The word Christian means

[PaladinValer]

I am not wrong, cott and Hort were two guys who claimed to be Jews outwardly but were not ones inwardly.

Sorry; they never claimed to be Jews. Both men attended University or seminary before the University Reform Act of 1854 was passed, which meant both had to be in submission to Oath of Supremacy, something only Anglicans could do.

Plus Bishop Westcott was a bishop. He would have been defrocked and declared an apostate if he were outwardly a Jew. And Hort would have lost his credentials as well in his case as well.

They were Anglicans, like myself.

They are wolves in sheeps clothing, God warned us of these people.
Cott and Hort were were not Christians so to say. They were not Saints.

That's false.

They are two men who created the NKJV and all the other bibles are written off it.

The NKJV was authored late last century. Both men were deceased decades before. They are partly responsible for the RV.

Please watch this documentary exposing this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA3GRy7znbA

I'm not interested in perverted history, quackery, and bunk nonsense all proven to be malicious half-truths, lies, and pseudoknowledge. Your proofs are all invalid and your positions goes back and forth. There is absolutely no merit to them.

 

[IamNazarene]

Have you got the original Greek word?....

Yes

All the available manuscripts have no difference when it comes to the word "χριστιανός"

Trick question? No one knows the original manuscripts, but through textual criticism we are confident that we know the content of the original manuscripts, and it is only through textual criticism we can confidently know which manuscripts are corrupted.

So if no one has the original manuscripts then you shold of said No to the first question I asked.

I believe God has preserved his word perfectly somewhere and I do choose not to rely on any many to verify it.
I believe God is all powerful ad has preserved his word once.

I tink God used Tyndale to do it, not Cott n Hort.

I do not think God wants his word put into over 100 variations to suit the flavour.

God is my scholar not men and I trust my Scholar has made one version of his word.

Do you agree?

 

[IamNazarene]

Sorry; they never claimed to be Jews. Both men attended University or seminary before the University Reform Act of 1854 was passed, which meant both had to be in submission to Oath of Supremacy, something only Anglicans could do.

Plus Bishop Westcott was a bishop. He would have been defrocked and declared an apostate if he were outwardly a Jew. And Hort would have lost his credentials as well in his case as well.

They were Anglicans, like myself.



That's false.



The NKJV was authored late last century. Both men were deceased decades before. They are partly responsible for the RV.



I'm not interested in perverted history, quackery, and bunk nonsense all proven to be malicious half-truths, lies, and pseudoknowledge. Your proofs are all invalid and your positions goes back and forth. There is absolutely no merit to them.

A Jew is a spiritual people. Being saved by Jesus makes you a Jew.

You can saty in your catholoscism and learn nothing.
THe video is not quacks it is education, worth learning.

 

[PaladinValer]

A Jew is a spiritual people. Being saved by Jesus makes you a Jew.

I'm sorry, but that isn't what a Jew is.

A Jew is a person who adheres to the religion of Judaism, embracing the Covenant that God established with Moses, which meant adhering to the 613 Laws of the Torah.

You can saty in your catholoscism and learn nothing.
THe video is not quacks it is education, worth learning.

I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm an English Catholic; an Anglican.

And it is quackery. Not an opinion; just worthless, conspiracy theorist junk quackery and bunk.

 

[IamNazarene]

Catholics are all the same junk. Sorry you have been had...

 

[IamNazarene]

Considering no one knows what the actual original Greek word was no one actually knows what the true word and meaning was.

Do you honestly think that gentiles or Romans would consider a believer in Christ to be an anointed?

Lets get real, the Romans were a brutal culture. They certainly would not of given a special honourale name to those who believe in Jesus.

I would expect a roman to call a Saint aa Cretin and not a Christian.

Look what I found in Vines expository dictionary.

<1,,5546,christianos>
"Christian," a word formed after the Roman style, signifying an adherent of Jesus, was first applied to such by the Gentiles and is found in Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16.
Though the word rendered "were called" in Acts 11:26 (see under CALL) might be used of a name adopted by oneself or given by others, the "Christians" do not seem to have adopted it for themselves in the times of the Apostles. In 1 Pet. 4:16, the Apostle is speaking from the point of view of the persecutor; cp. "as a thief," "as a murderer." Nor is it likely that the appellation was given by Jews.

As applied by Gentiles there was no doubt an implication of scorn, as in Agrippa's statement in Acts 26:28. Tacitus, writing near the end of the first century, says, "The vulgar call them Christians.

The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius, been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate" (Annals xv. 44). From the second century onward the term was accepted by believers as a title of honor.

I seperated the realistic section for ya.

Sure you might see Christian as Christ anointed but I do not think a Roman worshipping Isis would happily refer to you as a Christian.

If they gave such an honourable name then why did they cut Pauls head off?

They surely could not of been to honouring.

 

[prodromos]

So if no one has the original manuscripts then you shold of said No to the first question I asked.

Not at all. Every single manuscript has "&#967;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#945;&#957;&#972;&#962;" spelled the same, including the manuscripts used by Tyndale. That is 100% what the word is, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

I believe God has preserved his word perfectly somewhere and I do choose not to rely on any many to verify it.
I believe God is all powerful ad has preserved his word once.

I tink God used Tyndale to do it, not Cott n Hort.

I do not think God wants his word put into over 100 variations to suit the flavour.

God is my scholar not men and I trust my Scholar has made one version of his word.

Do you agree?

No, I do not agree. In my opinion you are living in fantasy world.

 

[IamNazarene]

Jesus they ated me before they hated you.
Expect to be hated.

 

[prodromos]

Considering no one knows what the actual original Greek word was no one actually knows what the true word and meaning was.

Actually we do know exactly what the word was and what its meaning was. The above statement has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Do you honestly think that gentiles or Romans would consider a believer in Christ to be an anointed?

Lets get real, the Romans were a brutal culture. They certainly would not of given a special honourale name to those who believe in Jesus.

I would expect a roman to call a Saint aa Cretin and not a Christian.

Look what I found in Vines expository dictionary.

<1,,5546,christianos>
"Christian," a word formed after the Roman style, signifying an adherent of Jesus, was first applied to such by the Gentiles and is found in Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16.
Though the word rendered "were called" in Acts 11:26 (see under CALL) might be used of a name adopted by oneself or given by others, the "Christians" do not seem to have adopted it for themselves in the times of the Apostles. In 1 Pet. 4:16, the Apostle is speaking from the point of view of the persecutor; cp. "as a thief," "as a murderer." Nor is it likely that the appellation was given by Jews.

As applied by Gentiles there was no doubt an implication of scorn, as in Agrippa's statement in Acts 26:28. Tacitus, writing near the end of the first century, says, "The vulgar call them Christians.

The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius, been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate" (Annals xv. 44). From the second century onward the term was accepted by believers as a title of honor.

I seperated the realistic section for ya.

Sure you might see Christian as Christ anointed but I do not think a Roman worshipping Isis would happily refer to you as a Christian.

If they gave such an honourable name then why did they cut Pauls head off?

They surely could not of been to honouring.

To the non believers, Christ was someone who had been executed as a common criminal. They thought they were mocking the followers of Christ by giving them the name "christians". They thought Christ was a dead man and were attaching the moniker of a dead man to His followers. Of course to the believers, who knew that Christ had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father, to them the title was one of honour.

 

[prodromos]

Jesus they ated me before they hated you.
Expect to be hated.

Nobody here hates you.

 

[IamNazarene]

Because Tyndale used the common 16th century English spelling of Christian, Christen.

And the word is in all Greek manuscripts that contain 1 Peter 4:16.

But if you'd like an example, this is a shot I took from Erasmus 3rd Edition of his Novus Testamentum ad Graecam, (published 1522) 1 Peter 4:16

I circled the word christianos. If you want to see the photocopy of the page yourself, look here: 580 - Novum testamentum, ad Graecam veritatem, ac vetustissimorum simul & emendatissimorum exemplarium Latinorum fidem, tum ad orthodoxorum interpretationem, ac citationem denuo diligentissime recognitum, ab Erasmo Roterodamo, sacrae theologiae profe

If your curious about the funny 's' letter that is a Stigma, which you can read more about on this Wikipedia page, which explains as well or better than I would that it is a digraph of Sigma and Tau--which as we've already learned correspond to English 'S' and 'T' respectively.

-CryptoLutheran

Sorry I missed this post, I have bad vision.

Thats good. Thank you. I appreciate you showing me this.

 

[IamNazarene]

Because Tyndale used the common 16th century English spelling of Christian, Christen.

And the word is in all Greek manuscripts that contain 1 Peter 4:16.

But if you'd like an example, this is a shot I took from Erasmus 3rd Edition of his Novus Testamentum ad Graecam, (published 1522) 1 Peter 4:16

I circled the word christianos. If you want to see the photocopy of the page yourself, look here: 580 - Novum testamentum, ad Graecam veritatem, ac vetustissimorum simul & emendatissimorum exemplarium Latinorum fidem, tum ad orthodoxorum interpretationem, ac citationem denuo diligentissime recognitum, ab Erasmo Roterodamo, sacrae theologiae profe

If your curious about the funny 's' letter that is a Stigma, which you can read more about on this Wikipedia page, which explains as well or better than I would that it is a digraph of Sigma and Tau--which as we've already learned correspond to English 'S' and 'T' respectively.

-CryptoLutheran

How dd you get this, do you have the original? Surely not?

 

[IamNazarene]

My Brothers and Sisters in Christ do not but I mean, the world does.
Do you think? I get this feeling when I talk Jesus to non believers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So does Wycliffe's translation. That is how "christian" is spelled in medieval English, which is a Germanic language, having nothing to do with the French as you erroneously claimed at the outset.

By Wycliffe's time the influence of Norman French on the English language was well established.

English, while a Germanic language descended from the tongue of the Anglo-Saxons who invaded Britain in the 6th century, was heavily modified by the Norman invasion in the 11th century. The result being that English has many words of Latin origin through French as well as being part of the Germanic language family. A really good example of this dual lineage is that we often have two entirely words to describe roughly the same thing:

The English word cow is of Germanic stock, describing the animal.
The English word beef is of Latin/French stock, describing the food which the animal produces.

The reason for this is largely due to the fact that the peasants continued to speak Anglo-Saxon, and they were the ones running the farms. The Norman aristocrats were the ones doing most of the eating. And as such the farm animal is a cow, the animal as food is beef.

So it's fair enough to recognize the French--and ultimately Latin--influence on English. Which certainly had been established by Wycliffe's time. Wycliffe's Middle English Bible is also a good example of how the French and Germanic influences were both very strong, at the time the now archaic Germanic letters such as thorn and eth were still in use, but already dying out. In fact these letters have virtually fallen out of use in all of the Germanic languages, I believe Icelandic is one of the few that continues to use them.

Wycliffe's use of Cristen is an example of the perseverance of Anglo-Saxon in English. Though it would seem the German-Latin basis of Christen gave way to a more direct rendering of the biblical word Christianos; Latinized as Christianus, Anglicized as Christian.

The OP has argued, in effect, that there is no difference between the French word crétin and the French word Chrétien; when these are clearly different words. And Chrétien is only the modern French spelling, Old French spoken between the 9th and 14th centuries spelled the word Chrestien.

Also both Old German Kristen/Cristen and Old French Chrestien are all derived from the same Latin Christianus; which as noted is simply the Latinization of Christianos, the word used in every Greek manuscript and the word penned by the Apostles themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

How dd you get this, do you have the original? Surely not?

Do I have a copy of Erasmus' original 3rd edition of his Novus Testamentum ad Graeca? No. Turns out my personal collection of five hundred year old manuscripts isn't very extensive.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[IamNazarene]

haha

 

[PaladinValer]

Catholics are all the same junk. Sorry you have been had...

That doesn't address anything in my posts and is therefore a null and void reply. Address only the points raised.

And given my library's collection, I know for a fact that your accusation here is based on conspiracy theory, pseudohistory, and bunk. I do have translated copies of anicent documents and have ready access to others. It helps to be a historian by education with excellent research skills.

Considering no one knows what the actual original Greek word was no one actually knows what the true word and meaning was.

Not true. All the texts we have, from the ancient era to the Renaissance, include that word. I possess translated versions of several.

Do you honestly think that gentiles or Romans would consider a believer in Christ to be an anointed?

Many did, or else they would have never converted.

Lets get real, the Romans were a brutal culture. They certainly would not of given a special honourale name to those who believe in Jesus.

That shows your lack of knowledge of what translations are,

I would expect a roman to call a Saint aa Cretin and not a Christian.

Worthless, bunk etymology, as proven earlier. Each time it is brought up, it is automatically null and void. Cretin comes from a very localized area in modern-day France over a thousand years after people were first being called Christians in both Greek and Latin. The history and the etymology prove your ideas wrong.

Look what I found in Vines expository dictionary.

It proves your view wrong.

I seperated the realistic section for ya.

Quote-mining is deceptive, and since deception is a vice according to Christianity, that doesn't make your posts look good.

Sure you might see Christian as Christ anointed but I do not think a Roman worshipping Isis would happily refer to you as a Christian.

Romans didn't worship Isis; that was the Egyptians. Furthermore, they did; we have their records.

If they gave such an honourable name then why did they cut Pauls head off?

Because he was a Christian.

They surely could not of been to honouring

Basing honor on viewpoint is invalid.

My Brothers and Sisters in Christ do not but I mean, the world does.
Do you think? I get this feeling when I talk Jesus to non believers

Insinuating that we are not Christians is also a violation of the rules here.

I strongly suggest reviewing the rules here before proceeding any further. I've been more than tolerant on this.

Again folks, and this is addressed to everyone active in this thread, the word "you", unless used positively or for constructive criticism, is out of bounds. Ideas, points, views, posts, arguments; these can be addressed negatively, preferably with real, scholarly proof. Not persons. "You" and "You're" address individuals whereas "your", unless used clearly with poor grammar to have meant "you're", is fine since it addresses not the person but a possession of that person, which ideas and posts, etc, qualify as.

 

[Radagast]

All the available manuscripts have no difference when it comes to the word "&#967;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#945;&#957;&#972;&#962;"

Indeed.

And since all the manuscripts agree, we can be extremely confident that the original Greek had &#967;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#945;&#957;&#972;&#962;, for which "Christian" is the most accurate transliteration.

The meaning of &#967;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#945;&#957;&#972;&#962; is "a Christian, a follower of Christ," and every lexicon I've seen defines it that way.

And even the Romans who hated Christians knew that Christians were people who followed Christ. Some of the famous anti-Christian graffiti proves this.

 

[IamNazarene]

Most bibles are based on AlexaNDRIAN mANUSCRIPTS, WHICH ARE CORRUPTED

 

[ViaCrucis]

Most bibles are based on AlexaNDRIAN mANUSCRIPTS, WHICH ARE CORRUPTED

How did you determine that the Alexandrian manuscripts are corrupt? How do you know that it isn't the Byzantine manuscripts which are corrupt?

The Alexandrian family of manuscripts are usually older, so perhaps it is the later Byzantine manuscripts which have been corrupted.

-CryptoLutheran