Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Jesus who? Message-ID: Date: 17 Sep 90 07:42:34 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 30 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >Question: If Christ is English translation for Greek word with > approximately same pronunciation which is the Greek > translation of the Hebrew word meaning messiah and > both of those words mean "anointed" or "the annointed > one" then should Jesus of Nazareth be called in his > titular form either Jesus the Christ as in Jesus the > Messiah or Jesus, Christ? Christ is not a surname > in my reading. I can't answer John's question directly, but here is something related to contemplate over. In speaking not merely of Jesus, or merely of Christ, but of Jesus Christ, we stress the tension between two points of reference. One is in time: the historic Jesus. The other is timeless: the Christ-reality in Him and in all of us. That creative tension must be maintained between those two aspects. If that tension is allowed to snap, ones relationship with Jesus Christ becomes polarized. One will either be unable to look beyond the historic frame of reference, or else run the risk of losing the Christian historic anchorage altogether. The historic Jesus provides an objective standard for the life of Christians. This prevents their awareness of the Christ with in them from drifting off into mere subjectivity. Yet the historic Jesus is merely one point of reference in genuine encounter with Jesus Christ. The other is expressed in the words, "Christ lives in me". David Hatcher