Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#181  Postby dejuror » Jul 12, 2015 8:16 pm

iskander wrote:

Yes , god is fiction, Satan is also fiction. Some people believe both in god and in Satan. Both god and Satan are found in the Hebrew Bible . Every religion is a repulsive fiction, but the people who invented "salvation" and all that are real. And what those people wrote must have had an origin.


Did the character ever say he is god?


You seem not to understand what you wrote. If every religion is a repulsive fiction then the Christian religion is repulsive fiction.

The authors of the Jesus did explain in detail that their Jesus ORIGINATED from Hebrew Scriptures.

In fact, Jesus of Nazareth is the INCARNATION of FALSE Prophecies.

Again, why don't you read gMark??

Jesus of Nazareth was found guilty of death for Blasphemy.

Jesus of Nazareth character ADMITTED he was the Son of God in the fables called gMark.

Mark 14
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#182  Postby iskander » Jul 12, 2015 9:54 pm

dejuror wrote:
iskander wrote:

Yes , god is fiction, Satan is also fiction. Some people believe both in god and in Satan. Both god and Satan are found in the Hebrew Bible . Every religion is a repulsive fiction, but the people who invented "salvation" and all that are real. And what those people wrote must have had an origin.


Did the character ever say he is god?


You seem not to understand what you wrote. If every religion is a repulsive fiction then the Christian religion is repulsive fiction.

The authors of the Jesus did explain in detail that their Jesus ORIGINATED from Hebrew Scriptures.

In fact, Jesus of Nazareth is the INCARNATION of FALSE Prophecies.

Again, why don't you read gMark??

Jesus of Nazareth was found guilty of death for Blasphemy.

Jesus of Nazareth character ADMITTED he was the Son of God in the fables called gMark.

Mark 14
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.


Yes, Christianity is a repugnant religion. In Christianity every man and woman is born to suffer eternally unless god dies to redeem humanity. Redemption is ugly and it is also a fraud. Humanity is not redeemed by this ugly death of a man-god, but churches get wealth and power as the owners of the business of Redemption
Every pregnant woman carries in her womb a dead soul who will remain a dead soul eternally if the woman does not give birth to a live child. When the child is born it has to be baptized in the Catholic Church to be eligible for salvation and so on and on.
Son of God is an honorific title denoting holiness and nothing more.
This is how the Christians who supported the Second Sirmian Creed of 357 fought to prevent the victory of the Trinitarians:
You thought it right to approve of this sort of blasphemy , which exhibited to the churches of God a crime of idolatry unheard in all past ages .For, as the confession placed in your book proves, you thought we should believe in three almighty gods, three eternal, three true, three coactive, three seated together, three indistinct, three confused, three lacking nothing in irrationality

The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381
by R P C Hanson, 931 pages
ISBN 056709485 5
In page 577

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tcl ... 57&f=false
page 367
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#183  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jul 13, 2015 1:15 am

iskander wrote:The roman soldier was each comforted by one god of his liking .


    "Nevertheless he has placed by every man a guardian,
    every man's Daimon, to whom he has committed the care of the man,
    a guardian who never sleeps, is never deceived.

    For to what better and more careful guardian could He have entrusted each of us?
    When, then, you have shut the doors and made darkness within,
    remember never to say that you are alone, for you are not;
    but God is within, and your Daimon is within, and what need
    have they of light to see what you are doing?

    To this God you ought to swear an oath just as the soldiers do to Caesar. .....

    ~ Epictetus
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 809

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#184  Postby dejuror » Jul 13, 2015 5:19 am

iskander wrote:
Son of God is an honorific title denoting holiness and nothing more.


Your statement is a well known fallacy.

People of antiquity believed Gods were real and that Gods did have Sons.

Jesus in the NT was God's Own Son and God Creator.

In addition, Christian writers of antiquity have admitted the Son of God was the SAME Substance as God.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#185  Postby Greatest I am » Jul 28, 2015 12:27 am

RealityRules wrote:
duvduv wrote: ..is it conceivable that the two letters distinguishing the spelling of Xrestianos and Xristianos were used intentionally interchangeably with a double entendre, i.e. that the "Christians" were the "good guys"?? As in the case of P.Oxy.XLIII 3149??

Thus the new followers of the new religion identified themselves as the "good guys" as sort of a pun?

Might that make more sense than the other idea; ie. that there was a group that gravitated to the new religion who had earlier self-identified with the name ChrEstian, and coincidentally also now called themselves using the word ChrIstian?

I think there are a number of possible scenarios and more than one may have occurred.

Some people have referred to parody or sarcasm being used in those times, so that groups were referred to as Chrestians ("good guys") b/c they were viewed as the opposite: ie. 'bad guys' or annoying people.

Yes, the terms may have been use interchangeably.

And, as duvduv suggested, one previously-separate group may have been incorporated by another group over a short time-period (eg. 1-20yrs), or over a long time-period (say, > 21yrs).


As free thinkers, If the early Gnostics and Jews were in fact the Chrestians, as I begin to believe, then of course any free thinkers would have been a pain in the side of more literal readers just as we are today.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Banned User
 
Posts: 1212

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#186  Postby Greatest I am » Jul 28, 2015 12:29 am

dejuror wrote:
iskander wrote:
Son of God is an honorific title denoting holiness and nothing more.


Your statement is a well known fallacy.

People of antiquity believed Gods were real and that Gods did have Sons.

Jesus in the NT was God's Own Son and God Creator.

In addition, Christian writers of antiquity have admitted the Son of God was the SAME Substance as God.


It was also the custom for Roman Emperors to claim to be Gods and their sons were also called son's of God.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Banned User
 
Posts: 1212

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#187  Postby Greatest I am » Jul 28, 2015 12:43 am

Most here already know the information that follows but the definition of Chrestian is slightly different and that is why I offer it.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/2 ... uth?page=1

thanks to mp , on the NWT translation thread,

I have looked this up, what an eye opener. It answers so many of my inner questions.

Chrestian - www.natzraya.org

The appearence of ''Christian'' in the Greek text is clearly an anachronism which has been paraded as supporting evidence for the christian name and faith both of which are counterfeit.

In fact, some lineages of Greek manuscripts were still faithfully copying Chrestian right up until 1044.

Chrestian - Greek – Chrestos having the meaning, good manners, or morals, pleasant, better, useful, kind, gracious

Christos - means to be anointed

The literal translation of Christians is ''anointed men'' or ''anointlings''

this is far removed from the general meaning of Chrestians which ''good men'.

Christians are fond of saying that christian menas ''followers of Christ'' as perhaps it should.

In practical terms, a Christian is one who practices Christianity, just as a Jew, Judaism, Hindu, Hinduism etc.

''Christians'' reveals a systematic effort to legitimise a new religious movement that otherwise had no scriptural or historical backing .

Consequently, the long standing tradition is the Church that Nero persecuted Christians is a historical fallacy.

this suggests that it was probably the natzraya (Nazarenes) that suffered, the only group called Chrestians by the common people.

Marcion the gnostic, and contrarian, certainly played a 'role' in popularising the name Christian.

he also switched the Greek titl of the Messiah from Christos to Chrestus.

Why did these heretics choose the name Christian?

Some researchers have suggested that the practical benefits of adopting the moniker derived from the illustrous name ''Christos'' loaned instant credibility to the new cult.

Notzrim (Nazarenes) are not Christians.

Since christianity is not what ''Christ'' practiced, then those who do practice Christianity can not literally be ''followers of Christ''.

Clearly Rabbi Yeshua was Jewish and practiced Judaism. There is nothing identifiably Christian about him.

Rabbi Yeshua's theology and religion was Judaism.


In the minds of Christians, christian means ''follower of Christ''

but in practical terms it means ''follower of the tenets of Christianity'' just like Ignatius defined.

The name originated with unbelievers who despised true believers, to designate themselves apart from the original belief.

-----------------------------

Interestingly, Reza Aslan has a new book out and he clearly defines Jesus as the Nazarene and completely divorces him from the Christ.

I call myself a Gnostic Christian and that is what pushed me to try to see just what was going on in antiquity.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Banned User
 
Posts: 1212

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#188  Postby RealityRules » Nov 20, 2015 8:07 am

Phrygia has long been regarded as the home of an ancient and heretical brand of Christianity, which was termed Montanist ...

But just as Arianism has no bishop Arius, so Montanism has no Montanus - they are creations of the medieval textual tradition in order to erase 'Chrestianity' from the historical record.

Archaeologists from the 19th century on have studied the Tembris Valley in Phrygia and found many references to Chrestians, starting in the early 3rd century. Later, the eta of 'Chrest' is joined by an iota to make 'Chreist', then the original eta is either destroyed in some cases, or omitted, and 'Christ' appears.

    Montanism was an early Christian movement of the late 2nd century, later referred to by the name of its founder, Montanus, but originally known by its adherents as the New Prophecy. It originated in Phrygia, a province of Asia Minor, and flourished throughout the region, leading to the movement being referred to elsewhere as "Cataphrygian" (meaning it was "from Phrygia") or simply as "Phrygian". It spread rapidly to other regions in the Roman Empire at a time before Christianity was generally tolerated or legal. It persisted in some isolated places into the 6th century.
https://sites.google.com/site/originsof ... restianity

.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2818

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#189  Postby Leucius Charinus » Nov 20, 2015 4:47 pm

The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia: - a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm

In this book I encountered for the first time the notion of an interpolated [Christian] tombstone ...

    it is freely admitted that certain (#2 and #30) of the "Christians for Christians" phrases
    look to have been added by a later hand.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 809

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#190  Postby RealityRules » Nov 21, 2015 7:51 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia: - a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm

In this book I encountered for the first time the notion of an interpolated [Christian] tombstone ...

    it is freely admitted that certain (#2 and #30) of the "Christians for Christians" phrases
    look to have been added by a later hand.

"Christians for Christians" ??

It's hard to follow your web-article b/c the focus on pre-Constantine (v post-Constantine) changes the context with respect to the primary issue of Chrest- v 'Christ-'
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2818

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#191  Postby RealityRules » Nov 21, 2015 8:46 pm

... there is much archaeology for a magical Jesus Chrest –Jesus the Good– beginning to appear towards the end of the last century BCE.

We then examined the earliest codices of the New Testament, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, where we found no mention of 'Christ' at all.

Instead, we found 'Chrest', various Greek titles such as Soter, and abbreviations. None of these are specifically and unambiguously Christian. Rather, they belong to a Greek culture we have come to term Panhellenism – belief in a God other than the Hebrew.

My interpretation of this 'Good' is 'the great and the good' – in the sense of power and authority, both secular and magical, for the name 'Jesus' is being used magically to command events.

Many of the characters who appear in Christian tradition are represented in the historical record, though not as Christian. We have begun to treat some of them, such as Saul “kinsman of Costobarus” in Josephus, the imperial chamberlain Epaphroditus, and elite Romans such as Clemens and Pudens; there are many more and we have come to regard them as 'Chrestian'.

In the first century of this era, Chrestians are the elite, 'the great and the good' and not until the reign of Domitian, when Hadrian first takes public office, or perhaps a little later, with his Antinous, is 'Chrest' associated with those outside the elite circles of imperial power.

The life of Pliny encompasses the reign of a number of emperors, including Domitian, and letters attributed to him have been published and republished very many times in the last 500 years or so. He is historical and few would doubt that the bulk of his correspondence [is] genuine.

The tenth book consists of letters to and from the emperor Trajan, mostly written during Pliny's governorship. In these letters, he seeks rulings from Trajan on matters arising in his province. This assumption has been made by scholars for centuries and is one of the few, apparently-effective arguments for the historicity of Christianity in the first two centuries. They could make an effective antidote to our study of chrestic archaeology.

  • Pliny, Letters 10.96-97 - Pliny to the Emperor Trajan ...
  • Trajan [reply] to Pliny ...

The question arises, from our point of view: what is the primary source of this published correspondence? That is, are they based on the letters themselves? The short answer is 'no', they are not based on his letters.

    [One] translation is based on the text of the letters edited by R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1963), which is faithfully reproduced in the Loeb edition (ed. B. Radice, 1969). It rests on three separate manuscript traditions, which Mynors labels alpha, beta, gamma, and which are popularly known as the Nine-book, Ten-book, and Eight-book versions.

    The Nine-book tradition is represented by two ninth-century manuscripts M and V, and V does not survive after V 6, leaving M as the sole representative of this tradition for V 7 to IX. The Ten-book tradition (beta) provides the sole evidence for Book X; no manuscript survives after V 6, so that we are dependent on printed editions for the rest. The Eight-book version (so called because it does not contain Book VIII) has no complete surviving manuscript, and provides the least reliable readings of the three. Mynors helpfully prefaces his edition with a book-by-book survey of the available evidence from the three traditions. The section numbers of Mynors' text are given in the margins.

    The existence of the letters as we have them is attributable to the heroic endeavours of the Italian and French humanists. They assembled them from widely dispersed texts of the three traditions. There is an enlightening brief account by Reynolds in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission (Oxford, 1983), 316-22. (Pliny the Younger, Complete Letters, A new translation by P.G. Walsh, OUP Oxford 2009*)


From an earlier, classic collection:

    Sources of the Text
    For the first nine Books, we have three distinct sources, viz. (a) MSS. containing Books I.-V., of which the best are R (Florentinus Ashburnhamensis R. 98 olim Riccardianus), tenth century, F (Laurentianus S. Marci 284), tenth-eleventh century; (6) MSS. containing Books I. -VII. and IX., all of the fifteenth century, of which D (Dresdensis D. 166) is representative; (c) MSS. containing nine books, of which the best is M (Laurentianus 47. 36). V (Vaticanus 3864) is closely akin to M, but contains only Books I.-IV. The text of Book X. depends on a lost MS. which contained also the first nine Books. While this was still extant at Paris, copies of it by different hands were used by Avantius of Verona for his edition of 1502, and by Aldus in 1508. But while the Aldine edition gave the tenth Book entire, the first forty Letters are for some reason missing in that of Avantius. A MS. of these Letters has been discovered by Hardy in the Bodleian Library, which appears to be the actual copy from which Aldus printed.

In France Giovanni Giocondo (c. 1433 – 1515) a Dominican priest, claimed to have discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger's letters containing copies of his correspondence with Trajan. Two Italian editions of Pliny¶s Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

The earliest letters are medieval and we do not know what exactly Pliny may have written – Chrest or Christ.

Such is the case for all texts claimed in support for early Christianity: they either use Chrest, an abbreviation, or they do not exist – and belong to a Christian textual tradition, rather than history. By understanding their context, we may learn something useful.

If we are to find any value in the Testimonia, the many texts for which no primary source material exists, such as Pliny and Justin amongst others, it is by studying them within their archaeological context.

The term used in the artefactual evidences of the early centuries is Chrest/Good – not messiah – and Jesus the Good, and that is the context within which the missing primary source material should be interpreted.

If the Pliny-Trajan correspondence is genuine, then we may consider the term used was not Christian, but Chrestian.

This method of interpretation applies also to the earliest codices of the New Testament.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... OTA3ODY5OA
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2818

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#192  Postby Leucius Charinus » Nov 23, 2015 11:38 am

RealityRules wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia: - a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm

In this book I encountered for the first time the notion of an interpolated [Christian] tombstone ...

    it is freely admitted that certain (#2 and #30) of the "Christians for Christians" phrases
    look to have been added by a later hand.

"Christians for Christians" ??


The review concerns data presented in this book:
Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia:
https://books.google.com.au/books/about ... edir_esc=y


It's hard to follow your web-article b/c the focus on pre-Constantine (v post-Constantine) changes the context with respect to the primary issue of Chrest- v 'Christ-'


It's true I was focussed on the dates of these inscriptions, however the page also summarises data related to the Chrestian vs Christian issue. There is a table just over halfway through the summary. Summary of Citations.

As I did not have a Greek font at the time the headings XPIC- XPHC are
for XPIC (Christian) - 8 listed and XPHC (Chrestian) - 4 listed (Gibsons items 5,6,9,10)
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 809

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#193  Postby Homer MakeDonski » Mar 08, 2016 12:22 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Made of Stars wrote:Why would it change?


At the moment I don't have any ideas about the motive, other than the fact that the name "Chrestian" (which means "Good" or "useful") meant that the followers may have been known internally and externally as "The Good Guys". Maybe they sought a more unique name for the "Church Business Name"?

One thing is for sure, there is certainly evidence suggesting that "Church scribes" physically altered some manuscripts in order to change "Chrestian" to "Christian". One example is the 11th century Tacitus manuscript:


Image

χρηστιανοι (Chrestian): In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_o ... Chrestians


We might have two different terms from the beginning
1.Cross and the cross followers
2. Christ and Christ followers

300 AD, or some,
Emperor Constantine has recognized the Cross as symbol of his Empire .


Eastern Roman Empire the Cross symbol

Historical sources
according to Lactantius, Flavius Valerius Constantinus was visited by a dream the night before the battle, where in he was advised "to mark the heavenly sign of God on the shields of his soldiers ... by means of a slanted letter X with the top of its head bent round, he marked Christ on their shields."[1]

Lets check ;
Here is that symbol :
Image


Explanation we read is that is about of superimposed ,not ordinary but Greek letters: "A monogram and symbol for Christ, consisting of the superimposed Greek letters chi (Χ) and rho (Ρ),often embroidered on altar cloths and clerical vestments. Also called Chrismon, Christogram..." [2]
[chi + rho, first two letters of Greek Khrīstos, Christ.] [3]
What is most than strange
Greeks today for the Cross will say ;Σταυρός
No need to add that Macedonian and all related modern languages of today for Cross will say:


Cross -Eng.


Krs -Maced.
Krst-Bulg.
Krst-Serb.
Kriz -Croat .


And no wonder because here is the root of that word .
Krs;
X-KS;
P-ro;
X + P ~> KS + Ro ~>
Ro in between K`S ~>
K Ro S...we read Kros .
Kros or Crossed ,because Ro is present crossed at the middle of dual K`S or X
two letters

Another words connected with word the Cross in Macedonian are and this :baptism baptize
Lets compare:
Macedonian :KRST- KRSTI KRSTENJE
English :The Cross, baptism baptize
Greek :STAVROS Váptisi vaftísei
Where the root for ever will be at letters
X Ro
KRoS
:)

Such a strange ..


___________

Ref:
1- Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 44.4–6, tr. J.L. Creed,Lactantius: De Mortibus Persecutorum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), qtd. in Lenski, "Reign of Constantine" (CC), 71.
2- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Net links :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanti ... Early_life

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Chi-Rho

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/view ... %2FChi-Rho
Homer MakeDonski
 
Name: Goce Janevski
Posts: 30

Country: Macedonia
Macedonia (mk)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#194  Postby Homer MakeDonski » Mar 08, 2016 12:32 pm

So,
when we have got a Cross symbol recognized as official state symbol we have to supposed its followers

if the word Chrest or KRS or KRST in Macedonians standing for the Cross, than what for word rest -tian could standing for ?
-tian or ian would be suffix what does explaining ... or being affiliated with a Cross .
Is it historically correct that Constantine firstly accepted the Cross symbol for his own, and for symbol of his Empire , and never accepted Christianity ?
Yes it is
Then we could state that difference between these two terms is that first term links to second one and that is term Christians.
Homer MakeDonski
 
Name: Goce Janevski
Posts: 30

Country: Macedonia
Macedonia (mk)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#195  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 12, 2016 1:32 am

dejuror wrote:In addition, Christian writers of antiquity have admitted the Son of God was the SAME Substance as God.


Constantine took exception to the Arian notion that Jesus was of a SIMILAR substance as God, which was a notion much discussed at the Nicene Council because nowhere in the bible is spiritual substance or spiritual essence mentioned. The bible writers were only interested in material substance, as indeed was Constantine when, during his rule, he ordered the army to destroy and loot the pagan temples.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 809

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#196  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 12, 2016 1:44 am

Thanks Homer MakeDonski ....

Cross -Eng.


Krs -Maced.
Krst-Bulg.
Krst-Serb.
Kriz -Croat




Homer MakeDonski wrote:So,
when we have got a Cross symbol recognized as official state symbol we have to supposed its followers

if the word Chrest or KRS or KRST in Macedonians standing for the Cross, than what for word rest -tian could standing for ?
-tian or ian would be suffix what does explaining ... or being affiliated with a Cross .


Interesting.

What was Constantine's native language if indeed he was the grandson of a Danubian goat herder?


Is it historically correct that Constantine firstly accepted the Cross symbol for his own, and for symbol of his Empire , and never accepted Christianity ?
Yes it is
Then we could state that difference between these two terms is that first term links to second one and that is term Christians.


The first crucifix (a figure on a cross) is from the 5th or 6th or 7th century. Before that it appears that there was a LAMB on the cross. Besides the legend of Helena finding the One True Cross and Nails, which is obviously a FAKE legend, when does the cross appear in the archaeology?
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 809

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#197  Postby RealityRules » Mar 12, 2016 1:49 am

Homer MakeDonski wrote:
So,
when we have got a Cross symbol recognized as official state symbol we have to supposed its followers

if the word Chrest or KRS or KRST in Macedonians standing for the Cross, than what for word rest -tian could standing for ?
-tian or ian would be suffix what does explaining ... or being affiliated with a Cross .

Is it historically correct that Constantine firstly accepted the Cross symbol for his own, and for symbol of his Empire , and never accepted Christianity ?

Yes it is

Then we could state that difference between these two terms is that first term links to second one and that is term Christians.

I wonder if the nomina sacra allowed for equivocation between Chrestos/Chrestus and Christos (and the various versions of those two words), and thus conflation, either wittingly or unwittingly.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2818

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#198  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 12, 2016 2:02 am

RealityRules wrote:
Homer MakeDonski wrote:
So,
when we have got a Cross symbol recognized as official state symbol we have to supposed its followers

if the word Chrest or KRS or KRST in Macedonians standing for the Cross, than what for word rest -tian could standing for ?
-tian or ian would be suffix what does explaining ... or being affiliated with a Cross .

Is it historically correct that Constantine firstly accepted the Cross symbol for his own, and for symbol of his Empire , and never accepted Christianity ?

Yes it is

Then we could state that difference between these two terms is that first term links to second one and that is term Christians.

I wonder if the nomina sacra allowed for equivocation between Chrestos/Chrestus and Christos (and the various versions of those two words), and thus conflation, either wittingly or unwittingly.


The nomina sacra in todays world would be treated as encryptions - codification of the sacred names. The obvious question is who was it who held the DE-ENCRYPTION algorithm, and the only answer that I can think of to that question must be the church organisation itself.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 809

Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#199  Postby Homer MakeDonski » Mar 20, 2016 9:28 am

Interesting.
What was Constantine's native language if indeed he was the grandson of a Danubian goat herder?

That indeed is interesting
Someone made this kind of point.
From Atlantic Ocean up to Persia it is none Latin language dialect.
And we are talking about Latin word roots.
Strange isn`t
Last edited by Homer MakeDonski on Mar 20, 2016 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Homer MakeDonski
 
Name: Goce Janevski
Posts: 30

Country: Macedonia
Macedonia (mk)
Print view this post

Re: Evidence of name change: "Chrestian" to "Christian"

#200  Postby Homer MakeDonski » Mar 20, 2016 9:38 am

I wonder if the nomina sacra allowed for equivocation between Chrestos/Chrestus and Christos (and the various versions of those two words), and thus conflation, either wittingly or unwittingly.

Bro lets have this enter ...
If

we read KRS instead of KRST ,then we could face another root word meaning difference .

Firstly I have to explain a bit
Word standing for Cross at my Macedonian is exposed with letter t as its ending.
Krst = Cross
And because it is so we analyzed for one more time .
KRS instead of KRST


What letters KRS could standing for ?
And according "to the voice Constantine had heard at its vision" as legends says :
"“By this sign, you shall conquer..." or "you shell been unbeatable..." up to the source, historically we need to not to forget , one more thing That`s appearing of the Church. As institution Church it does appear when Constantine recognized Christianity as official state religion .
Lets focus at the term Church and its word roots .

At Latin Church is Ecclesia,
At Greek - Ekklisía
At Macedonian is Црква
from
Черква
or using different orthography
Ts r k va
Ch e r k va .

If we hear for one more time pronunciations of symbol as CHI RO , we could agree that indeed it is CHI RO
and does mean what ?
CHI Ro

CHI RO
CHU RO

CHu Ro CH
Church of Course .
Where Chi Ro has got its word ending at letter Ch meaning or could mean
Chi ro + Ch
follower

Back to my Macedonian
Черква
or using different orthography
Ts r k va
Ch e r k va .

from the root

KRS
We palatalized letters

K-> Ch
R
S ->K

So we have

K R S

Che R K

from

Chi Ro K

from
Chi Ro

_______________

At this way observed we could say yes they are two different terms trough history heaving two different meanings
First word is "Chrestian" meaning the Church followers , second one Christian meaning another thing ..
:)
Homer MakeDonski
 
Name: Goce Janevski
Posts: 30

Country: Macedonia
Macedonia (mk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest