Messiah Christ Anointed Hebrew Greek English

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
He was called Jesus from his birth.

The gospels (even all the NT) were written AFTER Jesus' crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension.

Referring to Him as Christ in books that were written later does not mean He was called Christ at any time before He was anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism.
Yes I agree that the gospels were written after the crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension. However, Matthew still writes of the birth of Jesus Christ:

NKJV Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus wasn't Christ when He was born, why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to write "the birth of Jesus was as follows"? And why does John write:

1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

How could Jesus Christ come in the flesh, if He didn't become Christ until about 30 years later, at His baptism?
 
Yes I agree that the gospels were written after the crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension. However, Matthew still writes of the birth of Jesus Christ:

NKJV Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus wasn't Christ when He was born, why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to write "the birth of Jesus was as follows"? And why does John write:

1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

How could Jesus Christ come in the flesh, if He didn't become Christ until about 30 years later, at His baptism?
Who wrote the book of Matthew? An unnamed author? Written after the temple destruction, post 70AD? CHRISTIAN TRADITION says Mark, but who wrote Mark another unnamed author that is attributed to Peters Preaching. I don't say these things lightly, but inquiring minds would like to know.
 
Who wrote the book of Matthew? An unnamed author? Written after the temple destruction, post 70AD? CHRISTIAN TRADITION says Mark, but who wrote Mark another unnamed author that is attributed to Peters Preaching. I don't say these things lightly, but inquiring minds would like to know.
What difference does it make who the human penman of Matthew was? The whole Bible is God's inspired word. If God had wished to convey the idea that Jesus only became Christ at His baptism, He would have cause the writer to put "the birth of Jesus" instead of "the birth of Jesus Christ." Also, the accounts of His baptism make no mention of Him becoming Christ at that time.
 
Yes I agree that the gospels were written after the crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension. However, Matthew still writes of the birth of Jesus Christ:

NKJV Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus wasn't Christ when He was born, why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to write "the birth of Jesus was as follows"? And why does John write:

1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

How could Jesus Christ come in the flesh, if He didn't become Christ until about 30 years later, at His baptism?
There is no biblical record of Jesus becoming the Anointed One until His baptism.
It was when the Holy Spirit landed on Him when Jesus came up out of the water.

He actually became the Messiah when His public ministry started.

Daniel chapter 9 shows the Messiah would not appear until 483 years after the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Verse 25
Verses 24 states "to anoint the most Holy.
 
There is no biblical record of Jesus becoming the Anointed One until His baptism.
It was when the Holy Spirit landed on Him when Jesus came up out of the water.

He actually became the Messiah when His public ministry started.

Daniel chapter 9 shows the Messiah would not appear until 483 years after the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Verse 25
Verses 24 states "to anoint the most Holy.
So why does the New Testament refer to Him as Christ before His baptism? And where in the accounts of that baptism do we read that He became Christ then? God the Father confirmed that He was God's Son:

NKJV Mat 3:17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Again, that wasn't a case of becoming God's Son at His baptism, because when He was 12 years old, when Joseph and Mary had found Him in the temple, He asked them:

Luk 2:49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"

He hadn't been doing carpentry in the temple (Joseph's business).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartholomewB
What difference does it make who the human penman of Matthew was? The whole Bible is God's inspired word. If God had wished to convey the idea that Jesus only became Christ at His baptism, He would have cause the writer to put "the birth of Jesus" instead of "the birth of Jesus Christ." Also, the accounts of His baptism make no mention of Him becoming Christ at that time.
The whole Bible is God's inspired word. No I disagree, as it seems to me, only the portions of which MAN says is inspired word. So I care and many others do as well. From my perspective as of today, it seems the Ethiopians managed to retain the best collection of ancient manuscripts.
 
The whole Bible is God's inspired word. No I disagree, as it seems to me, only the portions of which MAN says is inspired word. So I care and many others do as well. From my perspective as of today, it seems the Ethiopians managed to retain the best collection of ancient manuscripts.
I disagree. As Paul wrote to Timothy:

NKJV 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 
So why does the New Testament refer to Him as Christ before His baptism? And where in the accounts of that baptism do we read that He became Christ then? God the Father confirmed that He was God's Son:

NKJV Mat 3:17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Again, that wasn't a case of becoming God's Son at His baptism, because when He was 12 years old, when Joseph and Mary had found Him in the temple, He asked them:

Luk 2:49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"

He hadn't been doing carpentry in the temple (Joseph's business).
I guess you don't understand Daniel 9s 70 week prophecy.

And, as I already stated above, the NT was written AFTER Jesus' ascension.
So yeah, they would call Him the Christ even before He actually became the Anointed One.

Look at it another way: An historian records the birth of Julius Caesar.
Even though he was not Caesar yet the historian could still call him Caesar to specify which Julius he is talking about.

I wonder how many Joshuas lived in Jesus' day? It was a fairly common Hebrew name. So was Joseph.
The historical accounts would specify WHICH Joshua (Jesus) he was talking about by stating He was the Christ.
 
I disagree. As Paul wrote to Timothy:

NKJV 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
A key question is what Paul meant by “all Scripture.” In its immediate historical setting, Timothy’s “sacred writings” primarily referred to the Jewish Scriptures—the Old Testament—because the New Testament collection did not yet exist. That does not prevent Christians from applying the principle to the New Testament, but it cautions us not to assume that Paul was directly referring to a completed Bible as we know it today.

The phrase “God-breathed” translates the Greek word theopneustos. It emphasizes Scripture’s divine source or authority, while the Bible also presents human authors—such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and others—as genuinely involved in writing. This raises an important theological discussion: how divine inspiration and the distinct personalities, styles, settings, and perspectives of the biblical writers work together.

In context, 2 Timothy 3:16 is also a warning against separating truth from life. Scripture teaches and rebukes, but it also corrects and trains. A person who claims to value the Bible while refusing its correction is not responding to the whole purpose Paul gives it.

One distinction is especially important: the verse says Scripture is “profitable”—useful and beneficial—not that every passage is equally easy to understand or applied in exactly the same way. Reading it well requires attention to genre, historical context, literary context, and the meaning intended by each passage.
Also, In the first century, Jews did not all possess or necessarily agree on one closed, universally defined collection corresponding exactly to the modern Protestant Old Testament.
There was already strong agreement about the authority of the Torah, and substantial recognition of the Prophets. But the status and boundaries of the Writings—books such as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and others—were less uniform. Different Jewish communities also used different textual collections, especially Hebrew/Aramaic writings alongside the Greek Septuagint.
So when Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture” is God-breathed, the most historically precise interpretation is:
  • He is referring primarily to the sacred writings Timothy had known from childhood—most likely the Jewish Scriptures.
  • Those Scriptures were viewed as authoritative, even though the precise boundaries of the collection were still developing.
  • “Scripture” therefore means writings recognized as sacred and authoritative within Timothy’s Jewish-Christian setting, not necessarily a bound Bible with a universally settled table of contents.
There is a small complication: by the late first century, some Jewish writers such as Josephus and the author of 4 Ezra appear to refer to recognized collections of either 22 or 24 books. But that does not prove that every Jewish group agreed on precisely the same list, or that the canon was formally closed. Scholarly discussion continued afterward, especially concerning some books in the Writings.
That actually strengthens the contextual point: Paul’s claim is fundamentally about the divine authority and practical usefulness of the sacred writings, rather than about a later, formally standardized list of books. It also means that applying 2 Timothy 3:16 to the complete Christian New Testament is a later theological extension, not the passage’s immediate historical reference.
 
The whole Bible is God's inspired word. No I disagree, as it seems to me, only the portions of which MAN says is inspired word. So I care and many others do as well. From my perspective as of today, it seems the Ethiopians managed to retain the best collection of ancient manuscripts.
There are too many conflicts between the bible and the Apocrypha.
The Ethiopian bible is of Catholic origin.
 
Who wrote the book of Matthew? An unnamed author? Written after the temple destruction, post 70AD? CHRISTIAN TRADITION says Mark, but who wrote Mark another unnamed author that is attributed to Peters Preaching. I don't say these things lightly, but inquiring minds would like to know.
The original Matthew was written well before 60 AD by Matthew in the Hebrew language because it was meant for the Jews of that day. Later on it was translated as best as it could be (several Church Fathers including 2 Disciples of the Apostle John verify) into the Greek.
 
I guess you don't understand Daniel 9s 70 week prophecy.

And, as I already stated above, the NT was written AFTER Jesus' ascension.
So yeah, they would call Him the Christ even before He actually became the Anointed One.
Not if by doing so they were given the mistaken (according to you) idea that He was born as Christ.
Look at it another way: An historian records the birth of Julius Caesar.
Even though he was not Caesar yet the historian could still call him Caesar to specify which Julius he is talking about.

I wonder how many Joshuas lived in Jesus' day? It was a fairly common Hebrew name. So was Joseph.
The historical accounts would specify WHICH Joshua (Jesus) he was talking about by stating He was the Christ.
I don't think we will ever agree on this, so I will leave the matter there. Thanks for the discussion.
 
The original Matthew was written well before 60 AD by Matthew in the Hebrew language because it was meant for the Jews of that day. Later on it was translated as best as it could be (several Church Fathers including 2 Disciples of the Apostle John verify) into the Greek.
Source?
 
A key question is what Paul meant by “all Scripture.” In its immediate historical setting, Timothy’s “sacred writings” primarily referred to the Jewish Scriptures—the Old Testament—because the New Testament collection did not yet exist. That does not prevent Christians from applying the principle to the New Testament, but it cautions us not to assume that Paul was directly referring to a completed Bible as we know it today.

The phrase “God-breathed” translates the Greek word theopneustos. It emphasizes Scripture’s divine source or authority, while the Bible also presents human authors—such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and others—as genuinely involved in writing. This raises an important theological discussion: how divine inspiration and the distinct personalities, styles, settings, and perspectives of the biblical writers work together.

In context, 2 Timothy 3:16 is also a warning against separating truth from life. Scripture teaches and rebukes, but it also corrects and trains. A person who claims to value the Bible while refusing its correction is not responding to the whole purpose Paul gives it.

One distinction is especially important: the verse says Scripture is “profitable”—useful and beneficial—not that every passage is equally easy to understand or applied in exactly the same way. Reading it well requires attention to genre, historical context, literary context, and the meaning intended by each passage.
Also, In the first century, Jews did not all possess or necessarily agree on one closed, universally defined collection corresponding exactly to the modern Protestant Old Testament.
There was already strong agreement about the authority of the Torah, and substantial recognition of the Prophets. But the status and boundaries of the Writings—books such as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and others—were less uniform. Different Jewish communities also used different textual collections, especially Hebrew/Aramaic writings alongside the Greek Septuagint.
So when Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture” is God-breathed, the most historically precise interpretation is:
  • He is referring primarily to the sacred writings Timothy had known from childhood—most likely the Jewish Scriptures.
  • Those Scriptures were viewed as authoritative, even though the precise boundaries of the collection were still developing.
  • “Scripture” therefore means writings recognized as sacred and authoritative within Timothy’s Jewish-Christian setting, not necessarily a bound Bible with a universally settled table of contents.
There is a small complication: by the late first century, some Jewish writers such as Josephus and the author of 4 Ezra appear to refer to recognized collections of either 22 or 24 books. But that does not prove that every Jewish group agreed on precisely the same list, or that the canon was formally closed. Scholarly discussion continued afterward, especially concerning some books in the Writings.
That actually strengthens the contextual point: Paul’s claim is fundamentally about the divine authority and practical usefulness of the sacred writings, rather than about a later, formally standardized list of books. It also means that applying 2 Timothy 3:16 to the complete Christian New Testament is a later theological extension, not the passage’s immediate historical reference.
The general Subject matter in the Bible is literally historical and a lineage record of a specific people and the other people's surrounding them. Then it includes the amazing miracles created by God that allowed them to survive, overcome, live.
 
• The Source: Papias, bishop of Hierapolis writing around 110–120 CE, compiled an early five-volume work titled Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.

• The Claim: Papias stated: "Matthew put together the oracles [sayings of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted [or translated] them as best he could into the Greek.
 
• The Source: Papias, bishop of Hierapolis writing around 110–120 CE, compiled an early five-volume work titled Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.

• The Claim: Papias stated: "Matthew put together the oracles [sayings of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted [or translated] them as best he could into the Greek.
Most scholars date the Gospel of Matthew to about 80–90 CE, though proposed dates range from roughly 70–100 CE. It was probably written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE, and it appears to draw on the earlier Gospel of Mark. Mark also seems to be written from Peters preaching.
 
Not if by doing so they were given the mistaken (according to you) idea that He was born as Christ.

I don't think we will ever agree on this, so I will leave the matter there. Thanks for the discussion.
I also don't think Jesus had the memory of ever being the eternal God. That wouldn't have been until after His resurrection.
I have several references to show why I believe this.

Some questions we may never get complete answers until Jesus comes and we can ask Him Face to face.
 
Most scholars date the Gospel of Matthew to about 80–90 CE, though proposed dates range from roughly 70–100 CE. It was probably written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE, and it appears to draw on the earlier Gospel of Mark. Mark also seems to be written from Peters preaching.
Mark is the Nephew of the Apostle Peter and the Disciple of Peter so he probably wrote down was taught to him.
 
The general Subject matter in the Bible is literally historical and a lineage record of a specific people and the other people's surrounding them. Then it includes the amazing miracles created by God that allowed them to survive, overcome, live.
Where it becomes problematic and somewhat interesting is how a couple verses in the NT are used out of context. Which happens way to often.