RT's illegitimate language use

[Gabriel _Arch]

The Greek Χριστιανός (Christianos) means "follower of Christ".

Christ followed His own teachings.

He was thus the first Christian.

1 Peter 4:16
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Peter didn't consider the word a slur.

You misunderstand how the term Christian came about in Antioch.

Pagans intended it as a slur.

 

[covenantee]

You misunderstand how the term Christian came about in Antioch.

Pagans intended it as a slur.

Peter wasn't concerned about pagans or slurs.

 

[rwb]

You misunderstand how the term Christian came about in Antioch.

Pagans intended it as a slur.

Acts 11:19-26 (KJV) Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 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.

Ellicott's Bible Commentary for English Readers
Acts 11:26

Christian "In its form it was essentially Latin, after the pattern of the Pompeiani, Sullani, and other party-names; and so far it would seem to have grown out of the contact of the new society with the Romans stationed at Antioch, who, learning that its members acknowledged the Christos as their head, gave them the name of Christiani. In the Gospels, it is true, however (Mt 22:16, et al.), we find the analogous term of Herodiani, but there, also, we may legitimately trace the influence of Roman associations. As used in the New Testament, we note (1) that the disciples never use it of themselves. They keep to such terms as the "brethren" (Ac 15:1), and the "saints" (Ac 9:13), and "those of the way" (Ac 9:2). (2) That the hostile Jews use the more scornful term of "Nazarenes" (Ac 24:5). (3) That the term Christianus is used as a neutral and sufficiently respectful word by Agrippa in Ac 26:23, and at a somewhat later date, when it had obviously gained a wider currency, as that which brought with it the danger of suffering and persecution (1Pe 4:16). It was natural that a name first given by outsiders should soon be accepted by believers as a title in which to glory. Tradition ascribes its origin to Euodius, the first Bishop of Antioch (Bingham, Ant. II. i. § 4), and Ignatius, his successor, uses it frequently, and forms from it the hardly less important word of Christianismos, as opposed to Judaismos (Philadelph. c. 6), and as expressing the whole system of faith and life which we know as "Christianity." It may be worth while to note that another ecclesiastical term, hardly less important in the history of Christendom, seems also to have originated at Antioch, and that we may trace to it the name of Catholic as well as Christian (Ignatius, Smyrn. c. 8). We learn from Tertullian (Apol. c. 3) that the name was often wrongly pronounced as Chrestiani, and its meaning not understood. Even the name of Christos was pronounced and explained as Chrestos (= good). The Christians, on their side, accepted the mistake as a nomen et omen, an unconscious witness on the part of the heathen that they were good and worthy in their lives, that their Lord was "good and gracious (1Pe 2:3)."

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

Acts 11:19-26 (KJV) Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 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.

Ellicott's Bible Commentary for English Readers
Acts 11:26

Christian "In its form it was essentially Latin, after the pattern of the Pompeiani, Sullani, and other party-names; and so far it would seem to have grown out of the contact of the new society with the Romans stationed at Antioch, who, learning that its members acknowledged the Christos as their head, gave them the name of Christiani. In the Gospels, it is true, however (Mt 22:16, et al.), we find the analogous term of Herodiani, but there, also, we may legitimately trace the influence of Roman associations. As used in the New Testament, we note (1) that the disciples never use it of themselves. They keep to such terms as the "brethren" (Ac 15:1), and the "saints" (Ac 9:13), and "those of the way" (Ac 9:2). (2) That the hostile Jews use the more scornful term of "Nazarenes" (Ac 24:5). (3) That the term Christianus is used as a neutral and sufficiently respectful word by Agrippa in Ac 26:23, and at a somewhat later date, when it had obviously gained a wider currency, as that which brought with it the danger of suffering and persecution (1Pe 4:16). It was natural that a name first given by outsiders should soon be accepted by believers as a title in which to glory. Tradition ascribes its origin to Euodius, the first Bishop of Antioch (Bingham, Ant. II. i. § 4), and Ignatius, his successor, uses it frequently, and forms from it the hardly less important word of Christianismos, as opposed to Judaismos (Philadelph. c. 6), and as expressing the whole system of faith and life which we know as "Christianity." It may be worth while to note that another ecclesiastical term, hardly less important in the history of Christendom, seems also to have originated at Antioch, and that we may trace to it the name of Catholic as well as Christian (Ignatius, Smyrn. c. 8). We learn from Tertullian (Apol. c. 3) that the name was often wrongly pronounced as Chrestiani, and its meaning not understood. Even the name of Christos was pronounced and explained as Chrestos (= good). The Christians, on their side, accepted the mistake as a nomen et omen, an unconscious witness on the part of the heathen that they were good and worthy in their lives, that their Lord was "good and gracious (1Pe 2:3)."

You will notice in all of the New Testament the faithful in Christ never refer to themselves or others in their number as Christian.

 

[covenantee]

You will notice in all of the New Testament the faithful in Christ never refer to themselves or others in their number as Christian.

1 Peter 4:16

 

[rwb]

You will notice in all of the New Testament the faithful in Christ never refer to themselves or others in their number as Christian.

1 Peter 4:16 (KJV) Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

 

[rwb]

1 Peter 4:16

You beat me to it!

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

1 Peter 4:16 (KJV) Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Yes,thank you. That verse is to the point. Peter instructs the faithful not to be ashamed
if suffering under the name, Christian.

What is the meaning of the term Christian? | GotQuestions.org

What is the meaning of the term Christian? What is the origin of the word Christian? Was “Christian” originally a derogatory name?

www.gotquestions.org

Both the Bible and history suggest that the term Christian was probably meant as a mocking insult when it was first coined. Peter actually tells his readers not to be “ashamed” if they are called by that term (1 Peter 4:16). Likewise, when Herod Agrippa rejects Paul’s appeal to be saved, he says, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” and he was probably playing off of the negative reputation of that term (Acts 26:28). Why would he, a king, submit to the indignity of being called a “Christian”?

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

1 Peter 4:16

Yes,that's a reference Peter is making to the term, Christian. He is not referring to himself nor to those whom he has addressed as, Christian.

 

[rwb]

Yes,thank you. That verse is to the point. Peter instructs the faithful not to be ashamed
if suffering under the name, Christian.

What is the meaning of the term Christian? | GotQuestions.org

What is the meaning of the term Christian? What is the origin of the word Christian? Was “Christian” originally a derogatory name?

www.gotquestions.org

Both the Bible and history suggest that the term Christian was probably meant as a mocking insult when it was first coined. Peter actually tells his readers not to be “ashamed” if they are called by that term (1 Peter 4:16). Likewise, when Herod Agrippa rejects Paul’s appeal to be saved, he says, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” and he was probably playing off of the negative reputation of that term (Acts 26:28). Why would he, a king, submit to the indignity of being called a “Christian”?

Why would this matter? Since the name 'Christian' was readily accepted by the Church and early Church fathers. The commentary I gave spoke of King Agrippa using the term Christian as "That the term Christianus is used as a neutral and sufficiently respectful word by Agrippa in Ac 26:23, and at a somewhat later date, when it had obviously gained a wider currency, as that which brought with it the danger of suffering and persecution (1Pe 4:16)." It would seem there is not consensus in how the name Christian first came to be used. IMO it really doesn't matter, because as I've said the name was readily accepted by the Church in the first century AD.

 

[Zao is life]

We agree on a lot... but not on this bit:

Ther northern kingdom is not in diaspora. The northern kingdom was DESTROYED. Ezekiel envisions them as a field of dry bones. Hosea calls them "not a people" in the same breath he numbers them as the sand. The prophecies about this group DO include a gathering, but they first require a resurrection.

I agree with what you said so far, but your post above suggests that they were all killed in 725 B.C. Yet when Paul quotes Hosea's prophecy regarding them, he includes the Gentiles, and speaks as though the prophecy has been fulfilled:

Hosea:
"And when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and bore a son. And He said, Call his name Not-my-people. For you are not My people, and I will not be for you.
Yet the number of the sons of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered. And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, You are not My people, there it shall be said to them, You are the sons of the living God." -- Hosea 1:9-10

".. whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also of the nations? As He also says in Hosea, "I will call those not My people, My people; and those not beloved, Beloved. And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them. "You are not My people; there they shall be called sons of the living God." -- Romans 9:24-26.

The people Hosea was talking about - the 10 tribes of the Northern kingdom of Israel - ceased being a nation before God (Isaiah 7:8), and the overwhelming majority of them were not killed, but exiled in 725 B.C. They indeed became scattered among the nations, where their descendants have been intermarrying with Gentiles to this day - to the point where they cannot be traced anymore, and no one can trace his genetic ancestry back to one of those tribes (even if someone could, his ancestry will still be mixed).

So the resurrection you are speaking about (mentioned in Ezekiel) is the resurrection of the Gentiles in Christ who are considered "The house of Israel who had not received mercy, but now have received mercy", fulfilling the prophecy in Hosea 1:9-10.​

 

[Zao is life]

Just a new arrival observation here.

I am astonished ,especially given the times and conflict currently at hand in Israel, to find a community filled with so many boldly proud antisemites. And per their usual tactic,they defend their position and take umbrage at the antisemite label,while insisting they are still followers of the Jewish Jesus.

The accuser of the brethren hurling false accusations against them strikes through one of his mouthpieces yet again.

He can't do so himself in heaven before God anymore, so he roams around on earth seeking willing servants to do it for him.

 

[Zao is life]

Xtian - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

and this from Google:
Etymology. 1634, from Christianity, replacing Christ with the abbreviation Xt (from Ancient Greek Χ (Kh, the letter chi), the first letter of Χριστός (Khristós, “Christ”) + t, the last letter of "Christ").

Thank you for that correction by the way. Xitan and Xitian are really close.

 

[Zao is life]

The city of Samaria was carried away captive in 723. Sargon II commemorated the victory on a (still extant) stele, stating that he destroyed the city and the countryside, and took captive exactly 27,299 inhabitants.

Whoever didn't die was cut off from their people. Israel as a nation ceased to exist. That's the death of a nation.

How many survived in total is debatable IMO, but the descendants of all the survivors became scattered among the nations where their descendants have intermarried with Gentiles to this day. Hosea speaks about this group who had not received mercy, eventually receiving mercy, and Paul includes Gentiles in Christ in that promise (made in Hosea 1:9-10), where Paul speaks as though it has been fulfilled by Christ (Romans 9:24-26).

 

[JBO]

Only, I can't find where Jesus said that they would no longer be the chosen nation Israel. Can you point me to that place?

Romans 9 speaks to that directly. There Paul points out that the nation of Israel was chosen to serve God's purpose. He says there,
They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen (vv. 4,5)

That established God's purpose for the nation Israel. His point in doing that was to make the point that God can use whomever He wants to serve His purposes without any requirement to save them. The Judaizing Jews were trying to make the point that Israel as God's chosen nation was chosen for salvation. Paul said that was not true. That was his point in verses 20-24: But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

 

[Zao is life]

You will notice in all of the New Testament the faithful in Christ never refer to themselves or others in their number as Christian.

This post exposes the motive for the use of the abbreviation "Xitian".

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Can you please keep provocative language like "fairy tale" out of it? If you can't, I have no interest in discussions that lead to hostile rhetoric. Thank you.

I learned long ago it is not really worth talking this subject with him.

All he does is attack anyone who does not agree with him..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You will notice in all of the New Testament the faithful in Christ never refer to themselves or others in their number as Christian.

Amen,

Even God called them "the church" or the "churches"

 

[Wick Stick]

Again, I don't believe that definition of "Israel" fits the biblical record, and is being imposed upon it by a particular NT theology. "Israel" has always been all Israel, believing or not. It is well known that Israel has always been at different stages of development and at different proportions of faith.

For example, how much faith was in Israel from the time they approached the Red Sea? I would suppose that most of them lacked faith to escape the Egyptians? However, many survived and crossed over. Later, many in Israel were pruned because of the rebellious kind of unbelief, but many others who lacked faith persevered and were less rebellious.

So lacking faith did not delegitimize portions of Israel--they remained part of Israel. And even if the whole nation fell into rebellious faith and were cut off from the land, being put into exile, the children of those same rebels were restored to the promised land.

Disagree. I think a strong case can be made that the unbelieving/non-observant among Israel were "not Israel" from the beginning.

Look at Matthew 13. Jesus explains the kingdom as a field of wheat and tares, planted together. We tend to focus on the end of the story... at the harvest, they will be sorted. The wheat goes in the barn. The tares go in the fire.

But look at the beginning... the idea here is that Israel was planted as a mixed group. The enemy sowed tares at the same time the Lord sowed wheat.

In the same chapter, the kingdom is leaven hidden in flour. A treasure hidden in a field.

Look at 1st Kings 19 and Romans 11. Israel is already reckoned as a remnant, 7000 men who "have not bowed the knee to Baal," which exist, hidden, within the larger group of unfaithful. Paul says God hasn't abandoned Israel, and in the next breath he reckons Israel as that remnant.

Look at Deuteronomy 11. Here at the very beginning of Israel, Moses divides the people into two groups. He put them on two hills facing each other, and gave them blessings and curses - the blessings for the faithful and the curses for the unfaithful.

The case is that "Israel" was always a mixed group - the faithful children of Promise always existed alongside the reprobate. The former are truly Israel, the latter are a counterfeit Israel.

 

[Wick Stick]

How many survived in total is debatable IMO, but the descendants of all the survivors became scattered among the nations where their descendants have intermarried with Gentiles to this day. Hosea speaks about this group who had not received mercy, eventually receiving mercy, and Paul includes Gentiles in Christ in that promise (made in Hosea 1:9-10), where Paul speaks as though it has been fulfilled by Christ (Romans 9:24-26).

It HAS been fulfilled by Christ, but it isn't Abraham's physiological descendants who were returned.

Paternity and maternity are very different things in antiquity, and therefore within the Bible. Maternity has to do with the material of the creature - the flesh. Paternity has to do with the form imprinted on that material - the image to use the Biblical term. This is nature and nurture, clay being molded. God is reckoned as a Father because he stamps His image on man.

Likewise, Abraham is a patriarch. His children are not reckoned by the flesh/nature/maternity. They are reckoned according to the image/nurture/paternity, and that image is one of belief.

An important question throughout the history of the Jews is, "who is a Jew?" In Old Testament times, it was reckoned by patriarchy. Since the middle ages, it has been reckoned as a matriarchy. In Jesus day, this was a topic of debate. Jesus weighs in on this debate in John 8-10. His position is that we ought to ignore genealogies and instead look at behavior.

"Avoid foolish questions and genealogies."

"If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

"By their fruits ye shall know them."