Paging Phil Launchbury

American dictionary? ;-)

 

I'm sorry, I genuinely can't see the difference between what I wrote and
what you wrote. Anointing people with chrism (christening) came first, then
Jesus was born, and then he was called Christ because he was seen as the
Messiah. What did I misunderstand?

 

I suspect quite a few people won't have seen Des's original post.

 

Why, has he been a very naughty boy?

--
Krusty
www.MuddyStuff.co.uk
Off-Road Classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger 955i '96 Tiger '79 Fantic Hiro 250

 

Yes, in its original sense.

 

http://upsidedowndogs.com/ [ws]

 

Riigghht ....

D.
--
des | 'what does it matter what he posts?'
http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/index.html
end the 'occupation': http://minilien.fr/a0k8xe
ukrm: 'where it's "cool" to be stupid!'
myths of islam: http://minilien.fr/a0j5qo

 

I prefer to think of it as mutilation.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

When did this turn into a "Who do you like/not like thread" then?



--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

There's another word for it.

D.

--
des | 'what does it matter what he posts?'
http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/index.html
end the 'occupation': http://minilien.fr/a0k8xe
ukrm: 'where it's "cool" to be stupid!'
myths of islam: http://minilien.fr/a0j5qo

 

Nowadays, it's annointed with jizm where the fun is.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

What was he, a very naught boy?


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

I would imagine so - yes. For his contact details go to:

http://www.sl-treecare.co.uk/

(Which is a simple holding page served off my webserver here until he
gets around to re-writing it..)

Phil

 

It is indeed. Judaism had it a long time before. And so did a number of
other religions (although in those it tended to be more of a ritual
cleansing).

The unique thing about the Christian version is that it represents
death and resurrection rather than just a washing away of sins.

Phil

 

These is a ceremony in Judaism remarkably similar to baptism (and that
pre-dates baptism) but (as I said before) is not an exact parallel.

And BTW - when you speak of 'baptism'[1] - both the Jewish and early
Christian forms involve a full immersion in water done by an adult in
full knowledge of twhat is entailed (as does most non-conformist
Christian nowadays). The baby-sprinking is a Middle-Ages artifact.

Phil

[1] Our word is derived from the New Testament Greek word 'baptisio'
which comes from the cloth dying industry and was the word they used
for putting cloth into the dye-vat for colouring. And as such meant "to
immerse fully".

 

Yes. But at source it represents being identified with the death of
Christ (and hence also his resurrection). That is the source of the
purity.

See:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=6&verse=3
&end_verse=5&version=31&context=context

Original Sin != original doctrine.. it's another Middle-Ages invention.

Not really seeing that baptism originally meant "to fully immerse". And
if you do that to a ship it tends to not come back up again..

Phil.

 

I suggest you learn what Jesus Christ means before you say stuff like
that. Christ is a title (which means 'The anointed' and is the Greek
translation of the Hebrew "Messiah"). Jesus is an anglisisation of the
Greek word Iesous - which is itself a Hellenisation of his original (Hebrew)
name of Yehoshua (which means "God saves") - which we now have in English
as Joshua.

So in short - you are completely wrong..

Christening (in the modern form) is an invention of the Catholic Church
in the Middle Ages. Sure - there was anointing before then (which is
the process you are talking about) but christening as a process came
about because of two factors:

High infant mortality in the Middle Ages
Lack of water (the the difficulty of completely immersing a baby
without it freaking out..).

Oh - and chrism refers to the holy oil that some denominations use
and comes from the Greek word from the same root as 'Christos'. There
is an Old Testament analogue of this in the oil used to anoint the High
Priest at various times (his inauguration for one - also at various
Feasts in the Jewish calendar). So there is a connection between the
name "Christ" and the anointing but it's got very very little to do
with the mid/late Christian idea of sprinking babies with water..

Phil

 

Partly.

Since it's a title ("The Anointed One") and the anointing refers not to
baby-sprinkling but to the consecration of a Jewish High Priest or King
then there is a tiny link.

But christening has nothing to do with the old process of anointing
(which used fragrant oil and not water) and everything to do with the
slow accretion of errors that happened to Christianity after the first
century.

Phil

 

You're thinking of Harry the Bastard. An easy mistake to make.

 

****! does this mean that the atheists have to side with the jews and
muslims against the christians [1]?

Mine wants to do all three.