Does this confuse anyone else?


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

Let me word it this way: Is the name "Christ" - the actual word- found in the OT anywhere. Was Jesus referred to as Christ before he was born? Or was he known as Jehovah or the Lord or lots of other names? I know Jesus' (or Jehovah's) instructions (his words) are found in the OT because he was the God of the OT. I'm asking about the actual word "Christ."

This is a very interesting but slightly technical discussion. So buckle up.

First: The English term "to anoint" means "to consecrate someone to do some particular sacred duty by putting oil on his head". In ancient times, this was a common practice; today, it is extremely rare outside our Church.

Now, the Old Testament was written primarily in an early form of ancient Hebrew. The term used in the Old Testament for "anointed" was māšîaḥ (Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ‎), or in the English transliteration, messiah. It referred specifically to the man or men that the ancient Hebrews believed would arise and be anointed to deliver them from bondage.

The New Testament was written primarily in Koine, the Greek dialect from the Alexandria (Egypt) area that was commonly spoken all over the Mediterranean during late antiquity (i.e. the Roman period). The Koine translation for the term messiah was christos (Koine Greek Χριστός), which means exactly the same thing ("anointed") and is the term used in the New Testament.

In other words, "Christ" and "Messiah" are the same word, or at least words with the exact same meaning, one from an ancient Greek dialect and the other from an ancient Hebrew dialect. Nephi probably did not speak the ancient Hebrew dialect of the Old Testament, and certainly did not speak Koine Greek, which would not be developed for centuries after his time. So whatever intermediate ancient Hebrew word he used, the translator of the Book of Mormon was free to use whatever English term or terms he saw fit to convey the thought. It appears that the English word "anointed" wasn't quite right, but the common Greek-derived English word "Christ" filled the bill perfectly. So "Christ" is used in the Book of Mormon because the translator saw fit to use it.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

It appears that the English word "anointed" wasn't quite right, but the common Greek-derived English word "Christ" filled the bill perfectly. So "Christ" is used in the Book of Mormon because the translator saw fit to use it.

I would also point out that Nephi said "that should be his name."

When we say "Christ" in English, we aren't thinking of "anointed".  We tend to use it as a surname for Jesus.  So, whatever the Nephite derivation of the name/title was, that was translated per the common usage of the era (of Joseph Smith) as "Christ."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, carlimac said:

Sallikaa minun sanoa näin: Onko nimi "Kristus" - todellinen sana, joka löytyy OT: stä missä tahansa. Oliko Jeesus kutsuttu Kristukseksi ennen kuin hän syntyi? Tai oliko hän nimeltään Jehova tai Herra vai useat muut nimet? Tiedän, että Jeesuksen (tai Jehovan) ohjeet (hänen sanansa) löytyvät OT: sta, koska hän oli OT: n Jumala. Kysyn todellista sanaa "Kristus".

Kun olin lukemassa viime yönä, että ilmaus "Kristuksen sanat" yksinkertaisesti tuntui liian nykyajan 73 eKr. Oli tuntunut siltä, että luki sanan "viisauden sana" Mormonin kirjassa.  

Mietin myös, onko Alma puhu profeetallisesti. Kuten, "Kun Kristus tulee tulevaisuudessa - milloin se voi olla - ja antaa meille hänen sanansa, niin meidän pitäisi seurata heitä."

 

 

 

Christ Hebrew name is Messiah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vort said:

This is a very interesting but slightly technical discussion. So buckle up.

First: The English term "to anoint" means "to consecrate someone to do some particular sacred duty by putting oil on his head". In ancient times, this was a common practice; today, it is extremely rare outside our Church.

Now, the Old Testament was written primarily in an early form of ancient Hebrew. The term used in the Old Testament for "anointed" was māšîaḥ (Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ‎), or in the English transliteration, messiah. It referred specifically to the man or men that the ancient Hebrews believed would arise and be anointed to deliver them from bondage.

The New Testament was written primarily in Koine, the Greek dialect from the Alexandria (Egypt) area that was commonly spoken all over the Mediterranean during late antiquity (i.e. the Roman period). The Koine translation for the term messiah was christos (Koine Greek Χριστός), which means exactly the same thing ("anointed") and is the term used in the New Testament.

In other words, "Christ" and "Messiah" are the same word, or at least words with the exact same meaning, one from an ancient Greek dialect and the other from an ancient Hebrew dialect. Nephi probably did not speak the ancient Hebrew dialect of the Old Testament, and certainly did not speak Koine Greek, which would not be developed for centuries after his time. So whatever intermediate ancient Hebrew word he used, the translator of the Book of Mormon was free to use whatever English term or terms he saw fit to convey the thought. It appears that the English word "anointed" wasn't quite right, but the common Greek-derived English word "Christ" filled the bill perfectly. So "Christ" is used in the Book of Mormon because the translator saw fit to use it.

Thank you! That really is helpful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, carlimac said:

In reading Alma 37:44-45 we have Alma commanding his son Helaman ( About 73 B.C.) about following the "words of Christ".  Which words of Christ would those be?   I guess I think of "the words of Christ" as being those that he spoke while on the earth. And yet he hadn't lived on the earth yet?  Is Alma referring to anything Jehovah said in the Old Testament?  Is Jesus ever referred to as "Christ" in the Old Testament? In doing a quick cursory glance in the Topical Guide, I don't see any reference to "Christ" in the books of the Old Testament. The only place he is called "Christ" before he was actually  born is in the Book of Mormon. 

So is this one of those things explained in apologetics that in translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith often used words in English that he knew but weren't necessarily used in 73 B.C.? 

A little piece of advice to help you avoid perplexity and confusion on other gospel topics in the future: If you had done a simple scripture search under the expression “words of Christ” on LDS.org, you would have discovered that, among other pertinent verses that set forth the same principle, the prophet Nephi perfectly explains why Alma would have used the expression and what he meant to say when employing it...

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all  men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)

So the LDS scriptures teach us that expression “words of Christ” refers not only to the words that Christ speaks in the first person but also to the words Christ gives to his prophets and angels that they might speak in his name. This basic gospel principle is Latter-Day Saint doctrine 101.

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I would also point out that Nephi said "that should be his name."

When we say "Christ" in English, we aren't thinking of "anointed".  We tend to use it as a surname for Jesus.  So, whatever the Nephite derivation of the name/title was, that was translated per the common usage of the era (of Joseph Smith) as "Christ."

I don't know that they thought of his name being "Christ" any more than we do.  Jesus is THE Christ.  it's a title, more than a name.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." - Isaiah 9:6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

A little piece of advice to help you avoid perplexity and confusion on other gospel topics in the future: If you had done a simple scripture search under the expression “words of Christ” on LDS.org, you would have discovered that, among other pertinent verses that set forth the same principle, the prophet Nephi perfectly explains why Alma would have used the expression and what he meant to say when employing it...

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all  men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)

So the LDS scriptures teach us that expression “words of Christ” refers not only to the words that Christ speaks in the first person but also to the words Christ gives to his prophets and angels that they might speak in his name. This basic gospel principle is Latter-Day Saint doctrine 101.

How do you know I didn't search that. It didn't answer my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

I don't know that they thought of his name being "Christ" any more than we do. 

Didn't say they did.  My point is that while the religiously educated person understands the meaning of "Christ", the average person does not. To them, it is a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2018 at 7:34 PM, carlimac said:

In reading Alma 37:44-45 we have Alma commanding his son Helaman ( About 73 B.C.) about following the "words of Christ".  Which words of Christ would those be?   I guess I think of "the words of Christ" as being those that he spoke while on the earth. And yet he hadn't lived on the earth yet?  Is Alma referring to anything Jehovah said in the Old Testament?  Is Jesus ever referred to as "Christ" in the Old Testament? In doing a quick cursory glance in the Topical Guide, I don't see any reference to "Christ" in the books of the Old Testament. The only place he is called "Christ" before he was actually  born is in the Book of Mormon. 

So is this one of those things explained in apologetics that in translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith often used words in English that he knew but weren't necessarily used in 73 B.C.? 

This is what it means, relating back to 600 BC or so (long before Paul used the term, 1 Corinthians 13):

“Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel. But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me. And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.” (2 Nephi 31: 13-15).

“Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost? Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.” (Alma 32: 2-4).

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2018 at 8:03 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Isn't the big question being asked how one would follow the words of Christ (Jesus) when no words had been given by Him yet?

In retrospect we realize they were given of Him, when Christianity split off from Judaism; once the mortal Jesus identified Himself as Jehovah. The Old Testament prophets foresaw this all along,and symbolically in the Law of Moses, as He testified.

I see Enoch, Noah and Abraham and his descendant patriarchs for example as having followed Him.

As far as the translation of the Nephite name for Him, I don't see this as a difficult question. A rose by any other name...

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From some of these answers I don't think you all understand my question. I'm looking at a time warp kind of problem.

73 years before Jesus was even born, Alma was telling his son to heed to the words of Christ.  Did Alma mean those words that were yet to come in about 100 years when Christ would come to  earth? Or did he mean, say...the 10 commandments and other instruction given by Christ (Jehovah) to the people in Old Testament times? 

My question is like that of about a 10 year old looking at the bottom of the page to see what year we're at now historically (you know- the * and a date BC or AD)  as we read through the Book of Mormon. Imagine that 10 yr old saying "How can Helaman heed the words of Christ if Christ hasn't even been born on earth yet? 

I can't be the only person ever to notice this and be confused. 

But Vort and a few others have explained the different words ( Messiah, Jehovah) used instead of "Christ" in the OT so I understand better. I guess I'm just wondering why when translating, Joseph Smith didn't say "heed the words of Jehovah". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Did Alma mean those words that were yet to come in about 100 years when Christ would come to  earth? Or did he mean, say...the 10 commandments and other instruction given by Christ (Jehovah) to the people in Old Testament times? 

1) How could Alma's son heed words not yet spoken, words that might not be spoken in his lifetime?

2) The "word" in question has not changed so much from the beginning.  We may have more in this final dispensation, but I'm sure Alma didn't want his sons waiting until then to heed Christ.

7 minutes ago, carlimac said:

"How can Helaman heed the words of Christ if Christ hasn't even been born on earth yet? 

Christ is from eternity to eternity.  He did not need to be born before he was capable of speaking.  Alma and Helaman knew this.  Further, see the quoted scriptures earlier in the thread - the Nephites clearly understood that they had the words of Christ and that Christ has not yet come to earth.  Abinadi even explicitly mentions that he's speaking of Christ in the past tense as if He had already come even though He hasn't come yet.  This wasn't an issue for the Nephites.

9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I guess I'm just wondering why when translating, Joseph Smith didn't say "heed the words of Jehovah". 

I still think, from earlier scriptures in the Book of Mormon that they knew He would be called Jesus Christ and put a transliteration (or something like that) into their scriptures.  But even if they didn't, (a) I doubt they used "Jehovah" - I'd bet it was Jeshua Messiah or something like that, (b) it's like asking why Joseph Smith translated into English.  I'm reasonably certain he translated the way the Lord told him to translate, and barring that, he understood that this section is referring to the Son of God, the being Joseph knew as Jesus Christ.  (And I suppose it's possible that Joseph Smith didn't know yet that Jehovah and Jesus Christ are the same - I'd have to go look into some timelines to figure that one out.)

I worked in the software localization (aka translation, but more) industry for a few years.  When one translates, one doesn't just go literal word-for-word.  One changes the sentence structure, word order, even entire phrases to get the meaning and feeling, mood, intent across.  Perhaps this is why this seems like no big deal to me - that and all the prior instances of "Christ" in the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, carlimac said:

How do you know I didn't search that. It didn't answer my question.

So when the Book of Mormon writers repeatedly testify that the words of Christ are given to authorized prophets of God and that the members of the Church can receive those same words of Christ through the preaching and teaching of the prophets, without any need for Christ himself to have to personally visit the earth to deliver those words, this somehow doesn’t answer your question? Do you understand the basic Latter-Day Saint doctrine that we can receive the words of Christ either through the personal ministry of Christ or through his living prophetic intermediaries? If not, you don’t understand one of the most fundamental teachings of the Church.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1)

If you are unable to grasp the basic doctrinal concept that prophets are able to receive revelation from God and that by this means they are able to speak/disseminate the words Christ to others, you will never get a satisfactory answer to your question and you will be left grouping for answers that will never come for the rest of your life.

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Carlimac, there is a great Ensign article by Elder Holland that I believe you would find helpful.  The talk is called For a Wise Purpse, and it's in the January 1996 Ensign.    In it Elder Holland is marveling at the faith of the people of Nephi who lived BEFORE Christ came to earth.  After all, we have witnesses and Biblical records of an event that has already occured.  They had to have faith and hope for something yet to occur.  How did they even know about Christ, and as you asked know Him by that name?   Some things they knew from their scriptures, but some they received directly from angels. Since I read this talk by Elder Holland, I have noticed so many references to angels in the Book of Mormon!  How did I not see them before?  Did you know that King Benjamin saw an angel?  He did, that's mostly like the source of the teachings in the first chapters of Mosiah.  But back to Alma, Elder Holland said this:

Quote

Alma, some three-quarters of a century before Christ was born, posed to his son Corianton this very issue. In teaching this transgressing boy something about justice, mercy, repentance, the Atonement, and the Resurrection, he says: “Behold, you marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand.Behold, I say unto you, is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be at the time of his coming?

“Is it not as necessary that the plan of redemption should be made known unto this people as well as unto their children?

“Is it not as easy at this time for the Lord to send his angels to declare these glad tidings unto us as unto our children, or … after the time of his coming?” (Alma 39:17–19; emphasis added.)

In that little passage of encouragement to a wayward son, Alma gives insight as to the special help God would provide for those who were born before Christ’s mortal ministry. Of that portion of Adam’s family who lived the first four thousand years with what could of necessity be only an eye to the future Messiah, Alma asks essentially, “Would God not send angels to declare these glad tidings unto us?”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/01/for-a-wise-purpose?lang=eng

Elder Holland also said in this article: "I believe we need to speak of and believe in and bear testimony of the ministry of angels more than we sometimes do."  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, carlimac said:

From some of these answers I don't think you all understand my question. I'm looking at a time warp kind of problem.

73 years before Jesus was even born, Alma was telling his son to heed to the words of Christ.  Did Alma mean those words that were yet to come in about 100 years when Christ would come to  earth? Or did he mean, say...the 10 commandments and other instruction given by Christ (Jehovah) to the people in Old Testament times? 

My question is like that of about a 10 year old looking at the bottom of the page to see what year we're at now historically (you know- the * and a date BC or AD)  as we read through the Book of Mormon. Imagine that 10 yr old saying "How can Helaman heed the words of Christ if Christ hasn't even been born on earth yet? 

I can't be the only person ever to notice this and be confused. 

But Vort and a few others have explained the different words ( Messiah, Jehovah) used instead of "Christ" in the OT so I understand better. I guess I'm just wondering why when translating, Joseph Smith didn't say "heed the words of Jehovah". 

Now, this is where your question becomes much deeper than a simple misunderstanding of a word. For the answer, I'd ask you to reset your mind regarding the timeline.  Here's why:

You've heard ad nauseam that the Book of Mormon was written for our time.  What does that mean?  Two things:

  • The principles taught in it are applicable to our day (as opposed to many conditions of the Law of Moses, for example that were written for ancient days only).
  • HERE'S THE APPLICABLE MEANING: They looked forward to the coming of Christ's advent just as we look forward to Christ's second coming.

Why is that relevant to your question?  It's a cultural thing.  Most of the ancient Jews did not understand that the entire point of the law was to point to the coming of the Savior.  Whatever they did or did not say in the Old Testament must be seen through that lens.  The BoM, on the other hand was about a people who DID look forward to the Christ. 

While the Jews referred to God as "Jehovah" because the more part of them only looked back to the days of Moses, the great deliverer from earthly captors, the Nephites referred to him as "Christ" or their equivalent because they were looking forward to the coming of the savior who would deliver them from, not an earthly captor, but from the eternal captivity of death and hell.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

So when the Book of Mormon writers repeatedly testify that the words of Christ are given to authorized prophets of God and that the members of the Church can receive those same words of Christ through the preaching and teaching of the prophets, without any need for Christ himself to have to personally visit the earth to deliver those words, this somehow doesn’t answer your question? Do you understand the basic Latter-Day Saint doctrine that we can receive the words of Christ either through the personal ministry of Christ or through his living prophetic intermediaries? If not, you don’t understand one of the most fundamental teachings of the Church.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1)

If you are unable to grasp the basic doctrinal concept that prophets are able to receive revelation from God and that by this means they are able to speak/disseminate the words Christ to others, you will never get a satisfactory answer to your question and you will be left grouping for answers that will never come for the rest of your life.

I wonder if you could convey that same message in a way that doesn't sound condescending? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share