Recently this blog received a comment that the word Christian was not in the Bible. After doing about a minute of research this morning, I found that the word is used to describe believers of Jesus. This has taught me a lesson. Always do your research. Never take someones word for it. The term was first used in Antioch. It is a Biblical term. Please remember that nothing in scripture says that a word has to be used in scripture for us to use that word to describe concepts of scripture. Trinity, purgatory and Catholic are just a few words that come to mind that aren’t in the Bible but the concepts are there.
The passages that use the word Christian are:
Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16
If you really do the research of the word, you will find that the word “Christian” comes from the Greek word, “Christos”. You must translate it in the Greek because the new testament was written in greek, and the word Christian is only found in the new testament. Also, i went a little deeper to find that it is used to “Describe/label” the follwers of Christ. The word “Christos” dates back to before the time of Christ where there was a CULT that was called “Christos” (in the Greek). Then, in Acts, King Agrippa said “almost, thou persuadest me to be a christian.” The apolsle Paul, when standing before him and a host of other dignitaries, doesn’t say i wish you were a christian, he says i would that all men would be as i am except without these chain. Paul, who was well educated and known as a Pharisee of Pharisees, refused to be “labeled” as a christian. Why?? Because it is not about being a christian, it is about having a relationship with Christ and being HIS disciple. Jesus didn’t call anyone to be a christian, not even in the bible, he told us to follow HIM, and be HIS disciple. Too many people are stuck on being christians, or like the definition, Christ-like. However, if you break the definition down, you will find that to be “Christ-like” denotes an equality between comparisons. So in essecense, you are telling the world that you are equal to Christ, which is why when you make a mistake (because the bible says ALL have sinned and fallen short) and give in to temptation, the worlds first and strongest remark is “Aren’t you suppose to be a christian??” You’ve been telling them that you are equal to Christ, except HE NEVER MESSED UP!!!! Well, i think it’s time we started trying to be “Like-Christ” instead of lying to the world telling them we are “Christ-like”. There’s a difference. If i am like Christ, HE is the the goal i am attempting to reach. If you just want to be called a Christian, then go for it, but PLEASE be mindful of what you are telling the WORLD. Me, I’ll continue to be the Lord Jesus Christs’ disciple, a follower of Jesus Christ.
Mr. Research,
Thank you for you post. I do think that it is misguided in your connections and are off base on the significance of what you are saying regarding the word Christian. The Greek word Christos simply means annointed. The word corresponds to the hebrew word for messiah which also means annointed. Your connections between the word and how other groups used it are insignificant and irrelevant. Here is Acts 11:26 in Greek and then the translation from a non Catholic source.
Acts 11:26 καὶ εὑρὼν ἤγαγεν εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν. ἐγένετο δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον συναχθῆναι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ διδάξαι ὄχλον ἱκανόν, χρηματίσαι τε πρώτως ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς Χριστιανούς.
When he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. It happened, that for a whole year they were gathered together with the assembly, and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Χριστιανούς is the Greek word that is translated as Christian. If you want to get into an argument because you don’t want to be called Christian be my guest.
In your interpretation of Acts 26:28-29 you are engaging in eisegesis. You are reading into Pauls words what you want to believe. He is not refuting being called a Christian, he is affirming being a Christian. You can read what you want into it but it clearly does not say what you want it to. He is exclaiming that he not only wishes Agrippa to be like him, a Christian, he wants all who listen to him to be like him(a Christian). Nice try though.
Where does it say that Paul refused to be called a Christian? It is not in the text. You are inserting your beliefs into the text when it clearly does not support it.
Then your argument completely falls apart with 1 Peter 4:16: Greek first then the English translation;
1 Peter 4:16 εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ.
But if one of you suffers for being a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this matter.
Χριστιανός is also translated as Christain. I am not a expert in greek, but now we have 2 related words that are translated as Christian.
Are you ashamed of being a Christian? Peter indicates that any suffering for being a Christian should be used to glorify God. Amazing! This totally obliterates your theory that somehow the word Christian should be taken as a negative. This is what happens when people are left to their own pride filled devices and try to interpret the Bible contrary to the teachings of the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Let us just ignore 2000 years of time tested teaching and think that we know more than what the Church has continually taught and died for. I am sure you think the word Catholic is even worse than the word Christian!
I am proud to be called a Catholic Christian. I am a follower of Christ and hope to become more Christ like everyday through the grace of God.
Cheers,
Chris
Thank you for the great explanation for Christian. Part I knew but some I did not. I go to Beracha Church in Houston, Tx and my pastor teacher translates the bible from the original languages and does our lessons line by line.
I am glad to hear that someone else is here to explain to others that, that is the way to know what was actually said.
Again keep up the good work and May God bless you.
shirley
Shirley,
Thanks for the kind words.
God bless
Chris
interesting article:
http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/christian.html
Responder,
This is nothing new. If people are so offended that a Greek word is used to describe followers of Jesus rather than a Hebrew word, then why don’t you all start speaking Hebrew, translate your Bible into Hebrew and go about your business.
The fact is that Greek was the predominate language in that part of the world at the time and the target audience would understand the Greek moreso than Hebrew or Aramaic. A word that is used by Pagans does not indict that word if it is used for “Christian” purposes. The logic used to come to the conclusion of this article is ridiculous.
If the definition of the word used by those who use is understood to mean anointed and the word messiah generally is understood as meaning annointed then there is no real problem. Language is just that… language. It has nothing to do with salvation and translating scripture into other languages so people can understand it easily is not problematic.
Get over it.
To All,
First I would like to clarify that to my understanding the use of the word “Christian” as used in the NT was a reference placed upon believers by those who were unbelievers and in general it had a negative connotation as it was indeed a word that was referred to as representing a cult and contrary to the Jewish religion. Our Lord himself was thought to be a cult/sect leader by the religous leaders.
Yes the word “may have” been used in another context but there is no reason it would have been in that time due to the culture. For instance, I would not define myself as “gay” when I am “happy” because of it’s accepted meaning in our culture and it would not be interpreted as “happy” but rather homosexual.
Where it is said “if you suffer as a Christian” this indicates that they received persecution due to this identity placed upon them. That is why it is directly used in referrence to persecution, which was the result of how they were viewed culturally.
It does not appear that the term is one in which the believers themselves identified with personally. The key is in looking at how and where the word was previously used, as well as this usage, and the context in which it was used in all three cases.
That aside, I do not have any real problems with its usage and I do call myself a Christian. I think the issues some folks have with the word Christian is that it seems everyone is trying to “define” what a “true Christian” is.
In the process, we are seeing a lot of “holier than thou” attitudes and attempts to undermine other people’s 1) salvation, 2) spiritual walk, and 3) the work that Christ himself performed and that no man can duplicate through works or lifestyle.
So in this respect I think it is important to keep in mind that the word itself is not Biblically defined.
Other than that I see no problem with the word and it does help in explaining one’s beliefs to others since culturally it is now widely accepted as a personal identity of faith in Christ(something that did not happen until many centuries after the NT was written).
I think the real problem is when the word is not used as an identity of faith (salvation through grace) but rather works of the flesh.
Kristine,
Thanks for the comment. The word that is used to describe Jesus is Christ or the annointed. This is the same word root that is used to describe Christians or followers of Christ.
1 Peter 4:13-16 just isn’t saying what you are trying to make it say. I believe you are engaging in eisegesis with your interpretation of this passage.
Peter is clearly saying that if you are insulted or persecuted in the name of Christ(Jesus) or as a Christian, you should not be ashamed but use it to glorify God.
Even if the word “Christian” was never used in the Bible that would not necessarily mean that the word was not used to describe the followers of Christ or Christians.
Christians suffered and were persecuted exactly because they were Christians and they ruffled many feathers in the first centuries. They refused to worship the emperorer and they died for their faith. They weren’t persecuted because of the name, they were persecuted for who they were.
I do want to use an example from the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians which was written in the first century before some of the books of the Bible were written. This book was considered scripture by some in the early Church. Here we can clearly see that Christian was a term used by Christians to describe themselves. This was in the first century not centuries later.
—————————————————————————-
For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in His faith, neither walks in the ordinances of His appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world.
but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God — how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him — how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. For He is a Searcher of the thoughts and desires [of the heart]: His breath is in us; and when He pleases, He will take it away.
ake up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.
—————————————————————————-
I do think that when we argue over a word we are not doing any service as believers of Jesus Christ. I do think that the truth must be told though when it comes to error.
Once again thanks for the post. I do think that we may have a few other topics that we may not agree but as long as it is done in charity I have no problem discussing them.
God Bless
Chris
Hi Chris,
It is certainly not my intention to argue over a word for no reason or to create controversy or to play semantics. I believe there is an important reason that this word be understood from a biblical perspective.
Obviously we have coined numerous words and phrases used to describe our belief systems that are not necessarily used biblically, but if they serve the purpose and do not contradict scripture all is well and good.
I will stand on my views of what I stated concerning use of this word biblically and I believe it is an accurate statement based on scriptural usage as well as the generally accepted usage of the word during the time the epistles were “originally” written and what was going on culturally as the translations came about. The key word here is “originally” written since they were translated over and over as the pagan Greek culture became incorporated into the Hebrew and it is believed that is where the word crept into the manuscripts
There is obviously controversy concerning this word, but it is believed this word was not used in the original manuscripts. I am not a theologian and so I will not go there at this time and I only speak and read English. There are studies by individuals who know more on this topic than you or I. They have an in-depth knowledge of the language, cultures (Jewish and Greek), process of translations, and who make a lot of sense regarding use of this word.
As for the epistles of Clement, when they were written, how they were edited (which they were) and translated etc., I do not have an in-depth knowledge of. My concern is not so much whether the word Christian is used biblically but how and why. And some will disagree with your comment on Peter’s usage. When it comes to biblical matters I do not consider popular belief or longevity of a belief based on translations a “guarantee” for accuracy.
I won’t restate the things I said in my last comment, but along those lines I believe the writers of the biblical epistles REALLY defined believers of that time as either “born again” or as “followers” rather than Christians.
Here is where importance of the use of this word is vital. There is dissension among the ranks as to what defines a “true Christian” based on 1) what it means to be saved, 2) whether salvation can be lost, and 3) that it refers to placing oneself as an equal to Christ.
Some people believe you can be saved (have eternal life) and not good perform works and produce fruit faithfully, or even significantly. Others believe if you do not significantly and faithfully perform good works and produce fruit you cannot possible really be saved. Some believe once saved you can never lose it no matter what you’re failures or sins are. Some believe you can be saved but not be an active “follower” of Christ in the sense that you are not walking the walk. Some believe that once saved you can lose salvation though living a sinful lifestyle. Yet others believe we are to be Christ-like and that the term Christian is a vain and prideful attempt to equalize ourselves with Christ (perfect) rather than someone who is still imperfect yet spiritually redeemed.
I don’t know if that made any sense to you at all but in my opinion it is very important to understand the biblical intent and usage of this word. I will not attempt to address the issues I stated above about salvation, I am just giving an example of the varying opinions surrounding the term “Christian” and explaining why it is important to understand how the word became used in scripture.
Hi,
I randomly stumbled across this post while doing some research on this very topic. I’ve written a post on my personal blog about why I think it is important to understand how and why the term “Christian” was used, among a few other things. Check it out and let me know your thoughts….I think there are some really important things that are resting upon our usage of terms/adjectives like Christian. Here’s the address…
elliottpm.blogspot.com
Thanks
Peter,
Thanks for the comment. I really think that what you propose in your blog is unreallistic. Instead of letting words divide us we should really do as the Bible commands and not let words divide us. Essentially do not argue over words. The problem I see here is that people have cut themselves off from the Sacred Tradition that has established what these words and concepts meant and why they have been used for 2000 years.
If the word “Christian” was meant as a deragotory term early on…..so what? So was the cross but the cross was turned around and used as a symbol that glorifies Jesus Christ and his salvific work. The word Christian also can be used in this way. The word means what it means. We are followers of Jesus Christ. I will go one step further the word Catholic was used early on to describe the union of the Church of Jesus Christ which is the universal Church. People divide not words.
God Bless
Christopher
You guys have many different beliefs about the word Christian. I’ve read just about everyone’s view on the term. The reason I’m even researching it is because I’ve been taught that the word has a negative association to it in relation to its original meaning. So I’m studying to find the true meaning behind this word. I ran across some info from another website will research that I’ll paste on here for you guys to read… I thought i was pretty interesting. I am in no way associating any agreement to any information presented by the website in which I’ll paste or by the arguments presented on this site because they seem too shallow. Everyone is basically claiming not to be scholars… Okay that’s fine and great but I think this topic does deserve proper attention for truth sake. Denying all previous beliefs and person perspectives about the word and getting a fresh understanding either proving or disproving its validity. This is something I intend on doing because Ignorance and Passivity causes lack and confusion. I think that everyone made some really good points on the plus and negative side of the word Christian. I CALL MYSELF A SON OF GOD not as equal to his son Yashua, but as a joint heir to the thrown. reckoning him as my Father. WONDERFUL JOB PEOPLE…
“pasted article”
THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD “CHRISTIAN”
The historical records about Marcion’s contact with Gnostics is very meager. We learn that Marcion is a Gnostic not only by the testimony of the Early Church Fathers that opposed his religious beliefs but from the collection of documents that originally comprised the First New Testament.
According to a reasonable interpretation of the chronological evidence, Polycarp (while a bishop of Smyrna) was writing in AD 115 about the extensiveness of Marcion’s teachings in Asia Minor (Pol. Phil. 2:18,19). What we fail to realize is the extensiveness of Marcion’s religious beliefs as shared with other believers who constituted the “first” Christians. The “first” Christians were Gnostic Christians and not of the later “Western Christianity”.
About the year AD 138, Justin Martyr (a resident of Rome) wrote about Marcion’s unusually long and effective teaching career. Understand that the polemics of the Early Church Fathers are often harsh and untrue regarding those that they attacked as being “heretics”. That being said we need to listen closely to what is said by Justin Martyr in and around 150 C.E. Justin is known as the first Christian apologist, called also Justin the Philosopher. Born in Samaria of pagan parents, he studied philosophy, and after his conversion in Ephesus to Christianity at about the age of 38, he went from place to place trying to convert men of learning by philosophical argument. He opened a school of Christian philosophy at Rome, where he and some disciples were finally martyred under Marcus Aurelius for practicing an unauthorized religion. Of his writings (in Greek), only two undisputed works remain, the Apology (with an appendix called the Second Apology) and the Dialogue.
Now let us listen very carefully to what Justin has to say.
“And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take these opinions from these men are, as we before said, called Christian” (Justin’s [First] Apology. I.26. ANF. vol. 1. p. 171). The reason for dating this statement to the year AD 138 is discoverable in Blackman’s study (Marcion and His Influence,. p. 21).
What you should take notice of is not that Justin had an extreme dislike for those that did not agree with his religious belief system but the fact that those who revered Marcion and were like Gnostic believers in “the Christ” were recognized as early as 140 C.E. as “Christians” even by their opponents. What we have here is an “in-house” debate and disagreement on just who this “Christ” really is. We call this Christology today.
One of the most startling things in Justin’s unfavorable review of Marcion is the surprising appearance of the word “Christians” as a commonly used title to describe the members of Marcionite churches. By AD 138, Marcionites could be found in “every nation.”
THE CHRISTIAN “CHRIST” OR “CHRESTOS”?
At this early time, there is some confusion about the correct spelling for “Christian.” It is known that Marcion preferred to call Jesus the “Chrestos” (which means the Kind or Helpful One). The spelling for “Chrestos” (the Good one) is derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue (Daniel Jon Mahar, English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion’s version of To The Galatians, p. 1).
Let us take note of the fact that those “orthodox” believers who were more allied with the Roman Ecclesia and who were opposed to Gnostic Christianity were already at this time proudly bearing the title “Catholic.” By the time when The Acts of the Apostles was formally published about the middle of the Second Century, the word “Christian” had become very popular as a designation for believers in Jesus. Because of this, there was needed some kind of explanation about its origin.
We are all familiar with the word “Christian” but it will surprise you to know that this is not the designation by which the earliest believers in “the Christ” were know:
Not many know that the Sinaiticus manuscript has a peculiar way of spelling the word Christian. Everywhere this title appears, that Fourth Century manuscript spells it “Chrestian”.
Vaticanus, a manuscript of the same age, utilizes a slightly transitional spelling “Chresistian”.
This surely is strong evidence about Marcion’s real role. Not only is Marcion’s original spelling for “Christian” still evident in such important manuscripts, this also indicates directly the strength and extent of Marcionite effects on the entire Christian community, including its scholars; even as late as the fourth century!!!
There is still some bifurcation between the words “Catholic” and “Christian” today.
LET HISTORY SPEAK TO US AND LET US LISTEN CAREFULLY
In AD 49, Rome experienced disturbances in the Jewish community that had been provoked by the preaching of “Chrestus” (based on the account of Suetonius in J. Steven’s New Eusebius. no. 2, p. 1).
Acts 18:2 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. (KJV)
It seems notable at this time (C.E. 49) that “Jews” in general were expelled, and not simply followers of “Chrestus” or “Chrestians.”
Answer for yourself: Why is this important and what should we learn from this?
The reason why all the Jews were expelled from Rome at this very early date is that the Roman authorities did not or could not clearly differentiate between the Christians and the Jews (Wilson, Marcion… p. 25). It was over disturbances involving this “Chrestus” that Rome expelled them from the city. Notice how early this is; we are talking about 49 C.E. and the existence of “Chrestus” as this early date. If we can come to understand just who or what “Chrestus” refers to at this early date then we will have an accurate picture of what these Jews or earliest believers actually had “faith in” that prompted Rome to rid themselves of them. The presence of the Gentile title “Chrestus” in Rome implies also the presence of an accompanying Gentile-oriented religious belief as well. So we are actually looking at both Jews and Gentiles who had a faith concerning “Chrestus”.
Nobody knows how the Church of Rome was established. Neither the Book of Acts nor the writings of the early Fathers explain how Christianity arrived in Rome. As has been discovered, Suetonius, the Roman historian, mentions the expulsion of followers of Chrestus from Rome, during the time of Emperor Claudius c. AD 40-50. This indicates that a flourishing Christian community existed in Rome, even before Paul went to Corinth or Ephesus in AD 49. By the time of Nero (AD 54-68), the Christian community in Rome was already of a considerable size.
Answer for yourself: How did Christianity reach Rome at that very early date and before Paul? Could this “Christianity” we see be something other than what we have come to understand Christianity today? You bet it was. Long before Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles ever went to Rome we find there in that city a belief in “Chrestus” and the Divine Logos within each person which unites him with God. What we find here is that we have in fact Jewish and Gentile Gnosticism instead of a historical Jesus as a form of the later expression of Christianity in Rome which transforms this spiritual ”
Christ” into a historical Christ as previously seen in the Second New Testament. This is further testimony that the earliest expression of what we call “Christianity” was not a faith in a historical Jesus or a historical Christ but one in the Spiritual Mediation of the “Chrestus”. This Gnostic faith held in common a belief that within all men dwelled God’s Spirit whom they called “Chrestus”. We call it “the Christ” today. But understand back then they did not see nor understand this “Chrestus” to be a human being as we have come to understand it today.
In Vaticanus and Sinaiticus it is not possible to discover how Jesus’ main title (Christ) was spelled. A scribal device called “nomina sacra” was employed as a emphatic technique to highlight special words. The highlighted words were shortened. Because of this, the scribes left out the main vowel every time. Most Greek editions restore the vowel as an iota (“i”).
By making a back formation from the Sinaiticus’ “Chrestian,” the word “Chrestos” appears as the proper title for belief in Jesus. Through this logical method, it can be reasonably argued that Jesus’ normal title should be fully spelled “Chrestos” throughout Sinaiticus.
Besides the two oldest Greek New Testaments from the Fourth Century, and in addition to the oldest dated church inscription (C.E. 318), there is an abundance of ancient testimony that shows that the title “Chrestus” for Jesus was very popular among “common” Christians.
As if we don’t have enough testimony already to see without a doubt that the earliest Jewish and Gentile believers had a faith in “Chrestus” we only have to look at the two titles “Chrestus” or “Chrestian” which we find also recorded in the following written sources:
Tertullian (C.E. 210), The Eighth Sibyl (C.E. 200)
Theophilos of Antioch (C.E. 170)
Marcus (C.E. 145) Apocalypse of Elijah (AD 100),
Suetonius (AD 124) and
Tacitus (AD 116).
There is even a disputed inscription (now lost) from Pompei (AD 79) that is believed to have contained a reference to this lost title of Jesus.
The ruling theologians of orthodoxy denounced the spelling “Chrestus” as based on ignorance. Lactantius (AD 310) said: “The ignorant are accustomed to call Him ‘Chrestus’” (ANF. Vol. 7, p. 106).
Answer for yourself: But was it just ignorance or could “Chrestus” have a special meaning that we are overlooking?
Let us now take note that the Gnostic Marcion, who as typical Gnostic believers did not believe in a human Christ but a Docetic Christ, used the term “Chrestus” in the oldest New Testament which he collected and produced.
The theological reason for the Orthodox scribes carefully and stealthily introducing the word “Christ” as Jesus’ main title for “Chrestus” is explainable for several different reasons:
First they were obscuring the fact that the earliest believers in the “Chrestus” understood this as a Divine religious concept only and not as a human being.
Secondarily we look to the etymology of the word “Christ”. “Christ” in Greek means “anointed” (or royal). This meaning matches that of the Hebrew word “Messiah.” The Church Fathers preferred their understanding of this Divine Mediator designated by them as the historical Jesus to be known as Israel’s coming King. The Jews of course reject this concept and view and maintain even today that the true Hebrew Scriptures have not been fulfilled and they yet await the coming of a human anointed Messiah from the line of David.
Paul put his Gnostic Christ Jesus in the forefront of his preaching, and they [the early Gentile churches] can hardly have done otherwise. It is no accident, indeed, that over time the true understanding of this Divine Mediator as a Divine Concept as the indwelling Logos as held and taught by the earliest Jewish and Gentile believers to whom we look as the earliest Christians were really “Chrestus-ians” instead. They held completely opposite views concerning this Divine Mediator between God and man than what the later “orthodox” Roman Christians would hold as seen when they changed the name of “Chrestus” to “Christ” and in so doing changed the Gnostic “Christ” into a human being whom is known today as “the Christ” and not “Chrestus”. We lose completely by changing this name the original concepts of the Logos, Sophia, Hochmah, Holy Spirit, etc. Again over time and the manipulation of the words “Chrestus” and “Christ” the adherents of the new faith were now called and recognized as Christians” (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, The God of the Early Christians, p. 44).
Marcus
With all due respect, I do realize that you don’t necessarily believe all these cut and paste articles are full of speculation and really do not answer any questions. The early Christians were not Gnostic, this can be easily disproved by reviewing the early sources. In the next week or so I will review what you have written and respond in more detail.
NOWHERE in the Scriptures will you find Yahweh
or the Messiah refer to HIS children as being
Christians. HE calls them Israel, always has, always will.
You are either Israelite or a righteous Gentile. I can go
deeper and explain further, but I wont argue with
anyone on this issue.
Words are just that, and what really counts is the meaning behind the words or “what the words” mean. Etymology or the history of words is important, but it’s just a “history” more or less, and I know some words were chosen to have a certain meaning, often using pre-existing words or a combination of pre-existing words based on their meaning. Jesus is widly known and spoken of as both Christ and Jesus Christ and there is no difference between the two, at least to me. The argument discussed above, is not unlike saying should we call him “Jesus” (his birth name) or should we call him (the more formal/public name of) “Mesiah”, and then what to call the believers.