Christ Jesus vs. Jesus Christ

No, SKeith.

 

That's funny. :laugh:

 

"So the consensus, by lack of response, is that Paul's use of language was arbitrary rather than specific."

In two some hours you could have done a good word study on the subject and had your answer rather than base your thinking on the lack of posts on an internet bulletin board :laugh: Now that is the way to base your faith!

"So much for verbal, plenary inspiration." Been trying to get rid of that pesky doctrine for years and all you have to do is declare it "out." Neato :thumbs:

 

I think it is likely that he was changing the order for stylistic variation.

 

" So let me try again, can you enlighten me as to your thoughts on the subject? "

Nope, haven't done the word study myself :laugh: Don't mind me I was just havin fun :thumbs:

 

Sometimes I call my wife Mrs PJ (I use our last name of course) other times I call her Dr PJ sometimes I call her Dr Mrs PJ...just to get her riled up...

Paul, and the other NT writers, usually don't have an agenda in switching the names. Particularly in Roman culture switching up names is common.

 

Short answer: NO!

Long answer:
In the early 4th Century (306-318) there was 4-6 serious claimants to the throne of the Roman Empire at all time. Espeically the one in the province of Asia (now Turkey) was prone to let his follows abuse Christians. Finally Constantine became the sole Emperor. Constantine supported the Christians. It was a big mistake when the Church in the Roman Empire joined the state - the worse elemets of both were combined leading to a 800-years long 'dark ages'.

Claimants to the thrones would list their petigrees. Mayabe like this:

Emperor Ed, Ceasaer- 18 times, Augustus - 11 times, Neron - 4 times etc.

In the days before that, when the New Testament was written, the Pedigree followed the name and the Title preceeded the Names. Remember that Julius Ceasaer was the first ruler (King of Kings or 'Emperor') of the Roman Empire (which ate up the Roman Republic).

 

I will hazard a guess that if you look at the context in which they were written, that Paul (and others) may have wanted to emphasize His work as "Christ" or "Messiah" when mentioning it first.

They may have wanted to emphasize His humanity and/or suffering when mentioning "Jesus" first.

Just something to look for. I hope that helps.

peace to youraying:

 

Many unchurched think that "Jesus Christ" is the man's name. In fact, the more profane thing His name is "Jesus H. Christ".

BTW, these unchurched think that "Jesus Christ" is a curse word almost as bad as 'repent', and 'Hell'.

 

If you've ever seriously studied theology, you've probably developed a shorthand for the names of God.

Abbreviating holy Spirit as HS is common.
This might seem profane to some but even in the earliest Greek manuscripts the names of God were abbreviated.

These short-hand versions of the names are called "Nomina sacra" (or "Sacred Names").

This Wikipedia >>LINK<< shows a few.

One of the more common variations among early hand-written manuscripts is a changing of the order of the names.

These variations can even be seen among the different versions we have today.

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:16 AV 1873

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Galatians 2:16 NASB95


There are many more examples (c.f. 1 Corinthians 1:3-4; Phil. 1:6).

Realizing that a big part of studying Scripture in early times consisted of memorization (computers were quite rare in those days but memory was plentiful), a mixing of the order of the names is understandable.

And if you look closely in the Wikipedia artilce, the abbriviations are so very similar and easy to mix up.

This might take a while to load for some but here is a picture of a papyrii page from Galatians 2:9-21 in P46 [LINK].
(Hit "full Image" and play with the size to make it comfortably readable after you download the picture).

You'll see the abbrivations on the 13th and 14th lines.

Work through it and compare it to the Wikipedia article to see what it says and compare it to the different versions you have.

Rob

 

Something I read along time ago, but never took the effort to check up on...


I read that it was only the Devils that addressed Christ as , "Jesus"...
Without the title Christ.

Does anyone know if this is true...
Everywhere else, he was called "Lord, Master, Teacher, Christ"

 

That was interesting Tim,

The name Jesus is very common but using the name of Jesus when addressing him is not so common.

And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
Matthew 28:5 AV 1873

Just in Matthew, see: 1:21, 25; 21:11; 26:69, 71; 27:17, 22, 37

Rob

 

I think it comes down to what "Christ" actually means - "Anointed One", "The Messiah". "Christ" is not His surname, like the "Doe" in "John Doe". So, "Jesus the Messiah" or "The Messiah, Jesus"? "Jesus the Anointed One", "The Anointed One, Jesus"? Perhaps someone who knows New Testament Greek could tell us if the order of words in that language affects the meaning.