[b-darwishahmed]

I'm wondering to where did the word Christianity began.
Was it found at the time Jesus Christ was crucifixion or was it know later?

[homesell]

Acts 11:26
"...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

Later at Acts 26:28
"Then Agrippa said to Paul, 'do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?'"

1 Peter 4:16
"However, if you suffer as a Christian..."
The book of Acts was written about things that occurred shortly after the crucifixion so they (followers) were not called Christians at the time Jesus was crucified.

[JoeT777]

I'm wondering to where did the word Christianity began.
Was it found at the time Jesus Christ was crucifixion or was it know later?

We can safely say that the term was used in the Apostolic Age. St. Polycarp considered himself a “Christian” during his trial. When St. Polycarp confessed his Christianity to the proconsul( ±145A.D.), he said;

"Since you are vainly urgent that, as you say, I should swear by the fortune of Cæsar, and pretendest not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and you shall hear them." The Smyrnaean's letter - St. Polycarp's martyrdom, 10

Equally interesting is that the word 'Catholic' (katholikos from katholou meaning throughout the whole, i.e., universal) is also used in the early Church. "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), and "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus). The phrase from antiquity, "Catholic Epistles" was applied to the books of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc. because they spoke to the universal Church, not any one community.


JoeT

[Tj3]

Equally interesting is that the word ‘Catholic’ (katholikos from katholou meaning throughout the whole, i.e., universal) is also used in the early Church. "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), and "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus). The phrase from antiquity, "Catholic Epistles" was applied to the books of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., because they spoke to the universal Church, not anyone community.

It should be noted that the early use of the word "catholic" meant universal, and referred to all Christians, rather than the denominational Catholic Church that we have today, which arose later.

[Akoue]

It should be noted that the early use of the word "catholic" meant universal, and referred to all Christians,

As you are fond of pointing out, mere opinion doesn't do anyone much good. Please substantiate this claim. Since citing the opinions of others won't do the trick, you'll need to provide evidence from primary sources that the word "katholikos" was used in the way you describe.

I wish you luck finding such historical, that is to say, documentary, evidence, since what you say here is false.

rather than the denominational Catholic Church that we have today, which arose later.

Again, please provide unambiguous historical evidence for your claim. (No alluding to the opinions of others, since those are, after all, just opinions.)

Since this thread concerns the origins of Christianity, and since both of the claims you've made here are directly relevant to the question of Christian origins, there is no need to worry that providing historical substantiation of your claims will take the thread off-topic.

[Tj3]

As you are fond of pointing out, mere opinion doesn't do anyone much good. Please substantiate this claim. Since citing the opinions of others won't do the trick, you'll need to provide evidence from primary sources that the word "katholikos" was used in the way you describe.

We have had separate threads on that topic, and all you do is deny, so I know that you will never accept historical fact, even when I quote leaders of your denomination.

Now, if you wish to prove me wrong, instead of constantly asking me the same questions over and over and denying anything which is posted, why don't you just show us where the Catholic denomination is mentioned in the Bible.

BTW, this thread is not on the origins of Christianity, but of the word - and "Catholic" is not the word.

[sndbay]

Equally interesting is that the word ‘Catholic’ (katholikos from katholou meaning throughout the whole, i.e., universal) is also used in the early Church. "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), and "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus). The phrase from antiquity, "Catholic Epistles" was applied to the books of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., because they spoke to the universal Church, not any one community.
JoeT

The word katholou is a Greek word refer #2527 meaning (at all), on the whole, or entirely. It is found in scripture once (Acts 4:18)

Number G2527 matches the Greek καθόλου (katholou), which occurs 1 time in 1 verse in the Greek concordance of the KJV

[Wondergirl]

Like homesell mentioned, in Acts 11:26 (KJV), "And when he had found him, he brought him unto 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."

[Tj3]

The word katholou is a Greek word refer #2527 meaning (at all), on the whole, or entirely. It is found in scripture once (Acts 4:18)

Number G2527 matches the Greek καθόλου (katholou), which occurs 1 time in 1 verse in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Right - and the passage says nothing regarding any denomination.

[sndbay]

Right - and the passage says nothing regarding any denomination.

Correct... it does not.


However what has captured my attention when I searched out the meaning of G2527 that matches the Greek word καθόλου (katholou), which occurs 1 time in 1 verse in the Greek concordance of the KJV (Acts 4:18)

A reference is given to abbreviated the teaching of Acts 4:18 which Paul used in regard to the Greek word (katholou)...

Abbreviation: (Eze 13:3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!) (Eze 13:20 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life) (Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? ) (Amo 3:4 Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? Will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing? )(Amo 3:5 Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him? Shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all?)


I don't usually pay much attention to single word abbreviations, but if the Catholic church puts so much effort into this one word, then what are we to think of this example given in the Thayer's Lexicon help.

[Akoue]

We have had separate threads on that topic, and all you do is deny, so I know that you will never accept historical fact, even when I quote leaders of your denomination.

Now, if you wish to prove me wrong, instead of constantly asking me the same questions over and over and denying anything which is posted, why don't you just show us where the Catholic denomination is mentioned in the Bible.

BTW, this thread is not on the origins of Christianity, but of the word - and "Catholic" is not the word.

If by "deny" you mean that I have consistently pointed out the falsity of your assertions about early Christian history, then, yes, I have. And I've repeatedly explained at length the nature of your errors. And yet you continue to post claims which you have been shown to be false. Since you haven't provided any historical evidence for your claims about the emergence of the Catholic Church there really hasn't been much for me to prove wrong. So far all you've offered was a misreading of Newman--one which was explained to you at length. But that's not historical evidence either way. You haven't provided any historical evidence for anything.

Now, I've never posted a denominational affiliation. You seem to assume that since I call you out on your false statements about Catholicism I must be Catholic. In any event, despite dozens of invitations, you've refused to post any historical evidence in support of your assertion. So where is it? You are very strident in making this assertion so why are you so timid about presenting evidence for it? Certainly you are dogged in your insistence that others substantiate their claims at every turn. Either substantiate your claim with historical evidence or desist from making it. After all, you yourself often remind us that mere opinion isn't worth much. So if your claim is something more than mere opinion you should have no trouble bringing forth substantive and unambiguous historical evidence of its veracity.

And since Catholic origins are intimately interwoven with Christian origins, this is absolutely and directly on-topic. Unless you can provide some substantive historical evidence to support your assertion that Catholicism emerged at some later point, you have no case to make that my challenge that you substantiate your claims is off-topic.

It's simple: Tell us when you believe the Catholic Church came into being and provide historical evidence to back up your belief and show it to be something other than an opinion that you hold without justification.

[Tj3]

If by "deny" you mean that I have consistently pointed out the falsity of your assertions about early Christian history, then, yes, I have.
And I've repeatedly explained at length the nature of your errors. And yet you continue to post claims which you have been shown to be false. Since you haven't provided any historical evidence for your claims about the emergence of the Catholic Church there really hasn't been much for me to prove wrong. So far all you've offered was a misreading of Newman--one which was explained to you at length. But that's not historical evidence either way. You haven't provided any historical evidence for anything.

Here we go again - when you have no good defense or validation for your position, go after the person. You try to make yourself the standard of all that is true and false - I have bad news for you - there is only one being capable of that claim and it ain't you! Simply denying facts that you don't like does not make them any less true.

Like I said, deny, deny, deny.

I note that you have yet to show us any validation of your claim that the Roman Catholic denomination is mentioned in the NT.

[Wondergirl]

And some simply avoid...

[Fr_Chuck]

I get the final word

Closed, closed closed