Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
B. Lee Ver

Acts 11:26

Recommended Posts

Acts 11:26---And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. -----Why the word "Christian" became the popular title to all believers of the Gospel even though the pagans in Antioch first attached that title to the disciples? Plus the religion of "Christianity" started by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 Council of Nicea and became the Empire's religion. Why not be scriptural and adopt "believers" of the Gospel, according to (red letters) John 3:16 "whosoever believes in HIM"-----(red letters)Mark 16:16 "he who believes and is baptized will be saved". That is "abiding to the "doctrine of Christ", according to 2 John 1:9 and John 3:5-7...…"born again believer".

Edited by B. Lee Ver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
31 minutes ago, B. Lee Ver said:

Why the word "Christian" became the popular title to all believers of the Gospel even though the pagans in Antioch first attached that title to the disciples?

I'm sure you can research the historical accuracy (extra-biblical) of what I'm about to suggest. The place where Christians were first named was notorious for mocking others. Christian wasn't an honorable name but a derogatory one which over time Christians embraced and tried to make good on. I think Lutheran, Calvinist etc were all derogatory at first, just as Protestants refer to Catholics as those blasted papist.

 

Scripture kinda indicates this practice even before Antioch. For example, I think it is doubtful that Abigail's husband was actually name Nabel (the fool) by his parents. It was probably a nickname he was given and one that he lived up to 1 Samuel 25:1-44.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B. Lee Ver said:

Acts 11:26---And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. -----Why the word "Christian" became the popular title to all believers of the Gospel even though the pagans in Antioch first attached that title to the disciples? 

 It means that the first Christians were "Christ-worshipers."

Joseph Thayer: The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus by the Gentiles (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Christianos). 
http://biblehub.com/greek/5546.htm

 

 Sometimes a word or expression used negatively can turn into a badge of honor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Doodle

 

Edit: Remember also that Peter (one of the very first Christians) approvingly described believers as such in 1 Peter 4:16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's derogatory one,no need for me to research, I believe you,--- then the more we all need to "change" according to Jesus Christ and HIS CHURCH written doctrine. Christian religion in the past was to "conquer and destroy men's lives if not genocides of the entire native groups like the Mayans, Aztecs, and islands of the world wherever their "galleons carrying the cross symbols", conquering and put into submission the helpless natives of those islands and continents. Their evil deeds contrary to Jesus "pacifist" teachings...(Luke 9:54-56) the disciples said, Lord do you want us to command fire from heaven to consume them?,But Jesus said, "for the son of man didn't come to destroy men's lives but to save them".-----If you also google the history of "Christianity" it's not "holy cross".-----remember the thief's title?.....he comes but to kill, steal and destroy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
17 minutes ago, B. Lee Ver said:

If it's derogatory one,no need for me to research, I believe you,--- then the more we all need to "change" according to Jesus Christ and HIS CHURCH written doctrine. Christian religion in the past was to "conquer and destroy men's lives if not genocides of the entire native groups like the Mayans, Aztecs, and islands of the world wherever their "galleons carrying the cross symbols", conquering and put into submission the helpless natives of those islands and continents. Their evil deeds contrary to Jesus "pacifist" teachings...(Luke 9:54-56) the disciples said, Lord do you want us to command fire from heaven to consume them?,But Jesus said, "for the son of man didn't come to destroy men's lives but to save them".-----If you also google the history of "Christianity" it's not "holy cross".-----remember the thief's title?.....he comes but to kill, steal and destroy.

No doubt atrocities were committed in Christ's name. However, before playing the victim card weren't around 50 thousand plus men, women, and children sacrificed by Azetecs only a few years before Christians settled America? 

 

And I do not believe Jesus was a pacifist and I can contend that pacifism is an actual sin that violates the Law. 

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faber: 1 Peter 4:16 in Hebrew bible says "ma'aming b'Moshiach" (believer in Moshiach)…..definitely the "Christian is just a modern revision" from those English translations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, William said:

No doubt atrocities were committed in Christ's name. However, before playing the victim card weren't around 50 thousand plus men, women, and children sacrificed by Azetecs only a few years before Christians settled America? 

 

And I do not believe Jesus was a pacifist and I can contend that pacifism is an actual sin that violates the Law. 

 

God bless,

William

Yes, it's true that Aztecs sacrificed 50K plus "BUT" they're not carrying the Cross nor representing Jesus Christ. I quoted Luke 9:56 "those words came from Jesus own lips/mouth, "didn't come to destroy men's lives and also told Peter to put your sword back, when he cut the ears of the soldier. We are not in the old testament law anymore, no where in the "doctrine of Christ that he taught for 3 1/2 years" advocate killing nor destroying men's lives. Actually  scriptures said, "we are not fighting against flesh and blood" but principalities and power of darkness".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go to the Greek! The English word "Christian" is accurate from the Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos).

 

3 minutes ago, B. Lee Ver said:

they're not carrying the Cross nor representing Jesus Christ. 

 I don't think they were representing Christ for He spoke of wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15; cf. 1 John 3:15).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faber said:

 It means that the first Christians were "Christ-worshipers."

Joseph Thayer: The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus by the Gentiles (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Christianos). 
http://biblehub.com/greek/5546.htm

 

 Sometimes a word or expression used negatively can turn into a badge of honor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Doodle

 

Edit: Remember also that Peter (one of the very first Christians) approvingly described believers as such in 1 Peter 4:16.

Hebrew bible didn't wrote "Christians" but "ma'aming b' Moshiach (believer in Moshiach)-------all English bible revisions translated those Hebrew word to Christian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
10 minutes ago, B. Lee Ver said:

Yes, it's true that Aztecs sacrificed 50K plus "BUT" they're not carrying the Cross nor representing Jesus Christ. 

Just want to establish a point first, were natives committing conquer and conquest when warring with other tribes? Because I really dislike the victim card, especially when applied to hypocrites that lose when they engage in the same activities.

 

And on the topic of Pacificism, you haven't asked me a question, but is the role of government to refrain from wielding the sword? 

 

If you say yes then I'm questioning your biblical understanding of the role of government. And if you say no then I'm establishing that taking of life can be justified. The question then is whether a Christian may fill a goverment role or office which requires taking life? If taking life may be justified then I'd question whether this is a duty which applies to Christians or whether they are prone and dependent on secular goverment?

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Faber said:

The New Testament was originally written in Greek.

Luke the possible original author of Acts was not Greek citizen nor can write in Greek but just original Hebrew, all 12 Hebrew disciples of YESHUA.Hebrew translated in Greek!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
4 minutes ago, B. Lee Ver said:

Luke the possible original author of Acts was not Greek citizen nor can write in Greek but just original Hebrew, all 12 Hebrew disciples of YESHUA.Hebrew translated in Greek!

Please provide your sources and/or references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, William said:

Just want to establish a point first, were natives committing conquer and conquest when warring with other tribes? Because I really dislike the victim card, especially when applied to hypocrites that lose when they engage in the same activities.

 

And on the topic of Pacificism, you haven't asked me a question, but is the role of government to refrain from wielding the sword? 

 

If you say yes then I'm questioning your biblical understanding of the role of government. And if you say no then I'm establishing that taking of life can be justified. The question then is whether a Christian may fill a goverment role or office which requires taking life? If taking life may be justified then I'd question whether this is a duty which applies to Christians or whether they are prone and dependent on secular goverment?

Forget about "human government role" I'm now an ex-military , my previous human company Commander orders was kill or be killed....Now I;m now a member of the Lord's Army, we are not fighting against flesh and blood, my spirit is different from those old testament disciples who wanted to call fire from heaven....the marching order from my new testament Commander in CHIEF is-----don't kill, steal or destroy men's lives period...be a martyr if I must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
2 minutes ago, B. Lee Ver said:

Forget about "human government role" I'm now an ex-military , my previous human company Commander orders was kill or be killed....Now I;m now a member of the Lord's Army, we are not fighting against flesh and blood, my spirit is different from those old testament disciples who wanted to call fire from heaven....the marching order from my new testament Commander in CHIEF is-----don't kill, steal or destroy men's lives period...be a martyr if I must.

Yes, let's ignore the Scriptures and think our neglect of duty and cowardice behavior is worthy of martyrdom. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Toast 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, William said:

Please provide your sources and/or references.

Taken from notes,title,author,date,sources,purpose acts and epistles, theological message from the beginning of Acts from KJV bible.

3 minutes ago, William said:

Yes, let's ignore the Scriptures and think our neglect of duty and cowardice behavior is worthy of martyrdom

 

Either you or me is in direct disobedience from the COMMANDER IN CHIEF , THE LORD OF HOST....in OBEDIENCE here.

Edited by B. Lee Ver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
10 minutes ago, B. Lee Ver said:

Taken from notes,title,author,date,sources,purpose acts and epistles, theological message from the beginning of Acts from KJV bible.

Yup, the KJV notes are a great source of Pacifism and demonstrate ulterior motives by a monarchy.

 

On the subject of the New Testament being written in Hebrew your source and references are so vaguely given that nobody can take that seriously. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, William said:

Yup, the KJV notes are a great source of ulterior motives by a monarchy.

 

On the subject of the New Testament being written in Hebrew your source and references are so vaguely given that nobody can take that seriously. 

Tell me, What nationalities those original 12 disciples of Jesus are? They got recruited from Galillee or near Jerusalem ,I believed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, B. Lee Ver said:

Luke the possible original author of Acts was not Greek citizen nor can write in Greek 

 Then why was the Gospel of Luke originally written in Greek as well?

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Faber said:

 Then why was the Gospel of Luke originally written in Greek as well?

Then Luke the disciple , a Jew didn't wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Greek Author "possibly not accurate " his translation of the "hearsay". So if all new testament were all written in Greek, then it's all , "HEARSAY" or second hand version, maybe that's why there's around 40K different Christian denominations world wide, 1500 in the USA alone!

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

How quick they make themselves known 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Becky said:

How quick they make themselves known 

 Well, I guess we know more abut what this person believes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Faber said:

 Well, I guess we know more abut what this person believes.

How about step by step beliefs? Starting Mark 16:15-18, 1 Cor. 15:1-4 John 3: 3-5 , Acts 2:38 and lastly 2 John 1:8,9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B. Lee Ver said:

Why the word "Christian" became the popular title to all believers of the Gospel even though the pagans in Antioch first attached that title to the disciples?

Why do any names stick? They gain acceptance because they are readily associated with what they describe. Any name can be used contemptuously by those who are opposed to or prejudiced against a particular person or group for any number of reasons. eg.Victorian to accuse of prudishness, or simply to refer to things pertaining to the reign of Queen Victoria. It's all in the perception. 

  • Toast 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Becky said:

How quick they make themselves known 

I'll back up all my answers with scriptures to be safe from doctrinal errors, the devil is very good also of reading the bible, that's why he managed to divide the CHURCH to 50K different groups and different theologies world wide, I will stick to 2 John 1:9 "the doctrine of Christ" for me to have the FATHER and the Son...…...My first 2 beliefs.  1 Cor. 15:1-4 and Mark 16:15-18, do you see anything wrong with them?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...