- CHRISTIAN ...Sound about right
SW
By what name should Christ's followers be known?
by The Searcher 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Sayswho
-
Bobcat
The controversy, if you can call it that, about the name "Christian" revovles around the verb rendered, "were by divine providence called" in the NWT. Most translations render it, "were called," "were . . . given," "were named."
Concerning that verb and the name "Christians," Barnes Notes on the Bible (copied from e-Sword) says:
And the disciples were called Christians ... - As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name "Christian" there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act 2:7, or as Nazarenes Act 24:5, "And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It occurs but twice elsewhere: Act 26:28, "Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian"; 1Pe 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed." No certain argument can be drawn in regard to the source of the name from the word which is used here.
The word used here, and translated "were called" - χρηματι´ζω chrematizo - means: (1) To transact any business; to be employed in accomplishing anything, etc. This is its usual signification in the Greek writers. (2) to be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25.(3) to be named, or called, in any way, without a divine communication, Rom 7:3, "She shall be called an adulteress." It cannot be denied, however, that the most usual signification in the New Testament is that of a divine monition, or communication; and it is certainly possible that the name was given by Barnabas and Saul. I recline to the opinion, however, that it was given to them by the Gentiles who were there, simply as an appellation, without intending it as a name of reproach; and that it was readily assumed by the disciples as a name that would fitly designate them. If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to this effect; not simply that they "were called," but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles. It is, however, of little consequence whence the name originated. It soon became a name of reproach, and has usually been in all ages since, by the wicked, the frivolous, the licentious, and the ungodly.
So was it simply an appellation from outsiders or by "divine providence"? Fact is, it could have been both. The reasoning Barnes uses above is sound and similar to what other commentaries generally use - except for the WT.
The Society's commentary on Acts simply says, "It was first in Antioch that "the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." (Acts 11:26b) That God-approved name aptly describes those whose way of life is modeled on that of Christ." (bt chap.9 p.74 par.22)
Regardless of the origin, what is really interesting with regard to the Society is that this first happened in Antioch, far away from the direction of any so-called Governing Body. Even if it were Paul and Barnabas that coined the name, how dare they act without consulting the GB in Jerusalem! I can see why the Society's commentary on Acts makes short mention of it and moves on.
The term "Jehovah's Witnesses," regardless of any claim of Biblical backing, serves more as a trademark. And the baptism questions link the budding disciple with that trademark, rather than with "Christian," which the Society can't trademark. And DFing is from that trademark, as the Society can't DF someone from Christianity, since they don't own the name.
Take Care (and greetings Searcher!)
-
Band on the Run
I can't agree with the commentary. The Greek Christian notion, what Stephen proclaims at the Temple in Acts, that Jesus is the Messiah would have been anaethema of Jews. Stephen received their reply, too. Since Stephen and his companions have Greek, not Hebrew names, it sounds as though Greek idea of Jesus being the Messiah and God made their way to Jersualem. If I recall correctly, Jesus is never clear whether he is the Messiah. In any event, the gospels were written after a formal theology evolved and not at the time. My belief is that the stoning had to do with hints that Jesus is the Messiah is God.
When you read wikipedia, Judaism has produced a plethora of Messiahs. One, born hundreds of years after Jesus, had many more followers. I imagine there were claims previous to Jesus that others were the Messiah.
Why would Paul call it "foolish?" Christianity attracted a wide socioeconimc background. Many were poor. Their poverty would be a matter of derision to others. Outsiders commented on the mixing of social classes within the Christian community.
We will probably never know since there were no neutral observers in the First Century. Christian may have had different meanings in different localities.
Jesus of Nazareth, being fully human and fully God, being born, crucified, ressurected, risen, and coming again are the essential terms of faith to most Christians. A messiah is troublesome but a God is powerful. I wonder whether his contemporaries viewed Jesus as God.
-
-
-
DubR
Tards
-
prologos
Christians, belonging to the Way. I opt for the awkward "ISRAELITES OF GOD" or members of The "Israel of God". here are my thoughts:
ISRAEL was a real name given by the Father of ALL.
the ISRAEL OF GOD or spiritual israel, is composed of 12 tribes too, each tribe having a REAL name. as in Rev.7
going forward into time and looking at Rev.20-21 The NAME of the 12 tribes hence ISRAEL is a feature of the New Heavenly Eternal City, its Gates. check beabeorean.com.
The reality is, that we have real flesh and blood Christians in the Way making up the ISRAEL OF GOD right here with us. But,
wether the book is just fables, the concept a fabolous fabrication or real, is another matter.
-
Berengaria
Try Phillip
-
tec
By what name should Christ's followers be known?
Well... by HIS name.
Peace,
tammy
-
Band on the Run
Joe or Harry. Jesus is so important in Northern European culture yet so many Latinos name their kids "Jesus." It is an interesting commentary on culture and not accepting your own as the only one.
The Witnesses are so different from other Christians that I would not call them Christian. Mormons are the same. They self report as Christian. There a whole bunch of new religions that use the term Chrsitian. Most do not believe 98% of what others do. Self-identifying as Christian is a pr move.