Grog

Mormonism has some good recent examples of fitness. Some of Joseph Smith's ideas, such as polygamy, have proved to be not 'fit' in modern society and, thus, have been dropped by mainstream LDS. I am not sure how the church itself justifies this alteration of Joseph Smith's teaching, (by new revelation, I guess?), but it hasn't been accepted by all Mormons. Still, the more successful sect of Mormonism dropped polygamy in the late 19th century.

outhouse

http://www.plim.org/92didu.html

Toto

So you concede that you were wrong to say "I know the Romans used the term Christo's as a negative term describing members of the movement."

Please be more careful in the future with these claims. The field of Biblical studies seems to be full of things that people just "know" but which turn out not to be completely accurate.

outhouse

Nope not yet, I would agree generally it does refer to Jesus then memebers.

I am looking for the original scholars I quoted.

This material just had more information for this thread that is correct and in context, then has been posted thus far.


It also shows Romans are the ones in Antioch who first used the term Christos as jews would not have labeled said person that way.

And we know Romans did not speak positively of Christos which is the word Christians was derived or evolved from.


We are all dealing with the evolution of the use of the word christ and the multiple languages that used it

steve_bnk

If you go by the gospels, the JC of the story never ever rejected Judaism.

Modern Christians interpret the lines ' you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..' to mean JC created a new religion or church.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

The cornerstone of the RCC is that Peter was the first pope mandated by JC, and all the RCC popes are in a line of succession going back to Pete. It is a basis of their legitimacy.

I have pointed out in past years to Christians that they are really Jews.

I like to say it should be called Paulism and not Christianity. A lot is derived from Paul and he made the concessions to let in gentiles.

Considering the Jewish basis of the gospels, the Jewish prophesies, and the political turmoil in the times IMO the origins can only be a relatively insignificant group of Jews. They were not enough of a problem for anything to be described in any contemporary accounts.

The alternative is to believe the gospels were written as complete fabrication by unknown writers who for some reason chose Jews as the backdrop for a story. The gospels and acts take the form of an action adventure story with acts as the sequel.

Anything is possible.

By the time of Nicea there were multiple versions with a common theology negotiated. So you could say what became the RCC which then led to the fragmented protestant we have today was not based in any authenticity, it was a consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Looking at Christianity in the USA today nay provide a glimpse as to what Christianity was like in the first few centuries. Various leaders who put their own spin on it for any number o reasons. Like today people interpreted and filled in the blanks.

Toto

You mean that your source asserts that the Romans in Antioch first used the term.

Do we know that the Romans in Antioch spoke of "Christos"? How do we know this? Did they refer to the Christians under any name?


What evolution? The word means anointed.

outhouse

92 states: "Christians: probably a name given by the people of Antioch to distinguish them from the Jews

Since the name was derived from "Christ"




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 Christiani.



It was also used by Romans describing a head of a group, BUT that the word Christiani evolved from Christos as used by Romans, not Jews.

Toto

And you know the source for this? THE BIBLE. The Book of Acts. There is no history of this outside of the Bible.


This is just idle speculation. See above.

Where do the Romans use this?

outhouse

According to the article Antioch.


And I have not even used my real sources im still going through.

DCHindley

I am reminded of these secret words of scripture:

In the beginning Man
created God; and in
the image of Man
created he him.

2 And Man gave unto God a
multitude of names, that he might
be Lord over all the earth when
it was suited to Man.

3 And on the seven millionth
day Man rested and did lean
heavily on his God and saw that
it was good.

4 And Man formed Aqualung of
the dust of the ground, and a
host of others likened unto his kind.

5 And these lesser men Man did
cast into the void. And some were
burned; and some were put apart
from their kind.

6 And Man became the God
that he had created and with his
miracles did rule over all the
earth.

7 But as all these things did
come to pass, the Spirit that did
cause man to create his God
lived on within all men: even
within Aqualung.

8 And man saw it not.

9 But for Christ's sake he'd
better start looking.

(found on the verso of the 4th book
of Tull, with Hymn 43 on the recto)

DCH