A different viewpoint of "many will come in my name saying I am the Christ"

by truthseeker 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • truthseeker

    Most JWs are familiar with the scripture at Matthew 24:5: "For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray."

    It is implied that people would come in Jesus' name declaring that they were Christ - but could there be another view on this scripture? What if Jesus and Christ were two separate identities or persons?

    Look at it again:

    Matthew 24:5 "For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray."

    Could this also mean that Jesus said many would come in his name saying he is Christ?

    When did Jesus become Jesus Christ?

  • Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho
    Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

    I'm going to skip the brainteaser and make this observation on Matthew 24:5...

    There will be imposters of the Christ, leading people astray.

    Just who is Christ? John 14:6, Jesus says "I am... the truth."

    What does Watchtower call itself? The truth.

    And lead many astray, they do.

  • truthseeker

    I get that totally. It was difficult to explain.

    I was listening to a podcast the other day where the speaker said we may have got the understanding wrong.

    It may not be people saying "look, I am the Christ" but "many would come in my name [Jesus] saying, Jesus is Christ" implying two different people.

    If you think about it, it's lunacy for a person to say they're Jesus. Obviously that doesn't stop people from doing so, but it wouldn't necessarily mislead people unless they were able to perform signs and miracles. So the scripture must mean something else.

    It's kind of like me saying "Wake Me Up" is "Truthseeker"

  • Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho
    Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

    LIGHTBULB MOMENT. I get what you're saying now. You think maybe any references to Jesus being known as "Christ" got thrown in after Jesus died?

    I don't know... I checked the references in my Bible glossary, and "Christ" is even spoken about just a few chapters earlier in Matthew 16:16 where Peter says to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

    I mean... that would have given Jesus a chance to set the record straight with Peter it there was an identity mix up?

  • nowwhat?

    Doesn't Christ mean annointed one? Are Not the gb always saying they are the only true annointed ones you have to listen to?

  • truthseeker

    Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. But it's hard to explain because we're so used to hearing just one interpretation.

    Jesus said this to his disciples before he was known as "the Christ."

    Imagine you're one of his disciples. Jesus tells you "look guys, many will come in my name, saying I am the Christ"

  • Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho
    Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

    @truthseeker: "Jesus said this to his disciples before he was known as 'the Christ.'"

    Are you sure?

    Unless Matthew 16 ("You are the Christ") was written AFTER Matthew 24 ("many will come in my name"), it appears that Peter was clued in to this term.

  • truthseeker

    Thanks, I will look into this more. I know the guy who did the podcast said to double check what the Bible is really saying about Matthew 24:5.

    Appreciate your feedback.

  • Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho
    Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho

    @truthseeker Yeah, it's an interesting concept. Let us know what you find!

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    Truthseeker, I suggest firstly that the christ figure referred to here never said these words even if he existed. There was no reason to believe that the writings called Matthew were anything other than embellishments of the Christ tale some forty or fifty years after Jesus was supposed to have lived.

    Secondly to look for "meaning" is not an objective analysis of the text. The more pertinent questions are; Why was this comment included, by whom and for whom?

    To imagine that this story has importance is to fall under the unreasonable influence of the 'sacred' interpretation of ancient texts, they are not-- they are expressions of political manipulation by religious cult leaders of the day who understood full well that others would get on the 'christ' bandwagon and the writers would lose converts and therefore influence and revenue if or when this happened.

    The Bible acknowledges that "there are many christs" and the significance of this, along with a discussion of the early christ cults and the growth of Christianity, is explored in a remarkable book by JM Robertson called A Short History of Christianity. Well worth a read to get a new perspective on what was going on in the early centuries of the Common Era in the Roman world. The Levant and Palestine at this time were nothing like you imagine them to be if you use the Bible as a source of information. Two examples; Nazareth did not exist as a village or even a hamlet in the first century but Tiberius on the side of Galilee on the other hand was a modern (Roman) hip town with public baths, fortress, garrison and all the things Monty Python showed by asking, "What did the Romans ever do for us?"

Share this