Did they know him as the Christ?

[Bassil]

You know what is interesting? It is not just that Jesus never introduced himself as Christ. It is that the demons had never known him as Christ, too. They recognized him as the Son of God but not as Christ! 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Bassil

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Bassil said:

You know what is interesting? It is not just that Jesus never introduced himself as Christ. It is that the demos had never known him as Christ, too. They recognized him as the Son of God but not as Christ! 

Legion recognized him on sight by a higher status as the "Son of the Most High God", and begged, having mistakenly thought he had come "before the time" of the White Throne of Judgement to finally judge and punish them. Their recognition of him being the Christ is evident from his authority to perform a successful exorcism on them, a feature of royal anointed priests. Being a christ (an anointed royal priest) isn't as unique, but it was at that time, it had been 490 years since someone from the line of David was anointed a Melchizedek Priest, according to Daniel's prophecy, in that sense he's THE Christ (the one prophesied to come).

Edited September 24, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Bassil]

3 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Legion recognized him on sight by a higher status as the Son of the Most High God, who they though had come before the time of the White Thrown of Judgement. Their recognition of him being the Christ comes from the successful exorcism, a feature anointed priests.

They would call him the Son of God, but they would not call him Christ. You should ponder about it. Give it some thought.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Bassil said:

They would call him the Son of God, but they would not call him Christ. You should ponder about it. Give it some thought.

If he wasn't a christ, they wouldn't have to obey him. Christs exorcise demons. The Jewish priests couldn't do it.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

Boy, I' glad this is not about Demo-- crats after all

[Pyreaux]

Okay @Bassil, I don't know why demon are not calling him the Christ... other than that being the Christ is the least of his titles to be called by among those who knew his identity as the Son of God better. Being a christ is a bit of a human identity. I wouldn't expect a demon to call him "Jesus of Nazareth" over the "Son of God", and I would not read too deep into it and conclude Jesus was not from Nazareth. John seemed to make a big deal about Jesus being the Christ, and that to deny he is the Christ, is the spirit of the anti-christ, a demonic spirit. 

What exactly does a "christ" mean to you? Are you simply believing contrary to all things once said of the coming of Jesus by prophets? Because "all before" Jesus were "robbers"? Therefore, Daniel and others could be wrong about him being a king or a christ? If I arbitrarily disregarded everything the prophets said of Jesus, I could doubt Jesus would ever come at all, because it was the prophets who said he'd come. I just don't think rejecting whole swaths of scripture is wise, scriptures Jesus quoted authoritatively to argue against the Jews with. However flawed they maybe of some value, even to Jesus. Jesus was always telling the apostles that the old scriptures were prophecies about himself.

After the suffering and resurrection of Jesus, he rebuked the Apostles for not full  expecting what would happen, for not believing the old scriptures by the old prophets, that he was the "Christ" who prophets said was supposed to suffer, “O fools, and slow in heart to believe all the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and enter into his glory?... He explained unto them all the scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27). Robbers are not the prophets, but I say the scribes of the law are the robbers, who are not prophets and corrupted the texts even after Jesus told us what is in them about himself. Deleting prooftexts.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

Maybe Aramaic just didn’t have a good word for translating what demons call Jesus. Or it was unspeakably obscene and the writer expurgated it.

[halconero]

FWIW, in the NRSV version the demons apparently recognize Jesus as Christ, even if they call him the Son of God. Jesus prevents them from speaking and revealing him as the Messiah.

Luke 4:41

Quote

Moreover, demons also came out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah.

 

[halconero]

Only semi-related, but it's fascinating that Jesus never publicly reveals himself as the Messiah before his arrest, except during his appearance at the synagogue in Nazareth. Every other time it is in private.

Bart Ehrman makes the case that Judas' betrayal was less about the location of Jesus, which wouldn't have required a traitor to have him followed, but the revelation that Jesus was calling himself the messiah in private, which is the charge leading to his death. I think the argument is credible, and possibly strengthened if you consider older Latter-day Saint traditions about Judas' death and temple covenants into account.

[Bassil]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:51 AM, Pyreaux said:

I wouldn't expect a demon to call him "Jesus of Nazareth" over the "Son of God",

"

Just then there was a man in their
synagogue with an unclean spirit; and
he cried out, saying,

" What business do we have
with each other, Jesus of Nazareth?
Have You come to destroy us? I know
who You are-- the Holy One of God!

" (Mark, 1:23,24)

[Bassil]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:51 AM, Pyreaux said:

and that to deny he is the Christ, is the spirit of the anti-christ, a demonic spirit.

Insisting on That God is a king as if upgrading God from being God to being a king is insulting to God.

[Bassil]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:51 AM, Pyreaux said:

What exactly does a "christ" mean to you?

Christ was a myth invented by those who ate the widows' houses. And Daniel wanted the Hebrews to move from Babylon to Jerusalem so he lied about a coming king.

[Bassil]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:51 AM, Pyreaux said:

scriptures Jesus quoted authoritatively to argue against the Jews with.

Jesus was using their scripture against them. That's it.

[Bassil]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:51 AM, Pyreaux said:

“O fools, and slow in heart to believe all the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and enter into his glory?... He explained unto them all the scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27).

Luke was not a witness.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Bassil

[Bassil]

On 9/25/2023 at 9:51 PM, halconero said:

Moreover, demons also came out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah.

That was what Luke thought.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Bassil

[Bassil]

8 hours ago, halconero said:

but the revelation that Jesus was calling himself the messiah in private

He never said in private, "I am the Messiah."

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, Bassil said:

He never said in private, "I am the Messiah."

So how do you understand John 4:25-26?

Quote

The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

Jesus is claiming to be the Messiah here.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Bassil said:

That was what Luck thought.

Fortuna got it wrong?

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Bassil said:

Christ was a myth invented by those who ate the widows' houses. And Daniel wanted the Hebrews to move from Babylon to Jerusalem so he lied about a coming king.

That was just a cover story created to hide the existence of those eating the widows.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Fortuna got it wrong?

I think he meant "Luke", with ESL and all

[Bassil]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Jesus is claiming to be the Messiah here.

No, he didn't!

"

The woman said to Him, "I know that
Messiah is coming ( He who is called
Christ); when that One comes, He will
declare all things to us."

Jesus said to her, " I who speak to you
am He.

" NASB (John, 4:25,26)

Jesus didn't say that he was the Messiah. He simply stated that he was the one who declared all things to people. He just proved it by telling her about herself.

[Bassil]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Fortuna got it wrong?

I just fixed the mistake. It should be Luke.

[Bassil]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think he meant "Luke", with ESL and all

True, and I fixed it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 minute ago, Bassil said:

No, he didn't!

The phrase that One is, in Greek, a reference to the earlier mentioned Messiah (or Christ). When Jesus says, I am he, he is saying, I am the Messiah (or Christ). When the NASB (that you cite) capitalizes the word One, it indicates that the word is a reference to the Messiah, and not to some other party, previously unmentioned. And this is quite clear from the Greek text.

Since you seem to be trying to shift the meaning by providing the most favorable translation, let's compare it to a bunch of other translations -

KJV: The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

ASV: The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

ESV: The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

NET: The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (the one called Christ); “whenever he comes, he will tell us everything.” Jesus said to her, “I, the one speaking to you, am he.”

NRSV: The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I am he,d the one who is speaking to you.”

There is a certain degree of consistency here, isn't there. And yet, you take the outlier translation and interpret in a way that is inconsistent with the text as it is normally read, to come to your incorrect conclusion. What the text describes is a woman who recognizes Jesus as an authority - a prophet - and she is unsure if he is the Messiah. So she brings up the Messiah looking for confirmation. And Jesus gives it. And what happens next cements this idea. The woman doesn't turn around and say this is merely a prophet (and not the Messiah), the text says (verses 28-29):

Quote

the woman went back to the town and said to the people, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?"

And after those people come to witness Jesus, they come away with the same conclusion as the woman (verse 42):

Quote

They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

So there you have it. I do not think I am wrong. Perhaps you could provide some mainstream commentary that agrees with your point of view (Carson, Morris, Keener, Brown, Hendriksen ... or some other you want to provide?). The interpretation of this text isn't particularly difficult. The Greek isn't as ambiguous as you are trying to make it.

[Bassil]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The phrase that One is, in Greek, a reference to the earlier mentioned Messiah

The woman, with no doubt, was talking about the Messiah. But Jesus didn't. You can't prove otherwise without a clear statement from Jesus that he is the Messiah. You can insist as much as you want, but that won't make you right.

There's another thing; no one witnessed the conversation between Jesus and the woman!