Could the H in Jesus H. Christ be from Helios Christus?

[mojobadshah]

Wikipedia says the origins of the H in Jesus H. Christ are obscure. Could the H. be derived from the word Helios? And what is the Helios Christus exactly? I recall an online publication of a pdf. that connected the phrase Helios and Christus to the Zoroastrian Hvare khshaeta "sun shine" (as in Yima Khshaeta with his Hvarena or Khwarena "halo") which contracted to MPer. Khwarshēd and then to NPer. Khurshid "sun shine" which is a common name among Persians.

See Hvare-Khshaeta and Khurshid

According to the footnotes here

Zend Avesta

Keresaska was applied to Christians as if Keresa (which may also be akin to Khwarshēd) were the name of Christ.

The Greek Khristos "anointed" looks like it could be a contraction of Khwarsheed if it weren't for -os part of the word. Is that an affix or what?

 

[bob x]

IHC is one way of writing Iota-Eta-Sigma in Greek, the first three letters of "Jesus" as spelled in that language (the standard Sigma is the M-turned-sideways, which is also found on some Greek Orthodox banners). The Romans sometimes borrowed this, either changed into IHS which is folk-etymologized to mean Iesus Hominem Savior "Jesus the Savior of Mankind", or else left alone as IHC, or JHC, which the ignorant have read as "Jesus H. Christ".

 

[Amergin]

IHC is one way of writing Iota-Eta-Sigma in Greek, the first three letters of "Jesus" as spelled in that language (the standard Sigma is the M-turned-sideways, which is also found on some Greek Orthodox banners). The Romans sometimes borrowed this, either changed into IHS which is folk-etymologized to mean Iesus Hominem Savior "Jesus the Savior of Mankind", or else left alone as IHC, or JHC, which the ignorant have read as "Jesus H. Christ".

H meaning Helios would make sense because the historical Jesus when deified into the Christ God was identified by the Romans and Greeks with the Sun God (Mithra, Sol, and Helios in the Roman Empire.) Helios means the Sun. That is why Sunday is the first day of the week and named in honour of the various contemporary Sun gods. Jesus' biography is altered to have him born on the Winter Solstice which was December 25 on the old calendar.

I do not know if the Jesus H. Christ came from Helios. It may have been Jesus Holy Christ. As far as I know it is used mainly by English speaking people. Holy makes more sense. In the HBO series Deadwood, Al Swearengen used the term "Jesus F***ing Christ) or Jesus F. Christ. That likely arose from using "Jesus Christ!" as a swear or cuss word.

I actually condemn that because I venerate the Jesus of the Gospels because of the ethical and altruistic message spoken by him or written by the Gospel writers. Oddly, most Conservative Americans, do not agree with the Jesus message of healing the sick, mercy even for prostitutes, chastisement of the rich, giving your wealth to the poor (socialism,) love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, or do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Jesus fed a huge crowd with free fish and bread (socialistic food distribution.)

I vote for the H being Holy.

BTW, should not "Jesus Hominem Savior," be "Jesus Hominem (σωτήρ) sōtēr. In later Latin Soter was adapted to Salvator.

Amergin

 

[mojobadshah]

What about the -os part of the Gk. Khristos? Where does that come from? Could there be any relation to the -os in the Gk. magos?

 

[Amergin]

What about the -os part of the Gk. Khristos? Where does that come from? Could there be any relation to the -os in the Gk. magos?

-os is a common ending for many Greek names. Examples include the family names of two imperial dynasties of the Byzantine Empire. They were Kantacusenos, Palaeologos, and the Roman Emperor Constantine was called Konstantinos in Greek speaking lands. A recent Greek President was named Papadopoulos. The Greek-American vice-president under Richard Nixon was named Spiro Agnew (anglicised and shortened from Anagnostopoulos.) When I lived in Greece, almost everyone I met had a name ending in -os or-is.

Amergin

 

[mojobadshah]

-os is a common ending for many Greek names. Examples include the family names of two imperial dynasties of the Byzantine Empire. They were Kantacusenos, Palaeologos, and the Roman Emperor Constantine was called Konstantinos in Greek speaking lands. A recent Greek President was named Papadopoulos. The Greek-American vice-president under Richard Nixon was named Spiro Agnew (anglicised and shortened from Anagnostopoulos.) When I lived in Greece, almost everyone I met had a name ending in -os or-is.

Amergin

Sounds like an affix to me. That would leave explaining the kh- in MPer. Khwarshēd to the k- in khristos. Does Greek have the [kh] sound or would the Greeks have pronounced [kh] as [k] like westerners pronounce Khan Kan?

 

[bob x]

BTW, should not "Jesus Hominem Savior," be "Jesus Hominem (σωτήρ) sōtēr. In later Latin Soter was adapted to Salvator.

Writing it all in Latin, indeed it should be Iesus Hominem Salvator. I was being lazy in writing Savior, the English erosion of Salvator, which was the Latin translation for the original Greek Soter (which is from the same Indo-European root as Iranian Saoshyans).

What about the -os part of the Gk. Khristos? Where does that come from? Could there be any relation to the -os in the Gk. magos?

-os is a common ending for many Greek names.

Not just "names", but common nouns as well: -os is just the masculine singular nominative ending; on andros "man", anthropos "human" (of either gender), magos "eastern sage; magician", doulos "slave", or kuklos "wheel; circle", stauros "pole; cross" etc. (as in many other languages, inanimate words are assigned gender).

Sounds like an affix to me. That would leave explaining the kh- in MPer. Khwarshēd to the k- in khristos. Does Greek have the [kh] sound or would the Greeks have pronounced [kh] as [k] like westerners pronounce Khan Kan?

Greek distinguishes "k" (written with kappa which looks like K) from "kh" (written with chi which looks like X) but the aspirated "kh" is traditionally transliterated "ch": pronunciation not at all like the affricate "ch" in English, of course; but also not the guttural fricative of German or Hebrew "ch".
The -os is just the singular nominative affix; the -t is the participle ending (like -ed in English, sometimes also pronounced "t" as in slept); the root is chris- cognate to English grease and the word means "greased; rubbed with oil"; the Indic cognate is ghee. The word in English now suggests grubby motor oil, but the root originally refers to scented oils; in Germanic it became specialized to oils rubbed into the hair, but elsewhere refers to fragrant oils rubbed on the body just for pleasure (the post-Vedic but still early Sanskrit text Manu-smrti mentions a wife rubbing ghee on her husband's body after a bath as an especially loving and virtuous act) or for ritual consecration: the Semitic root for this, m-sh-ch, is found in English not just as messiah (from Hebrew moshiach, originally not a "future savior", which was a post-Persian ideological development, but the term for an "anointed" king or priest, one who had been rubbed with oil as a mark of office) but as the verb massage (from Arabic) and the noun musk (through Persian from Aramaic).

In Indo-Iranian, the scented oil from a clarified-butter base is the main sacrificial offering to the fire god. In the Vedas, the ghee is poured into Agni "the fire" (cognate with Latin ignis hence English ignite, and to Russian ogon). In the Avesta we find the name Athar instead: the Wiki suggests that the personification of this being as one of the divine emanations is a later somewhat "heretical" development in Zoroastrianism (like the re-introduction of such deities as Mithra and Anahita) and that Athar in the Gathas is just a medium for sending offerings to Ahura Mazda; but it also says the root is not Indo-European but borrowed from somewhere else, and this I am very puzzled by because there are indeed cognates all over Indo-European: Greek aether "star-stuff" (conceptualized as a special kind of fire), Latin attar "fragrant oil", Irish aed "sacred bonfire". It is not found as a sacred name in Vedic Sanskrit, but the Atharva Veda (fourth and latest of the Vedas) is named for a priestly clan, the name recalling the title Athravan often given to Zoroaster in the Avesta.

I think that Vedic Agni started as a taboo-substitution, the generic word for "fire" taking over from the true name of the Fire God which, like the names of the Wolf, Bear, and Death gods that I have mentioned before, was a name too dangerous to speak. We do not find any cognate of "agni" in the Avesta, but strangely, also no form of "ghee/grease/chrism" that I can locate. In Yasna 62 (the fire ritual), verse 2, daityo aesmi buya, daityo baoidhi buya, daityo pithwi buya... "proper wood let-there-be, proper fragrance let-there-be, proper butter let-there-be..." the word for "butter" pithwi is just the generic Indo-European root seen in English regularly as feed/food/fat (through Germanic) and irregularly as butter (through Old French from Latin).

 

[mojobadshah]

I think that Vedic Agni started as a taboo-substitution, the generic word for "fire" taking over from the true name of the Fire God which, like the names of the Wolf, Bear, and Death gods that I have mentioned before, was a name too dangerous to speak. We do not find any cognate of "agni" in the Avesta, but strangely, also no form of "ghee/grease/chrism" that I can locate. In Yasna 62 (the fire ritual), verse 2, daityo aesmi buya, daityo baoidhi buya, daityo pithwi buya... "proper wood let-there-be, proper fragrance let-there-be, proper butter let-there-be..." the word for "butter" pithwi is just the generic Indo-European root seen in English regularly as feed/food/fat (through Germanic) and irregularly as butter (through Old French from Latin).

Is there a Sanskrit cognate for the Avestan khshaeta "radiant"?

 

[bob x]

Is there a Sanskrit cognate for the Avestan khshaeta "radiant"?

vikhs'an.a looks to be the same (prefix vi- is "outward")

 

[mojobadshah]

vikhs'an.a looks to be the same (prefix vi- is "outward")

When you say "looks to be the same" do you mean the morphological relationship is established?

Joseph Shiply lists the place-name Calcutta as a contraction of the Sanskrit Kali "the wife of Agni" and ghat "[the river] where sins are rubbed away." He also links ghat (a cognate of ghee?) to the word Christ. It's so obvious that Keresasheed is akin to Calcutta.

khriein in Greek means "anoint." khristos means "the anointed." -os has been established as a common affix. Any idea where the -st- part of the word khristos came from?

 

[bob x]

When you say "looks to be the same" do you mean the morphological relationship is established?

Sorry, no: I just meant that in response to your question, I glanced through a Sanskrit dictionary at various words with meaning like "radiant" and this one looks identical to the Avestan form, except for the (easily-understood) prefix and the n. (dot should go under the "n"; refers to an "alveolar" articulation with the tongue on the roof of the mouth, further back than the "dental" n with tongue on the teeth) in place of "t".

Joseph Shiply lists the place-name Calcutta as a contraction of the Sanskrit Kali "the wife of Agni" and ghat "[the river] where sins are rubbed away." He also links ghat (a cognate of ghee?) to the word Christ.

Ghat has no connection I can see to ghee; you have got to stop thinking that words which only have a letter in common are likely to be related. I can find no info on your "Joseph Shiply" source.

It's so obvious that Keresasheed is akin to Calcutta.

??? Kalighatta and Keresasheed have nothing whatsoever in common except for starting with "k".

khriein in Greek means "anoint." khristos means "the anointed." -os has been established as a common affix. Any idea where the -st- part of the word khristos came from?

The -t- as I said is the past participle ending, like the -ed in English greased, anointed from grease, anoint. An "s" at the end will often erode away; it was part of the original Indo-European root but is lost in the infinitive Greek form khriein (should be *khrisein) and in the Indic reflex ghee (should be *ghees; here the "r" has been swallowed up into the initial consonant and "protects" it from the usual shift to sibilant in S'atam languages).

 

[mojobadshah]

Kali probably shares its root with forms like the Iranian Keresa "sun," sal "solar year," calendar cf. Latin Soli "sun," but came to mean "scorched or black" Kalighatta. Either the "r" in Keresa shifted to an "l" or it was the other way around. Shipley links ghatta to the Greek form khriein which is akin to the form khristos. *khrisein is a reconstruction and may never even have existed.

*ghees is probably akin to ghat "[the river] that washes away sins" and also to khshaeta. The form ghat probably lost the "s" and the form ghee probably lost the "t." There probably never was an "r" in the root. Wikipaedia, however, says the word ghee developed from the Sanskrit ghṛta "sprinkled" and if you think about it people thought that the stars rained down on earth back in the day so technically it could share semantic with khshaeta "radiate," and the this Sanskrit form was probably a contraction of the Avestan form Hware-Kshaeta or a similar form.

Somewhere along the lines the Avestan form Hwar-kshaeta "kingly glory" developed into the form Keresasheed (first attested in Middle Persian).

Keresasheed probably developed into the Greek khrist- "annointed" which is similar to Keresasheed "kingly glory" semantically. The Greek khriein "anoint" probably came later.

What do you think BX? Does this sound plausible?

 

[bob x]

Kali probably shares its root with forms like the Iranian Keresa "sun," sal "solar year," calendar cf. Latin Soli "sun," but came to mean "scorched or black" Kalighatta. Either the "r" in Keresa shifted to an "l" or it was the other way around.

No no no. There are no roots whatsoever with "s" in Latin and "k" in Indo-Iranian: the centum/s'atam correspondence is in the exact opposite direction. The cases in which Indo-Iranian retains initial "k" or hard "g" are those in which it was originally compounded with an "r" or "l" (often lost) or a sibilant.

Kali (she is the wife of S'iva by the way, a deity inherited from the pre-Indo-European inhabitants of the subcontinent; not the wife of "Agni" as you said) is probably from the same root as Slavic krasniy, originally "deep in color" now meaning "red" in Russian but "pretty" in Polish or Czech (in Germanic, initial "k" tended to shift to "h" and then in compounds will often disappear, so the English cognate is russet). Alternations of "n" and "l" are more common than you might think, although the disappearance of the "s" is a little odd. Iranian keresa, yes, that would seem to be this same root also.

Shipley links ghatta to the Greek form khriein which is akin to the form khristos. *khrisein is a reconstruction and may never even have existed.

Yes, that's what the asterisk means: linguists put "*" before a hypothetical form for which there is no attestation. Every form of the Greek verb in which the "s" is not followed by a vowel retains that "s" (like khristos) so the easiest explanation is that the "s" was in all forms originally, but vanished between vowels.

*ghees is probably akin to ghat "[the river] that washes away sins" and also to khshaeta. The form ghat probably lost the "s" and the form ghee probably lost the "t."

The word ghatta means "staircase" or "ramp" or "mountain pass" or other sloped passageway (cognates are Latin gradus "step" hence English grade etc.). In dhobi ghat "laundry steps" (access to the river for washerwomen), it is the dhobi which conveys the meaning "washing", not the ghat which is also found in shamshan ghat "burning steps" (access to the river for cremation purposes) and also, even more commonly than for river-access points, in place-names referring to points within a mountain range where crossings are feasible. I don't know who this "Shipley" guy is, but he seems to be another one of these people who just grabs words with scarcely a consonant in common and declares them related, without even knowing what the words mean.

There probably never was an "r" in the root. Wikipaedia, however, says the word ghee developed from the Sanskrit ghṛta "sprinkled" and if you think about it people thought that the stars rained down on earth back in the day so technically it could share semantic with khshaeta "radiate,"

Your assertion that there was no "r" in the root is utterly absurd: not only is the "r" present in EVERY branch of Indo-European except Indo-Iranian, it is not always even lost within Indo-Iranian, as the "sprinkle" verb you cite shows. There is no linguistic connection whatsoever to the "radiate" root, and I have no idea what "day" it was when people "thought that the stars rained down on earth" (???)

and the this Sanskrit form was probably a contraction of the Avestan form Hware-Kshaeta or a similar form.

Somewhere along the lines the Avestan form Hwar-kshaeta "kingly glory" developed into the form Keresasheed (first attested in Middle Persian).

Keresasheed probably developed into the Greek khrist- "annointed" which is similar to Keresasheed "kingly glory" semantically. The Greek khriein "anoint" probably came later.

You are requiring time machines again. Sanskrit is older than Avestan, and ancient Greek is of course MUCH older than medieval Persian.

What do you think BX? Does this sound plausible?

No no no. You are getting worse and worse.

 

[Amergin]

Writing it all in Latin, indeed it should be Iesus Hominem Salvator. I was being lazy in writing Savior, the English erosion of Salvator, which was the Latin translation for the original Greek Soter (which is from the same Indo-European root as Iranian Saoshyans).


Not just "names", but common nouns as well: -os is just the masculine singular nominative ending; on andros "man", anthropos "human" (of either gender), magos "eastern sage; magician", doulos "slave", or kuklos "wheel; circle", stauros "pole; cross" etc. (as in many other languages, inanimate words are assigned gender).

Greek distinguishes "k" (written with kappa which looks like K) from "kh" (written with chi which looks like X) but the aspirated "kh" is traditionally transliterated "ch": pronunciation not at all like the affricate "ch" in English, of course; but also not the guttural fricative of German or Hebrew "ch".
The -os is just the singular nominative affix; the -t is the participle ending (like -ed in English, sometimes also pronounced "t" as in slept); the root is chris- cognate to English grease and the word means "greased; rubbed with oil"; the Indic cognate is ghee. The word in English now suggests grubby motor oil, but the root originally refers to scented oils; in Germanic it became specialized to oils rubbed into the hair, but elsewhere refers to fragrant oils rubbed on the body just for pleasure (the post-Vedic but still early Sanskrit text Manu-smrti mentions a wife rubbing ghee on her husband's body after a bath as an especially loving and virtuous act) or for ritual consecration: the Semitic root for this, m-sh-ch, is found in English not just as messiah (from Hebrew moshiach, originally not a "future savior", which was a post-Persian ideological development, but the term for an "anointed" king or priest, one who had been rubbed with oil as a mark of office) but as the verb massage (from Arabic) and the noun musk (through Persian from Aramaic).

In Indo-Iranian, the scented oil from a clarified-butter base is the main sacrificial offering to the fire god. In the Vedas, the ghee is poured into Agni "the fire" (cognate with Latin ignis hence English ignite, and to Russian ogon). In the Avesta we find the name Athar instead: the Wiki suggests that the personification of this being as one of the divine emanations is a later somewhat "heretical" development in Zoroastrianism (like the re-introduction of such deities as Mithra and Anahita) and that Athar in the Gathas is just a medium for sending offerings to Ahura Mazda; but it also says the root is not Indo-European but borrowed from somewhere else, and this I am very puzzled by because there are indeed cognates all over Indo-European: Greek aether "star-stuff" (conceptualized as a special kind of fire), Latin attar "fragrant oil", Irish aed "sacred bonfire". It is not found as a sacred name in Vedic Sanskrit, but the Atharva Veda (fourth and latest of the Vedas) is named for a priestly clan, the name recalling the title Athravan often given to Zoroaster in the Avesta.

I think that Vedic Agni started as a taboo-substitution, the generic word for "fire" taking over from the true name of the Fire God which, like the names of the Wolf, Bear, and Death gods that I have mentioned before, was a name too dangerous to speak. We do not find any cognate of "agni" in the Avesta, but strangely, also no form of "ghee/grease/chrism" that I can locate. In Yasna 62 (the fire ritual), verse 2, daityo aesmi buya, daityo baoidhi buya, daityo pithwi buya... "proper wood let-there-be, proper fragrance let-there-be, proper butter let-there-be..." the word for "butter" pithwi is just the generic Indo-European root seen in English regularly as feed/food/fat (through Germanic) and irregularly as butter (through Old French from Latin).

Thanks for the great lesson in history and the Greek lanuage.

It seems to me that the great and wise Jewish philosopher and prophet Yeshua has little to do with the Jesus Christ (Sun god) of the Romans and Greeks. The Gospel Jesus bears no resemblance to the fierce genocidal god of Apocalypse leading an army of Killer angels. That signals the transition from the Jewish Jesus the compassionate wise man into Jesus the War God of Catholic Christianity.

Might the Dark Ages been less dark, with fewer wars, if John of Patmos had not written the dreadful Apocalypse.

Amergin

 

[bob x]

What I'm finding on the etymology of Hware Khshaeta "solar radiance": the back-n in Sanskrit (vi)khshaen.a "to radiate (out)" is the original, and the "t" in Avestan a shift; I say this because in Germanic, where initial "k" typically goes to "h" or, in compounds, to nothing, the form is German scheinen, English shine. The Hware reflects the typical Avestan shift of Indo-Iranian sibilant (especially at the beginning) to "h": it is the same as Indic S'urya, a name that also became a title of the "sun" but originally was the deity of the "south" member of the Four Cardinal Points family of deities (Germanic Surt, Greek Sirius).

Thanks for the great lesson in history and the Greek lanuage.

It seems to me that the great and wise Jewish philosopher and prophet Yeshua has little to do with the Jesus Christ (Sun god) of the Romans and Greeks. The Gospel Jesus bears no resemblance to the fierce genocidal god of Apocalypse leading an army of Killer angels. That signals the transition from the Jewish Jesus the compassionate wise man into Jesus the War God of Catholic Christianity.

Might the Dark Ages been less dark, with fewer wars, if John of Patmos had not written the dreadful Apocalypse.

Amergin

I also think the "Apocalypse" is a pretty horrific book, but alas, it is not a result of Greco-Roman distortion, but comes out of the "Zealot" strain of 1st-century Judaism, who expected a "political" Messiah who would restore the kingdom of Judea and turn it into a world-conquering power, giving what-for to all those nasty Western imperialist oppressors. I say this because it is written in truly terrible Greek: some of the NT is in respectable literary Greek (Luke and Acts are good Greek style) and most in the koine "vernacular" that common people spoke, but the language of this book is atrociously ungrammatical, as even early Christians had to acknowledge. Patriarch Dionysius of Alexandria, d. 265, rejected the book as uncanonical and would not believe that the author was the apostle John: "His use of the Greek language is not accurate; rather he employs barbarous idioms and often falls into dreadful solecisms". What this indicates is that the author knew Greek only as a second language, and never learned it very well (sort of like this). Contrary to Dionysius, who thought the "Gospel of John" was by the apostle and the "Apocalypse" by somebody else, I think the "Gospel" was a late production, while the "Apocalypse" is the genuine voice of a 1st-century Galilean fisherman.

 

[mojobadshah]

Your assertion that there was no "r" in the root is utterly absurd: not only is the "r" present in EVERY branch of Indo-European except Indo-Iranian, it is not always even lost within Indo-Iranian, as the "sprinkle" verb you cite shows. There is no linguistic connection whatsoever to the "radiate" root, and I have no idea what "day" it was when people "thought that the stars rained down on earth" (???)

I'm saying there was no r in the Sanskrit ghat, but there was in grta which was a contraction of a proto-form of Hware (MPer. Keresa) and Kali + ghat.

In dhobi ghat "laundry steps" (access to the river for washerwomen), it is the dhobi which conveys the meaning "washing", not the ghat which is also found in shamshan ghat "burning steps" (access to the river for cremation purposes) and also, even more commonly than for river-access points, in place-names referring to points within a mountain range where crossings are feasible.

Even better. shamshan ghat "burning-steps" and Hware-khsheata "sun shine" sound even closer in semantics now which means that the Sanskrit ghat and the Avestan khsheata are probably cognates.

The word ghatta means "staircase" or "ramp" or "mountain pass" or other sloped passageway (cognates are Latin gradus "step" hence English grade etc.).

Actually Latin gradus resembles Sansrkit grta more closely phonologically. There appears however to have been a big divergence in their semantic relationship to each other.

The Hware reflects the typical Avestan shift of Indo-Iranian sibilant (especially at the beginning) to "h": it is the same as Indic S'urya, a name that also became a title of the "sun" but originally was the deity of the "south" member of the Four Cardinal Points family of deities (Germanic Surt, Greek Sirius).

The Zoroastrians believed that it was Tishtriya "the Sirius star" (akin to the Greek Sirius) which rained or sprinkled down on earth and caused the summer days to be so hot.

You are requiring time machines again. Sanskrit is older than Avestan, and ancient Greek is of course MUCH older than medieval Persian.

I'm not even going to get into what language is older right now Avestan or Sanskrit.

Is it phonologically possible that Av. Hware-khshaeta and Skr. grta descended from the same root, semantics aside.

What I meant to say was that Gk.Khristos probably descended from Av. Hware-khshaeta. The Middle Persian keresasheed just preserved the Avestan better and maybe an intermediate form is where Gk. khristos came from.

Also I got a question: Are there any Indo-European forms outside of the Indo-Iranian and the Greek that imply "anointing" of any kind?

 

[Amergin]

Bob X, that explanation does make sense to me from what history I have read. Thanks.

Still, I think that it had an overall negative effect on the Christian Kingdoms of Europe during the Dark Ages. The Bible would have been better without the Apocalypse.

Amergin

 

[bob x]

I'm saying there was no r in the Sanskrit ghat

Obviously not, but I thought you were claiming there was no "r" in the Indo-European root; and I also thought you were talking about the grease root, rather than the grade root: the two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Both, certainly, had "r" in the Indo-European, as we see in all the other branches; if initial "k" or "g" was not compounded with "r" (or something else) originally, it would not be preserved in Indic, but instead have shifted to "s" or "j" or some-such sibilant.

but there was in grta which was a contraction of a proto-form of Hware (MPer. Keresa) and Kali + ghat.

Sanskrit gr.ta is cognate to, and shares the meaning of, English to grease; it specifically refers to sprinkling oil, not any other substance. This has no relationship whatsoever to hware, whose proto-form was more like Indic s'urya (Avestan initial "h" comes from Indo-Iranian sibilants) which is cognate to English south (the -t or -th suffix on the English directional words is unclear in origin, and here has swallowed up the "r" which, however, still appears in the Nordic deity-name Surt). The "south" deity was also associated with noon and midsummer (as "east" with dawn and spring; "west" with sunset and autumn; "north" with midnight and winter) and became used as a poetic name for the sun because of the sun's association to the hottest parts of the world, the day, and the year. Keresa is a totally unrelated poetic title for the sun, derived from its color (there is no case in which "h" in Avestan becomes "k" in Middle Persian). And no, no, no: "grease" is not a contraction of "south/crimson grade".

Even better. shamshan ghat "burning-steps" and Hware-khsheata "sun shine" sound even closer in semantics now which means that the Sanskrit ghat and the Avestan khsheata are probably cognates.

??? The reference is to one kind of STAIRCASE. There are several sets of stairs down to the river, one kind for washing yourself, another if you have a load of dirty clothes, another if you have a dead body to dispose of. The word ghat is the part of the phrase that means STAIRCASE and is also used for other passages that are like stairs, most commonly for mountain passes (it is used in India more often for mountain-crossings than for river-accesses); the other part of the phrase (dhobi ghat "laundry steps", shamshan ghat "cremation steps", bhor ghat "mountain steps") is what tells you which kind of staircase you are talking about. What does this have to do with the shine root?

Actually Latin gradus resembles Sansrkit grta more closely phonologically.

The -ta is simply the infinitive verb ending, corresponding to the "to" in English to grease.

There appears however to have been a big divergence in their semantic relationship to each other.

There is zero semantic relationship between STEPS and GREASE.

The Zoroastrians believed that it was Tishtriya "the Sirius star" (akin to the Greek Sirius) which rained or sprinkled down on earth and caused the summer days to be so hot.

Tishtriya is a Semitic borrowing, not at all akin to the Greek name. And where do you get that it "rained" or "sprinkled oil" on the earth, rather than shining light?

I'm not even going to get into what language is older right now Avestan or Sanskrit.

Sanskrit is. There isn't any question about that.

Is it phonologically possible that Av. Hware-khshaeta and Skr. grta descended from the same root, semantics aside.

No. As in haoma/soma or ahura/asura, the Avestan "h" is from a sibilant in Indo-Iranian.

What I meant to say was that Gk.Khristos probably descended from Av. Hware-khshaeta.

And where do you think English grease fits here? You are completely ignoring the existence of an Indo-European family of related languages which is far older than Avestan or any other particular derivative.

The Middle Persian keresasheed just preserved the Avestan better

The keresa is not a "preservation" but a substitution of a different root.

Also I got a question: Are there any Indo-European forms outside of the Indo-Iranian and the Greek that imply "anointing" of any kind?

Neither Indo-Iranian nor Greek had the Mideastern notion of "anointing"-- that is, rubbing oil for the purpose of consecrating a person into a sacred office. In Indo-European languages, the oil-rubbing is for pleasure or hygeine (in Germanic, the word then also got taken over for the sense of lubricating machinery), or in the Indo-Iranian case (perhaps reflecting a practice originally more widespread in Indo-European groups but only preserved here) there is also oil-sprinkling as a sacrificial rite to the Fire. The Greek christos "greased" (rubbed with oil) was first used in the sense of "anointed" (translating Hebrew moshiach "rubbed with oil, especially to install in sacred office") when the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures was prepared in the 3rd century BCE; before that, the Greeks used it principally to refer to rubbing an athlete with oil, for example to make a wrestler's body slicker and harder to grasp, or after a race was done and the runner had bathed.

Bob X, that explanation does make sense to me from what history I have read. Thanks.

Still, I think that it had an overall negative effect on the Christian Kingdoms of Europe during the Dark Ages. The Bible would have been better without the Apocalypse.

Amergin

Glad we can see eye-to-eye on SOMETHING, at least. I agree the Apocalypse has been a detrimental influence.

 

[00018091]

Jesus was Not Created

How do JWs respond to the fact that a monotheist Jew takes a scripture that is directly applied to Jehovah, i.e. Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it directly to Jesus in Hebrews 1:10-12. This will be blasphemy. Can any Jehovah witness prove that Jesus is created, I know not of any scripture that says so. The scriptures you quote are as follows which proves nothing:
Colossians 1:15 Firstborn of all creation - This does not prove he was created, but rather he is the heir to all creation, you ask WHY, the next verse goes on to say, because all things were created by him. You may say that he is part of the group, but the verse does not say so. Firstly, there is no word 'OF' in the text, the evidence we have is that the the word firstborn and creation is in the genitive form and hence it can take on several of the genitive forms, i.e. relative, partitive, subjective, possessive etc. Hence looking at John 1:1-3, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, it is clear that this is not a partitive genitive, but rather subjective or even possessive genitive. Furthermore image (i.e. greek eikon) actually speaks of the essence and nature of the thing itself, see Heb 10:1, Col 3:10, 1 Cor 15:49.
Revelation 3:14 - Arche can mean source, beginning, origin, ruler, e.g. Luke 20:20, the word authority in the KJV is actually authority, and similarly we see the plural of arche, being translated in many places as rulers in the NT. As such, based on other scriptures the most accurate word for arche in Rev 3:14 will be the source or even the ruler of the creation of God. Even in the Greek philosophy with Plato etc., water was thought of as the arche of all things, (i.e. SOURCE).
Finally, Proverbs 8:22, is not speaking of Jesus. We should note that neither Jesus or any of his disciples ever used this scripture to refer to Him. Second the WT saying that Jesus is called the Wisdom of God, hence this is referring to him is easily proven false since Jesus is also called the 'power' of God in that same verse they refer to yet in Romans 1:20 we see that God's power is eternal, hence not created. Additionally, we see that wisdom in Prov 8:12 wisdom is said to dwell with prudence, then who is prudence? Also, who is understanding at Prov 7:4? It is clear that these passages from chapter 1-9 is clearly just personification of wisdom and showing the benefits of seeking wisdom as opposed to the opposite. My last statement on this is that the word used in Prov 8:22 for possessed (i.e. Hebrew Qanah) would have been bara which speaks of God creating out of nothing. However there is no explicit statement thaty says this is Jesus hence, the WT uses inference to come up with this doctrine, similar to their Jesus / Michael inference. It is funny that Jesus played such an important role in creation and redemption and yet no scriptures says that he is Michael the archangel which they teach. If Jesus is Jehovah's prime creation, the Bible surely would have gave clear evidence that he was created and the process and surely stated that He was Michael. Similarly to how the creation account was given with proper details.
My desire is for JWs to read the bible and see what God is saying to them, their is no caste system in Jehovah's organization (i.e. 144K and other sheep) there is one body. Furthermore Jesus wants people to have a direct intimate relationship with him as is expressed throughout the scriptures (vine and branches), he is the only mediator, not and Organization that has made false prophecy over and over and change doctrines over and over and claim that the light gets brighter and brighter, the WT light goes on and off.

 

[mojobadshah]

Sanskrit gr.ta is cognate to, and shares the meaning of, English to grease; it specifically refers to sprinkling oil, not any other substance. This has no relationship whatsoever to hware, whose proto-form was more like Indic s'urya (Avestan initial "h" comes from Indo-Iranian sibilants) which is cognate to English south (the -t or -th suffix on the English directional words is unclear in origin, and here has swallowed up the "r" which, however, still appears in the Nordic deity-name Surt). The "south" deity was also associated with noon and midsummer (as "east" with dawn and spring; "west" with sunset and autumn; "north" with midnight and winter) and became used as a poetic name for the sun because of the sun's association to the hottest parts of the world, the day, and the year. Keresa is a totally unrelated poetic title for the sun, derived from its color (there is no case in which "h" in Avestan becomes "k" in Middle Persian). And no, no, no: "grease" is not a contraction of "south/crimson grade".

The Sanskrit grta, s'urya, and the Avestan hware- or khware, and English grease were probably all developed from the same root. And Keresa is not totally unrelated to hware-. It's also akin to Iranian forms like Khor "sun" and Khorashan "Sun ?shine."

??? The reference is to one kind of STAIRCASE. There are several sets of stairs down to the river, one kind for washing yourself, another if you have a load of dirty clothes, another if you have a dead body to dispose of. The word ghat is the part of the phrase that means STAIRCASE and is also used for other passages that are like stairs, most commonly for mountain passes (it is used in India more often for mountain-crossings than for river-accesses); the other part of the phrase (dhobi ghat "laundry steps", shamshan ghat "cremation steps", bhor ghat "mountain steps") is what tells you which kind of staircase you are talking about. What does this have to do with the shine root?

I think that "down [to the river]" is the key here. Light "shines" down.

Tishtriya is a Semitic borrowing, not at all akin to the Greek name. And where do you get that it "rained" or "sprinkled oil" on the earth, rather than shining light?

Tir is a later form of Tishtriya and both are akin to Sirius.

I said "rained" or "sprinkled" down not "sprinkled oil" (see Zoroastrian Festivals )

No. As in haoma/soma or ahura/asura, the Avestan "h" is from a sibilant in Indo-Iranian.

Indo-Iranian is a reconstruction. It's possible that the "s > h" and the "g" descended from the same phoneme.

And where do you think English grease fits here? You are completely ignoring the existence of an Indo-European family of related languages which is far older than Avestan or any other particular derivative.

The only language I know that is said to be older than Avestan is Hittite.

The keresa is not a "preservation" but a substitution of a different root.

May not be a "preservation," Keresa, but definitely descended from the same root.

Neither Indo-Iranian nor Greek had the Mideastern notion of "anointing"-- that is, rubbing oil for the purpose of consecrating a person into a sacred office. In Indo-European languages, the oil-rubbing is for pleasure or hygeine (in Germanic, the word then also got taken over for the sense of lubricating machinery), or in the Indo-Iranian case (perhaps reflecting a practice originally more widespread in Indo-European groups but only preserved here) there is also oil-sprinkling as a sacrificial rite to the Fire. The Greek christos "greased" (rubbed with oil) was first used in the sense of "anointed" (translating Hebrew moshiach "rubbed with oil, especially to install in sacred office") when the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures was prepared in the 3rd century BCE; before that, the Greeks used it principally to refer to rubbing an athlete with oil, for example to make a wrestler's body slicker and harder to grasp, or after a race was done and the runner had bathed.

Maybe the semantics changed from Avestan to Greek from "Sun-shine" or "Kingly Glory" to "what keeps the fire burning," and then to "oil."