Christ or Crest?

[Azathoth]

Interesting stuff

http://historyhuntersinternational.org/ ... istianity/

Not a single artefact of any medium – including textual – and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian. This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so on from the Indus River to the Nile and north to Britain.

Taking into account the vast volume of scholarly works claiming expert opinion for the exact opposite point of view, let me clarify terms.

There is, of course, much archaeology interpreted commonly as Christian. This does not contradict the bald statement above. The difference lies between data that spells out Christian clearly and unambiguously, and that which expert opinion claims to look as though it is Christian.

There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term ‘Christian’.

The archaeology that can be associated most-closely with Christianity is for the name Chrest, a magical Jesus Chrest and for ‘Servants of Jesus’. We have termed these chrestic. In ancient Greek, the pronunciation of both terms – Christ and Chrest – is identical as far as is known today and this acutely interesting and fortuitous linguistic circumstance facilitated the re-working of textual artefacts as well as recasting the entire context of the original theurgy related to the cult.

Scholars are assuming that because there must be Christianity in the first three centuries, they have a divine right to interpret Chrest as Christ and Christian-like symbols as Christian, and so appear to prove their own false-assumption. It is very poor thinking and near-universal for centuries.

The term Christ is English for the Greek Khristós meaning “the anointed one”. Chrest does not interpret in this manner, but as “Good” and is not interchangeable with “Messiah”.

Our search for Christian archaeology in the first three centuries has instead revealed an increasing quantity of chrestic.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Our search for Christian archaeology in the first three centuries has instead revealed an increasing quantity of chrestic.

[/quote]
And, therefore, a decreasing quantity of "Christ". Good thing, that, IMNSHO.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Interesting stuff

http://historyhuntersinternational.org/ ... istianity/

Not a single artefact of any medium – including textual – and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian. This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so on from the Indus River to the Nile and north to Britain.

Taking into account the vast volume of scholarly works claiming expert opinion for the exact opposite point of view, let me clarify terms.

There is, of course, much archaeology interpreted commonly as Christian. This does not contradict the bald statement above. The difference lies between data that spells out Christian clearly and unambiguously, and that which expert opinion claims to look as though it is Christian.

There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term ‘Christian’.

So do statements usually have hair? The things one learns!