However, if I beleive that there are other "annointed ones" (Christs) although I still honor and accept Jesus as the "son", am I no longer a Christian? I have enlarged the definition of "Christ" to be inclusive rather than exclusive.
There is no question but that there have been other ‘anointed’ ones, David for one. And it’s true that the title ‘Christ’ means ‘anointed one’ . But when this term is applied to Jesus the term becomes a title. Please note Matt 16:16
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”Some translations use the Hebrew equivalent ‘messiah’ here. But do you see where this becomes a title for Jesus? Please note:“THE Christ”. He is never referred to as: “Jesus, A Christ”. When one uses the term “Christian” it is not understood to mean that he is a follower of Moses or Aaron or David, or Cyrus, or any of the others in the Bible that have had that term applied to them. None of those individuals were ever referred to as ‘the Christ’ or ‘the messiah’.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘the exclusiveness of Jesus’. As far as being called a “a Jesusian.” That would merely be an obfuscation. In Jesus’ time the name ‘Jesus’ was not an uncommon one. ‘Jesus Christ ‘ or simply ‘Christ’ was another matter. It was his first century followers that named themselves ‘Christians’ (Acts 11:26). They defined that term by being the first to apply it to themselves. To try to re-define that term is ‘muddying up the waters’ in my opinion. Why would we want to do that? We have plenty of words in our languages, let’s use another one or we can make one up if we like. But to re-define what was first established 2000 years ago is a whole lot like someone else we know that likes to play with words.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
Edited by - Frenchy on 30 June 2000 8:15:9