So tired of Christians not knowing what a Christian is!

[Bill]

I call them the same as what Jesus calls them as per the Holy Bible.


I call them the same as what Jesus calls them as per the Holy Bible: "brethren", "disciples", "apostles", "servants", "believers", "followers", "the faithful", "the elect", "the called", and "saints."

I was thinking you were a they - them kind of person , lol .

Evasive, is your new name. LOL

 

[KingJ]

In @backNforth's defense, he is not evasive. He is just harping on an issue that is really not a material matter and certainly needs its own thread.

 

[backNforth]

This is not true:
25-26 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to find Saul. When he found him he brought him up to Antioch. Then for a whole year they met together with the Church and taught a large crowd. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first given the name of “Christians”.
Thanks to Biblegateway.com

Sorry, Bill Taylor, but that's incorrect.

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (v. 26)

Here's the question you need to ask yourself:

Who called them "Christians"???

And the answer is: It was unbelievers who first called followers of Christ, "Christians." It was a term of derision, applied by those without the Kingdom, to label those within the Kingdom. It's obvious from the passage that it wasn't the disciples calling themselves "Christian."

In @backNforth's defense, he is not evasive. He is just harping on an issue that is really not a material matter and certainly needs its own thread.

The OP ('Christians not knowing what a Christian is') would attempt, albeit naively, to give life to a dead thing. The title of the OP is presumptuous, misleading and keeps us weak.

 

[Rhema]

And the answer is: It was unbelievers who first called followers of Christ, "Christians." It was a term of derision,

I keep hearing this claim of "derision" without any substantive proof.

Might you provide some?

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[backNforth]

I keep hearing this claim of "derision" without any substantive proof.

...references back at post #115.

 

[Rhema]

The words Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero, are remarkable, ‘vulgus Christianos appellabat,’ ‘the vulgar call them Christians.’

Noun (link)​

vulgus n sg or m sg (genitive vulgī); second declension

1. (uncountable) the common people
2. (uncountable) the public
3. throng, crowd synonyms ▲Synonyms: multitūdō, turba
4. gathering

Not at all remarkable that the common people called them Christian. (Methinks Mr. Richard Watson wasn't well versed in Latin.)

in either of which cases we should have met with it in the subsequent history of the Acts, and in the Apostolic Epistles

And it was. The author goes on to list them. Neither of the three instances give any indication that the Christians felt that such was derogatory to themselves.

Indeed, "the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards."(LINK-27). Why do Protestants always seem to ignore Catholic Church Fathers?

though the name was first given reproachfully, they gloried in it, as expressing their adherence to Christ, and they soon generally accepted it." Richard Watson, Watson’s Bible Dictionary (1832), p. 233.

Once again, someone, a certain Mr. Watson here, just makes the claim of reproachful-ness without himself providing sources. But note, @backNforth even this guy says the believers "gloried in it." Meaning, it's been in use for centuries without the body of believers having such a tempest in a teapot about it.

Only occurs as used by others of them, not by Christians of themselves. ...Bullinger

Already answered. The Early Church Fathers used it.

Tacitus (A.D. 96) says (Annals 15, 44), ‘The vulgar call them Christians. ... Bullinger

Already answered. It would seem that Bullinger was bad at Latin too. (E.W., not Heinrich)

"This name (Christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is never used by Christians of themselves," Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths

Sure it was used by Christians of themselves. Used and embraced by the Early Church Fathers. So... just another Protestant who cuts off his nose to spite his face (meaning ignoring Catholic sources).

probably in reproach, Easton’s Bible Dictionary.

Again, a claim without a source, just "probably" ... and probably not...

"... those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ." The Emperor Adrian to Servianus, written A.D. 134.

Well it's obvious that somebody was very confused here, and I wouldn't place much trust in such a confused person. It's just not wise. Serapis was a god from 300 BC or earlier. (You can go look it up!)

If you go to Zodhiates Word Studies, he tells you that when they were called Christians at Antioch, using the word ‘crematezo,’

Having met Mr. Zodhiates, I'm not sure if he was confused here, or you misunderstood what he was saying. "Crematezo" is a Verb that just means "to be called".

And once more, I provide a LINK to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for 'crematezo'

III. in later writers, from Plb. downwards, the Act. χρηματίζω takes some special senses:​

1. to take and bear a title or name, to be called or styled so and so,​

2. generally, to be called,​

So by the time of the first century, there was no association with an oracle for this verb at all.

Ya got any more?

Rhema

 

[B-A-C]

Why do Protestants always seem to ignore Catholic Church Fathers?

Because we do not believe them to be the church fathers.

 

[backNforth]

Methinks Mr. Richard Watson wasn't well versed in Latin.
Early Church Fathers used it.
Bullinger was bad at Latin.
I wouldn't place much trust in such a confused person. It's just not wise.
[...ad nauseum]

The gods punished Narcissus by making him fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. When Narcissus discovered that the object of his love could not love him back, he slowly pined away and died.

Well it's obvious that somebody was very confused here...

Must be just another lightweight.

Bottom line: Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians.
Even as today's lightweights may continue to "glory in it."

 

[Rhema]

Because we do not believe them to be the church fathers.

Well... where else did your Christianity come from?

But it's a specious argument. Luther considered them to be church fathers, and their testimony of history and the testimony of what they believed is still valid, whether you are in doctrinal agreement or not.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Bottom line: Christ never called himself a Christian,

Christ never called himself Jesus either.
(Or even Christ...)

The gods punished Narcissus

And there it is, your MO. Since you have nothing of substance to rebut ... ad hominem.

You do not disappoint.

Rhema

 

[backNforth]

[The gods punished Narcissus.] Since you have nothing of substance to rebut...

Of course it's not referring to the OP; it's referring to you.

Getting back to my posts concerning the OP, the facts remain the facts: Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians.

No rebuttals necessary. End of story.

Maybe try your "Catholic church fathers"? Or your "Serapis"? Or your beloved copyrighted NRSV based on the admitted heretics Westcott and Hort?

 

[Rhema]

Or your beloved copyrighted NRSV based on the admitted heretics Westcott and Hort?

(do you take Oolong with that tempest? )

 

[backNforth]

KingJ, where do you want to go with this thread?

 

[KingJ]

KingJ, where do you want to go with this thread?

I would like to continue on the topic of the OP .

You make some good points, but I feel they are derailing this thread. Let's discuss your topic in a new thread.

 

[th1bill]

Sorry, Bill Taylor, but that's incorrect.

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (v. 26)

Here's the question you need to ask yourself:

Who called them "Christians"???

And the answer is: It was unbelievers who first called followers of Christ, "Christians." It was a term of derision, applied by those without the Kingdom, to label those within the Kingdom. It's obvious from the passage that it wasn't the disciples calling themselves "Christian."


The OP ('Christians not knowing what a Christian is') would attempt, albeit naively, to give life to a dead thing. The title of the OP is presumptuous, misleading and keeps us weak.

You repost the scripture proving the early followers were called Christians, proving I have quoted existing proof and you then goad me, attempting to anger me? That neighbor, is child's play, even for one that os Trolling.

 

[Bill]

(do you take Oolong with that tempest? )

Well my friend trying to get a straight answer from backNforth, good luck with that. LOL

 

[backNforth]

Well my friend trying to get a straight answer from backNforth,

and

You repost the scripture proving the early followers were called Christians

Rather, I clearly proved they weren't. Anyone else (outside of the Backslapper's Club), reading the posted scriptural imperatives and proofs in this thread, would conclude likewise. That you haven't, might be something you should look into a bit deeper.

I would like to continue on the topic of the OP.

Take us back to exactly what's on your mind.

 

[th1bill]

and

Rather, I clearly proved they weren't. Anyone else (outside of the Backslapper's Club), reading the posted scriptural imperatives and proofs in this thread, would conclude likewise. That you haven't, might be something you should look into a bit deeper.


Take us back to exactly what's on your mind.

You are trolling

 

[backNforth]

Whatever, th1bill. Let's see if KingJ is still around.