Christ is risen

Early Modern English used 'to be' for the perfect present of verbs of motion. See [here](https://www.oed.com/discover/early-modern-english-spelling-grammar-and-pronunciation/?tl=true#:~:text=These%20were%20quite%20common%20in,be%20rather%20than%20to%20have.) or [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect). Nothing to do with religion.

English, like German still does, used to form the present perfect with the auxiliary verb “to be” rather than “to have” for certain intransitive verbs describing changes of state or movement. That is being done in this case. See also the famous Oppenheimer quote “I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. It gives the statement a grand, archaic feel. It also appears in Shakespeare, for instance in *Measure for Measure* Act 2, Scene 4, Isabella enters a room and says “I am come to know your pleasure”.

It isn't untrue. He did rise, and he is still King.

I suggest you crosspost this with r/christian or r/christianity

I swear this was asked a few days ago (for obvious reasons). It's the form found in the King James Bible. It is not in the New International Version (which says "has risen").

It means the resurrection of Christ

A) it's archaic, from the King James bible B) there's a grammatical intention behind it: Christ has risen is an event in the past; Christ is risen is a state of being in the present. It's meant to say that Christ continues to be risen as part of the religious message.

https://www.reddit.com/search/?q=Christ+is+risen++grammar

Religion makes no sense on any level, including the grammatical

Grammatically it’s using an archaic wording that isn’t commonly used anymore. There’s a lot of religious texts that do this. Religiously speaking tho I was taught that like generally you just speak about Christ in present tense unless it’s part of the narrative story. So like he “rose” on the third day but he “is risen” as the more general phrase. I always thought of it as like he remains risen as he did not re-die at some later point if that makes sense. TLDR: religious use of language is often different than like common spoken or written usage of language

It’s just archaic. You’re quoting a translation of a Greek text translated to Latin written in 1611.

It’s an archaic phrase that has kept its form from an earlier version of English. In modern German, the perfekt is formed with “haben” for most verbs (and it’s preferred in everyday speech over the simple past tense or “Präteritum”). But for verbs that describe movement or a change of state, it’s formed with “sein.” “Ich bin geboren” (I was born), “ich bin aufgewacht” (I woke up), “ich bin gegangen” (I went). Old English used “to be” to form the perfect in the same way. And Christian phrases and songs often keep this form even though the language has moved past it. “Christ is risen,” “the Lord is come,” etc.

This is maybe a religion question more than a language question. Christians say "Christ is risen" rather than "Christ has risen", because in their belief, Christ is always risen. He hasn't stopped rising from the dead, he is always doing it. So it's still in the present (or maybe continuous) tense.

Theologically speaking, He is *still* risen. It isn’t just something that happened a long time ago; it is happening every Easter, and (to some extent) every Sunday. It is NOT a grammatical leftover or anomaly, but a deliberate statement about the present.

You're asking a theological question in a grammar answers place. This is very much a special case because the people who would say "Christ is risen" are the people who believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. One issue regarding the crucifixion is that it transcends time. It is the one, eternal, and everlasting sacrifice. Although the physical event did occur on a Friday afternoon about 2000 years ago, the sacrifice of the event is a singular event that applies to all time. Thus, it is treated as though it is happening now, happened in the past, and it will continue happening in the future. The same is true of the Resurrection. This is a result of a couple millennia of theological development regarding that event. As a result of the theological developments, the grammar used to describe it gets confusing to a language learner. However, a good rule of thumb is that when discussing Jesus, the grammar doesn't always match. There are those who claim that the third person singular pronouns should be capitalized when referring to Jesus (He, His, Him, etc.).

religious text gets real weird