1) WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING A DEAD HORSE IF YOU CAN’T BEAT IT?”
Ebionite claimed : “ it comes down to what the essential qualities of a Christian are. (post #461)
Clear replied : “2) WHAT IS THE "ESSENTIAL QUALITY" OF THE NOUN “CHRISTIAN”?
DICTIONARIES VERSUS EBIONITE
Oxford Dictionary : Christian : a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.
Merriam-Webster dictionary Christian : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Wikipedia Christian : people who follow or adhere to Christianity
Dictionary.com Christian : a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
Cambridge Dictionary Christian : someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Collins dictionary Christian : A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Websters 1828 dictionary : A believer in the religion of Christ.
Britannica Dictionary : a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Vocabulary.com Dictionary : A Christian is someone whose religious beliefs are based on the teachings of Jesus…
EBIONITES CLAIM TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD "CHRISTIAN" IS :
Ebionite : “From the text we can infer that it's descriptive of disciples who aligned with Paul's accomodation of foreign interests, which was in conflict of with the nationalism of the original disciples of Galilee.” Post #461
Though no reader on the forum has indicated belief in or support of Ebionites prior claims when I asked for it, here is yet another claim that I would invite readers to indicate support for if they believe this new claim and want to support his definition of "the essential quality of a Christian".
Is there ANYONE on the forum that believes this new definition of the word “Christian” instead of the typical dictionary meaning?
ANYONE want to try to help Ebionite support his new definition of the word “Christian” instead of the typical dictionary meaning?
3) WHAT EBIONITE MUST PROVE TO READERS
Ebionite, before we go any further in yet another failed claim of yours, YOU need to prove two things to readers. Especially since you’ve had no one respond that they believed in and supported your prior claims when I asked them :
FIRST : Prove to readers that you are NOT an anti-semite that is trying to make Jewish interpretation of religion look irrational and simply argumentative despite not being burdened with data and rational thought.
SECONDLY : Prove to readers you are not simply trying to break a record of “The most debate points lost in the smallest number of posts”.
I do not think you are given points for this distinction.
IF you first prove these two points, THEN you can tell us why YOUR definition is correct and the typical dictionary definition is incorrect. (POST #462)
EBIONITE REPLIED : “Irrelevant. The issue is how the term was used in the context of Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, not how it is used today.” (Post #463)
2) DICTIONARY AND HISTORICAL USAGE VERSUS EBIONITES “DEFINITION” OF THE WORD “CHRISTIAN”
Ebionites "definition" of "
Christian" is yet another claim that loses to the dictionaries and the historical data.
The world English dictionaries are actually quite correct instead of your silly definition.
For example, lets look at the actual text.
Below is the Greek of ACTS 11:26 from an NA27 critical bible in Greek.
Immediately one notes that the Alexandrian text uses
πρωτως, implying subsequently the disciples were called Christians. Though Acts itself does not tell us by whom the word was coined (Gentiles, Jews, or the disciples themselves), the usage itself is clear that it referred to those who followed Christ.
Greek readers will notice the word χριστιανοι has the suffix -ιανοι (from the latin -iani) which denoted the followers of a named person. For example, the
Πομπηανοι/Pompeiiani (those who followed Pompey), or καισαριανοι/Caesariani (those who followed Caesar), or the Ηρωδιανοι (those who followed Herod), etc. Even the early latin
Christiani had the meaning “
the partisans of Christus”
The linguist/historian Luedemann points out that this ending of -ιανοι was still used in later centuries. Examples include those who followed Valentine and Simon in the second centuries (the Valentinians and the Simonians, etc.). They were indicated by the same "
-ιανοι" ending.
The name Χριστιανος recurs in the New Testament, not only in Acts 26, but in later narratives such as Acts 28 and 1 Peter 4:16, etc. In such places it appears as a name applied to “
the followers of Jesus” by others.
Even in the Apostolic Fathers (writings from a time when the apostles were alive or the author could have known an apostle), writers such as Ignatius uses this term for “Christian” frequently (Eph 11:2, Mg4; Rom 3:2; Pol 7:3) etc.
Even the Didache (approx. 50 a.d.) uses the term (7:4) as a self-designation of those who followed Christ.
Tacitus in his account of the fire in Rome (a.d. 64) uses the term (Xρεστιανος) to a populace who were called the disciples χρηστιανοι, and so
“the followers of Χρηστος” (Christ).
Greek readers will note the
“τοτε” (at that time) in the western text and as Lamouille points out, this seems to connect the use of the name with the origin of the church at Antioch.
The very formation shows that the root Χριστος was understood as a proper name, and not a title.
Also, note the verb
Χρηματιζειν. This isn’t simply a synonym of καλειν (to be called) but it was used in official and judicial circles to mean
“to bear a legitimate name or title".
Even in usage hostile to the Christians, the Historian Peterson tells us that the Roman provincial government designated the disciples as
“belonging to a movement which was led by Χριστος”.
E.J. Bickerman tells us the Christians themselves invented the name “Christian”.
He points out
“All these Greek terms…exactly as the Latin words of the same derivation, express the idea that men or things referred to, belong to the person to whose name the suffix is added” (p. 118)
He points out that the verb used in the text (in my picture) εχρηματισαν in the western text is in the active voice, and so has the sense of to
“call oneself” rather than to have a name imposed upon by others.
Thus the Christians described themselves “Christians” so as to express their relationship to the Messiah. The adoption of this name also served the purpose of distinguishing this Jewish movement that had accepted the Messiah from the Rabbinic Jews who did not accept the Messiah.
Even
the Jewish historian Josephus (born 37/38 a.d.) uses the name Χριστιανοι writing
“This was the Christ (ο Χριστος οθτος ην) and “
The tribe of Christians names after this man has lasted until the present day (“εις ετι τε νυν των χριατιανων απο τουδε ωμομασμενων ουχ επελιπε το φυλον”). He writes “
”Jesus called the Christ” (“Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου”).
The historian Justin Taylor writes “Χριστιανοι is the distinguishing epithet of the disciples of Jesus; they are the followers of one who they claim is ο Χριστος [the Christ], that is the Messiah…”
So, the world dictionaries and their definition of the word "Christian" still win this point as well.
3 )ARE THESE ENDLESS SILLY AND FRUITLESS ARGUMENTS SIMILAR TO AND EXAMPLES OF ANCIENT RABBINIC JEWISH ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE MESSIAH?
I cannot help but find these endless attempts to argue
and re-define Christianity in such a way so as to justify the refusal of rabbinic Judaism in their rejection of the Messiah / Christ Jesus.
IF one is to reject Jesus, it should be done based on good data rather than the warping of historical data or based on re-writing historical concepts so as to allow one to feel more justified in rejecting the Messiah.
It feels like the current debate with its strange attempts to warp historical principles and strange interpretation of sacred texts were probably much like the mechanisms involved in ancient rabbinic Judaism attempting to justify rejecting the Messiah.
@Ebionite , you still have not proven to readers that you are not an anti-semite, masquerading as a Jew, but trying to make rabbinic Jews look silly and argumentative and ignorant.
At any rate, this latest claim is yet one more dead horse that doesn’t need to be beat any more.
Clear
bibleproject.com