. Jesus ruled over a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. They were playing a word game, giving Jesus as much respect as possible, while knowingly living a life different than if Jesus were a worldly king.The danger is when we start throwing around words like "allegiance" and "obey." Words that mean fighting for a worldly king. I'm very leery of anyone who insists they are obeying God's command. That is the sort of thing that leads to 9-11. Or armageddon ... see Revelation.
Lee, I would argue that it did mean the same to them. The issue here is not His sovereignty, but His use of it. I am obeying my kings command when I do good to you no matter how much you abuse me. It is the nature of our king's commands that is different, not the sway He holds over our lives. And yes... the kings of the world will not take kindly to us if we are serious in this.
Your reference to a heavenly kingdom I would have expected from Robert. ;-) It is heavenly in its motivation, not its location. Our king will accept divided allegiance no more than worldly Caesars.
It is heavenly in its ruler. And while I agree with you that the nature of our king's commands is different, there will remain throwbacks like Revelation still dreaming of a political uprising: a sword-carrying king sitting on a four-legged throne issuing edicts to toss the evil folks into a lake a fire.
Okay, I have some questions from chapter three.When you talk about BDAG having two renderings for Christos - historically there was such a transition. You can see this when you study Christianity in the 200s-500s as it penetrated the Greek/Roman world. Such people, for whatever reason, did not speak of Jesus as "king", they more saw Jesus Christ as sort of like a name.
Your argument seems to be that this transition is wrong. And I agree, it is. But like you also say, the living usage beats the dead dictionary. If a Christian writing in 450 prior to the council of Chalcedon speaks of Jesus Christ - what does he mean of "Christ". Would we translate the term then as "king" even if he is thinking of "Christ" as = "God"?
It seems BDAG is arguing that this transition took place within the Bible. Your argument would be that the transition took place later, yes? I guess my question is - setting aside matters of translating, what place does the reality of this historical transition have in your argument?
P. 59 - you say Mark 15:32 ought to be "let the Christ, the king of Israel, come down." But these words are in the mouth of people who did not believe Jesus really was the King, right? To me, translating "this Christ" indicates they were skeptical of his claims.
Also, there are two different Greek words here, as you say. Isn't it almost as confusing to translate both as king? Do you want to take two words in one language (basileus and christos) and give them the same english word? CS Lewis wrote the Four Loves since many Greek words for love are all given the same English words. Would we end up with "The Four Kings" explaining different greek words for kings and what they mean?
Finally, as I read you on King Agrippa, I was struck by how lame of a king Agrippa and Herod were. They were under Caesar, the real King. Though wasn't the title "Caesar" adopted for the emperors? So if Christians go to Rome and say "Jesus is king" wouldn't Caesar say, "that's nice, he is my subordinate just as Herod, the other king of the Jews was."
I think when you are going from Greek-English you make a good point. I just wonder if the Greek-Latin in the first century may add something to the discussion.
Am I understanding correctly that your primary objection to translating the plain meaning of christos is that misguided people will in all probability continue to abuse the Bible? Surely on that ground we should remove "I came not to bring peace, but a sword."There will always be those who twist the Word to their own ends. I believe the greater danger is hiding the words of the Word from those who wish to follow truly.
The "spiritual/heavenly" kingdom tact is the first bastion of those who tell us the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to government edicts. If He is King Jesus, instead of Jesus Christ, that approach is gutted.
Wow David, Thank you--excellent questions! I am waiting for a ride and may not be able to get back to you all until tomorrow evening :-(.You asked about the transition of christos into a name earlier, and I neglected to answer you. It is important, and I am hoping some "real" scholars will attack it now that I have made the point obvious.
I don't pretend to know the full answer, but have some good ideas as to where to look for it. First it is clear that the earliest translation that I am aware of, the "Syriac Peshita" a Semitic language translates the term christos back into the Semitic mesia. Consensus seems to place this at around 300 AD. Onehundred years later we find in the equally Semitic Coptic translation that christos is transliterated as it is in our Bibles. Clearly something important happened in this time frame.
Secondly, as I start exploring the Greek church fathers I find something amazing: They use the article in the fully informed sense that we see in the N.T. This is totally lost in translation because the TRANSLATORS are treating christos as a name. The Fathers did not, but we can't see it!
I cannot prove it but I strongly suspect that it was the Constantinian synthesis of Church and State that is the critical factor here. It is not coincidental that the same Church/State that outlawed personal Bible reading started by issuing an authorized version--The Vulgate, and proceeded to declare it the only inspired version, giving it preeminence over the Greek text which it eventually outlawed.
Once you get past around 350 or so the transition is complete. And I would suggest that in large measure what we call Christianity from that point on was relegated to underground activity for the most part.
Interestingly Latin has NO article, thus making it next to impossible for later reform minded translators to recover the non-name nature of christos. Once early translations were made from the Vulgate the weight of "the word of God" requires subsequent changes to be incremental.
Habit dies hard, it requires something of an iconoclast to see what is really in the text. Had I been taught in seminary I doubt I would have been able to go against the teaching received in the first two weeks of class and seen this.
Concerning your other point,there is no problem with Basileu and christos, the words are interchangeable synonyms as biblical and extra-biblical texts demonstrate. Just look at the story of the Magi. christos was used at the foot of the cross sarcastically in reference to the sign declaring him basileu. The use of aposition in Greek makes it clear these are synonyms.
Finally, Caesar followed an opposite track from christos. It was a name that became a title. As king, Casar's emperor status came from his conquest of other kingdoms. Try as he might, it was not until Constantine's stroke of "genius" that Christianity was brought into subjection.
I wish I had time to write more, but that will have to do for now. Thank you all for the good points.
David I still have a minute. You ask: "If a Christian writing in 450 prior to the council of Chalcedon speaks of Jesus Christ - what does he mean of "Christ". Would we translate the term then as "king" even if he is thinking of "Christ" as = "God"?"By 450 "king" would not even have been a cloud on the horizon. The transition to ethereal, other-life, heavenly theology was complete. The Sermon on the Mount had been effectively banished to those with a special calling in monasteries--not for the real world. The scripture-warpers Lee legitimately fears had won the day. The king's true subjects were being hunted down and burned at the stake.
Christopher (msg. 45)- I doubt if many "real" scholars will take the time to pursue anything so insignificant. We are giving you the courtesy of discussing your book - if our level of Scriptural sophistication isn't what you had hoped, there are many other religious sites on Goodreads where you might find a better fit.
Robert my friend, methinks you are being a bit too sensitive. I was the not so "real" scholar being referred to. I am only a pretender to the title, being completely outside my field of science ed.
My mistake then, Christopher, just a mixup. I consider myself well versed in the Bible, but read it for Faith issues mostly as that is not my area of "geeky" interest. When pursing theoretical particle physics, I'll actually try to duplicate or at least fathom the mathematical calculations which is folly in the extreme on my part as it sometimes takes a mainframe, but....well, you know as your research for your book shows a "geeky" interest outside your area of expertise. I think both Lee and David share your fondness for extra-Biblical research and, from what I can ascertain, are quite accomplished at it. Most of the "whole" Bible scholars I know went to Seminary, but the real zealots are a few Orthodox Jews I'm acquainted with. Of course, their knowledge is confined to the OT, but they've memorized that along with any supporting documentation.
Thank you Robert, I'm glad no offense is taken. I do want to point out that the understanding I am sharing is absolutely a "Faith" issue, not one of "geeky interest." So far the only unanswerable objection I have received to my thesis is that it is NOT supported extra-biblically. I have recently been doing some reading on that, and if I ever do a second edition it will have a chapter on the extra-biblical support for my thesis.I want to emphasize that, as chapter one recounts, I came to this understanding BEFORE I had any understanding of Greek. One of my primary reasons for learning Greek was to see if the thesis that christos meant king would stand. What I have found has surpassed my wildest expectations.
The fact that several Greek "experts" have backed up my thesis is not proof of my acumen, but of the "nose on your face" obviousness of this truth once it is finally seen.
I remain convinced that any person with a modicum of intelligence, equipped with nothing more than a Bible and an open mind, and a willingness to obey no matter what the cost; can be lead by the Holy Spirit into everything required to be pleasing to God. Our problem does not seem to be a shortage of Bibles, intelligence, or the Holy Spirit.
Chris basically argues that "christos" ought to be translated "King" and not "Christ" in English Bibles.
I don't disagree. But for discussion, I'll throw this out: the problem with Christ, Chris says, is that no one knows what it means. The solution seems to be that use of "king" would be understandable to people. Would it? We live in a democracy, we don't like kings (well, obsession over the royal baby may prove me wrong). We are unfamiliar with living under a King, at any rate. My point is - would use of the word "king" be less problematic? I think pastors/teachers would still have to explain just as much what king means and why it is relevant to us today as we would with Christ.