well yes and no. Jesus never named himself anything except the "Son of God" or his favorite title "Son of Man." I don't recall him even calling himself a Jew although he was most certainly one.

"Christian" of course comes from those that follow Christ. So if you go from that than yes, there were followers of Christ when he was alive....they just didn't have the formal name "Christian" as you said WHILE HE WAS ALIVE.

But they were called Christians RIGHT AFTER he died. To prove that I submit this:

"And when he (Barnabas) had found him, (Paul) he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Acts 11:26

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost you persuadest me to be a Christian." 20:28

Peter who walked with Christ said this:

"Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." 1 Peter 4:16

Christians means partisans or followers of Christ "Christ's people."

So we see this is shortly after Christ died they were called Christians.

Good KFC. I had just started looking up which passage in Acts referred to the first time the disciples were called Christians when I turned to this and see that you are one step ahead.

MM posts:

Poor MM, first time he opens up and discusses, we are all over him like bees on honey!!! Bzzzzz.

MM posts:

The New Testament reveals Christ's religion--Christianity, but that's OK, you have only the OT and that fully explains why you didn't know.


Yes, MM, those Apostles, disciples and other followers of Christ were the first Christians. The most famous of all Jews was Saul of Tarsus, who converted, was baptized and became St. Paul--martyred for the Faith. What a story that is.

yes, but he NEVER stopped being a Jew. He even said he'd give his life for his people if they would but turn to Christ. He was willing to die for them. He loved his Jewish nation, but yes, he was a Christ follower.

Of course St. Paul never stopped being a Jew. That was his ethnic origin...his race if you will. Point is he converted from the OLd Law (Biblical Judaism)to the New Law of the everlasing covenant---Christianity.

If MM converted, he would still be a Jew.

Please, KFC, there was no Jewish nation per se in St.Paul's day. Once Christ died on the Cross, the Temple was rent from top to bottom. Those Jews who converted followed Christianity and those who didn't went into dispersion.

when was this particular passage written and by whom? then who interpreted it from Amharic into Greek into English.

Acts was written by Luke in AD 61 and it covered about 30 years of history. Acts is the beginning of the church and starts immediately in the first chapter with the ascention of Christ. The first quote I gave you from Acts 11 I believe was pretty early after the ascention.

Peter wrote the last quote and I know he died in AD 67 under Nero. Peter wrote this letter in Rome somewhere in the last 10 years of his life.

These two books (Acts & Peter) were originally written in Greek. It's easy to go back and forth between Gk and English nowadays with so many helps out there. There are still more than 5,000 original Gk copies in our possession today so it's very easily verifiable.

Yes, this is true. The dispersion started with Titus burning Jerusalem in AD70 and the Jews were on the run until 1948 with the regathering just like Ezekiel predicted would happen.

I got curious MM so I went to my Gk word dictionary and found this:

The Gk word "Christianos" (singular) occurs only three times in the NT. Up to this time the followers of Jesus are generally called "disciples."

Christianoi denotes Christ's adherents, those who belong to Him. It seems most likely that the term was firrst used by non-Christians, thought this does not have to imply that it was meant derisively.

A reason for coining the term Christianoi is that the Christians in Antioch were now viewed as a separate society rather than as a section of the Jewish synagogue.

see now that's interesting. My point was Christians were named such as a tribute to Christ, belonging to Christ. Not a new religion. Christ like I said was born a JEW and died a JEW, he had a barmitzvah, he had a bris {ritual circumcision} Again I say Jesus NEVER named himself or his followers Christians.

Here's my 2 cents worth.

The Douay Rheims Bible has Acts 11:25-26 as "And Barnabus went to Tarsus to seek Saul: whom when he had found, he brought to Antioch. 26 and they conversed there in the Chruch a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians."

KFC,----Check out verse 29 in Acts 26:28-29, St.Paul tells King Agrippa that he is a Christian. "And Agrippa said to Paul, "in a short time, would you think to make me a Christian!" 29 and Paul said, 'Whether short or long, I would to God that no only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am--except for these chains." (St.Paul was in prison at the time he said this.)

"But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name." 1St.Peter 4:16.




As KFC wrote both St.Luke and St.Peter wrote the originals in Greek. They were translated into Latin Vulgate by St.Jerome ( 405AD ) and then into the Douay Rheims English version in 1582.

The Acts of the Apostles is a type of historical account of the beginnings of Christianity. St.Luke manages to combine history with theology remarkably well. It gives an account of how the Chruch was originally established and the first stage of the spread of Gospel and thereby Christianity.

KFC POSTS:

Acts 1:8 describes the way Jesus' prediction to His disciples prior to His Ascension into Heaven was fulfilled: "You shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." Following a fairly precise and detailed chronological order, it covers events from Death, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord until the end of St.Paul's imprisonment in Rome about 63AD.

Exactly. Acts is a description of the origin and basis of Christianity as an outstanding faith trusting in God and how that was set apart from biblical Judasim and paganism. It aims at strenghtening the faith of the early CHristians who were up against the odds then and those in the 2nd and 3rd centuries in dealing with the kind of secrecy typical of the Gnostic sects.

well I think MM would be more interested in v27 as a Jew which says:

"King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe."

Here Paul was putting Agrippa(a Jew) on the spot. His question placed Agrippa on the horns of a dilemma. If he said yes, then he would have to acknowledge Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. To say no would have put him at odds with the Jews.

This is the type of question Jesus like to ask. To make one think.



Yes, this is true.



not a new religion, right...but a church (ecclesia) yes. Jesus was the cornerstone and founder of the church....but that DOES NOT mean religious affliation so I agree with you. Lula won't. As a Catholic she believes he was the founder of the CC. We disagree on that point. I'm not a religionist. I don't believe any of our denominations here on earth are his special spot, like Jerusalem was in the OT.



BUT...you're forgetting something. He was also BAPTIZED. That was a new command for his followers (the church).



no, he didn't. But that doesn't mean anything really. He did call them his disciples...he called them his friends. He called them "fishers of men." He also called them followers...so he had all kinds of names for them, but No, he never called them Christians.

When he comes back, he says he has a NEW name for us. But we don't know what that is. It's most likely not JEW OR GENTILE OR CHRISTIAN.

MM POSTS:

MM, did you know that circumcision is the prefigurement of Baptism?

Almighty God made His covenant first with Abraham, as being the Father of His chosen people. Later, on Mt. Sinai, He confirmed and renewed it with all the people of Israel. Genesis 17:10-14. He instituted the rite of circumcision as an outward and visible sign of this covenant that it might be, as it were, cut into the flesh of His chosen people so that it could not be forgotten. This sign was to speak to the soul of every man of Israel saying, You are a member of the chosen people. You belong to God and are to serve Him only.

The rite was performed either at home or in the synagogue and in addition to the actual circumcision, the ceremony included prayers and the naming of the child.

By circumcision man belonged to the Old Covenant and by Baptism he belongs to the New and everlasting covenant. By the first, he pledged himself to observe the Old Law, and in Baptism, Catholics pledge ourselves to faithfully observe the Christian Law. Circumcision impresses an indelible mark on the body; Baptism does the same to the soul. The difference lies in this, that circumcision could not, like Baptism, cleanse man from sin and make him pure and holy of heart.

With the institution of Christian Baptism the commandment to circumcise ceased to apply. In Acts 15:1, we read at the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles definitively declared that those entering the Chruch had no need to be circumcised. St.Paul's explicit teaching on the irrelevance of circumcision in the context of the New COvenant established by Christ is found in Galatians 5:2; 6:12; and Colossians 2:11.

Eight days after our Lord's birth, He was circumcised. St.Luke 2:21, "And at the end of eight days, when He was circumcised, He was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb."

"Jesus" means "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh is salvation" that is, Savior. This name was given to the Child not as a result of any human decision but in keeping with the commandment of God which the Angel communicated to the BLessed Virgin and St.Joseph in St.Luke 1:31 and St.Mark 1:21.

Our Lord was without sin so He didn't need circumcision. But He submitted to the rite for the following reasons:

1) According to the prophecies the Redeemer was to be a true Israelite and son of Abraham. To be such, and to be recognized as such, circumcision was necessary.

2) By His Incarnation, our Lord took upon Himself the sins of mankind so as to make satisfaction to God for them. For this purpose He shed His blood for the first time in His circumcision, and showed us thereby that He was come to redeem us by His Precious Blood. Therefore the name of Jesus was given to Him at His circumcision.

3)By voluntarily obeying the Law and submitting Himself to the rite of circumcision, He wished to give us an example of obedience to the Divine Law.

MM posts:

Well, MM, I don't know about Christ having a barmitzvah? Please tell me more.