Edit: grammar

  • Bizarroland@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think your logic is messed up somewhere.

    Jesus is the Christ, Christ being the word for “the anointed one” or “the chosen one” or “the Messiah”.

    An antichrist would be one that is the opposite of “the Messiah” or “the chosen one” or “the anointed one”, they wouldn’t have to be the complete and total opposite of Jesus to count.

    • Masimatutu@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      First of all, this is not logic. This is just a dumb thought experiment.

      And secondly, something as complex as a person will never have a true opposite, so you will be looking at the defining feature of that person. In the case of Jesus Christ, a lot of peoply would say that “son of God” is his defining feature.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the case of Jesus Christ, a lot of peoply would say that “son of God” is his defining feature.

        Pretty sure they’d instead focus on the whole “sacrifice for all of mankind’s sins” thing but maybe we just know different people

    • CrazyEddie041@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      My favorite (probably inaccurate) point about the name “Jesus Christ”: the name “Christ” means “anointed one”, as you said. People were generally anointed by having oil poured on their head. “Jesus” is just contemporary form of the name “Joshua”. So in another life, “Jesus Christ” could literally be translated as “Oily Josh”.

      • Bizarroland@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I feel like if Jesus were alive now the name oily josh would be like that horrible childhood nickname that he hates