"CHRIST" IS A HUMAN INVENTION Christianity is a bogus religion, based entirely upon a false premise (but then again, aren't they all?), which means that it is based ultimately upon nothing (but something purely contrived). I truly believe that if Jesus (assuming that there really was such a personage) were here today (the historical Jesus, not the literary character the church concocted and/or extrapolated from whatever fragments, or oral traditions, they were able to get their hands on) he would have nothing to do with it. He would revile and castigate it, and do so with same spirit and energy that he wielded against the Sadducees and Pharisees. Christianity could also be called Messianity. The word is —obviously— based on Christ which is but the Greek word for Messiah. Both words (Christ and Messiah) mean anointed. Anointing means drizzling oil (usually olive oil) over the head. It is a rite that was administered to a new king just before he assumed the throne (or a new high priest before he took office). It was thus an essential aspect of a ceremony, one that ushered in a new king or high priest. This means that all the kings of Israel were messiahs (and would have been called christs if the OT had been written in Greek), because they were anointed. In fact, there was a particular king who was not even a king of Israel who received an anointing:
And the Lord said unto him (Elisha), Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria. (I Kings 19:15)
I see no reason whatsoever why we may not conclude from this that Hazael was also a messiah. An appreciation of this anointing ritual makes it difficult to understand how exactly Jesus was a messiah (or christ). There is no mention of him being anointed that I am aware of. And by the way, the term (messiah or christ) should always be used with an article, like a or the, a similarity it shares with the word president. We should not say "Jesus Christ" but "Jesus the Christ." You could, however, say "Christ Jesus" in the same way you might say "President Smith." The biggest problem I have with messianity is its absence in the Old Testament. The Christians, you see, claim that Jesus was a particular kind of messiah, not just any old kind. They adamantly insist that he was promised by God in the Old Testament, which means that their faith is ultimately based on the Old Testament. But when you undertake a thorough examination of those ancient scrolls in an effort to find these promises, you invariably come up empty handed. Now, to be sure, there are many verses that the Christians claim are about the Messiah, but none of them are Messiah-specific. When you take a hard look at the scriptures they reference, it is easy to see that the Christians are merely interpreting them, forcing them to fit their preconceived ideas on the subject. In truth, there is no passage in the Old Testament that unequivocally states (or otherwise supports) what the Christians claim. Messianity, in other words, is a purely human invention! There is no record in the Old Testament of God promising a special messiah. The people (of Israel) were always screwing up and getting themselves into trouble, and falling into captivity. When they found themselves enslaved, they naturally cried out to God for deliverance. They (the people mind you) literally contrived the idea of a powerful anointed king saving them from their bondage and returning them to the splendor (the good old days) they enjoyed under king David. This is the reason that Jesus (or anyone who was thought to possibly be the Messiah) was so often referred to as the son of David. The messianic ideal was purely horizontal, spread from human to human. But the human beings who so fervently believe in it insist that it is vertical, promised from above by God. The point is simple: if there is no special messiah, then there is also no christ (just a different word, remember, for the same thing), except in the desperate hopes of the people, no promise from God, just speculation on the part of the people (usually wandering around in misery). Another totally absurd idea associated with the christ word is antichrist. This word has the power to strike irrational fear into the hearts of Christians (and gun-toting rednecks) everywhere. To understand what the word antichrist really suggests, recall for a moment what happened in the early years of this country. There was some debate about whether the new government should be a monarchy or a democracy, or even a form of aristocracy. If you favored a monarchy, you might be referred to as pro king; if you were opposed to it, anti king. In the same way, if you are opposed to the idea of a christ (which, like the presidency is nothing more than an office) then you are anti christ, i.e., you don't believe in the office. In this sense, I am an antichrist. I don't believe in the office. And I don't believe in it because I can't find any record of God ever saying anything about it. If I'm going to embrace a religion it's going to be sponsored by God, not the people. Christianity is a purely human religion. As far as I can tell, God has (or had) nothing to do with it.
|
