The only reason you have stayed with this idea that the name was given by hate is because it aligns with your church doctrine. For one, I never declared that the apostles called themselves Christians. Thank God, every of mine contribution is still intact here.

I started that they stayed in Antioch for a whole year, even had a hand added to them because the rate of new birth was more than the original crew could handle. In all of the Acts of the Apostle, I do not know how many times, their work of new birth was described as, a great many number joined them like in Antioch.

The new guy that came saw glory everywhere and admonished them to continue in that stead. Their was not a single time the entire Acts 11 mentioned any ugly incident against the Apostle.

The scripture stated that it was here in Antioch where they recorded great victory in new birth that they were first called Christians. They were not chases away, at the end. They stayed for a whole years and taught the new believers


I would be more persuaded to believe that if some missionaries entered a town back then and the hand of God was evident in them and they did perform great miracles and won great company of believer in that same town and stayed not in hiding but in the open teaching those great numbers that whatever name they get from that town would have come from their former student and town rulers in honour for the many miracles they has wrought in their midst and not mockery.



As for Agrippa, PAUL never told him to become a Christian.

Here was the Chief Justice of a nation president over a case. The defendant having made his case, ask the chief judge a question as to his submission and the man being impressed with all the evidences presented and the manner of presentation delayed that he was almost persuaded to become one of you.

How you got you the idea that he was making a mockery of Paul from that passage remains a mystery. PAUL didn't go to him to convert him. He defended himself and the man made the statement and even had a private meeting to decided the mans fate and came to the conclusion that his submission was legit and that the man should be let off


Be guided that the occasion where Agrippa used this name was an official one and he is the chief justice of the nation. This tells you that the name was already recognised in official circles for the chief law officer to use it in official capacity. No nation chief judge mounts the official seat to speak despitefully of a suspect irrespective of his personal opinion on the subject matter.


Peter: this man says if you suffer as a Christian, count it glory. He made it clear in the next best that judgement will come to the house of God and I have stated it here that the people then weren't pagans but believer in God...they believed in God and the prophets but not Christ. And they believed differently as some were Pharisees, others were Sadducees but all believed in God... Christian believe in God but also believe in Christ Jesus as his son and saviour... That is the point of departure....a believer is not necessarily a Christian, even today

Peter says if the judgement or persecution comes to you first as a Christian, no be angry.

"Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." (KJV'1611+, 1 Peter 4:16)

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (KJV'1611+, 1 Peter 4:17)


Commentaries are not final authority on the scripture. If you allow the owner to teach you, you can wrote commentary that the world will not be able to gainsay.

Bring that man that wrote the commentary that has replaced the Bible for you and show him my submission and if he is of a teachable e spirit he agree that a judge doesn't crack performing his official function. He does not rivile the suspect.... Th remind neutral

Ubenedictus:



Lol,

Can't u read


The bible says

And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

They were called christians by who?

It didn't say at Antioch the disciples first called themselves Christians no! It say they were called Christians or better they got the name. Meaning others bestowed the name on them.

Maybe commentaries will help you.

MacLaren's Expositions
Acts

A NICKNAME ACCEPTED

Acts 11:26.

Nations and parties, both political and religious, very often call themselves by one name, and are known to the outside world by another. These outside names are generally given in contempt; and yet they sometimes manage to hit the very centre of the characteristics of the people on whom they are bestowed, and so by degrees get to be adopted by them, and worn as an honour.

So it has been with the name ‘Christian.’ It was given at the first by the inhabitants of the Syrian city of Antioch, to a new sort of people that had sprung up amongst them, and whom they could not quite make out. They would not fit into any of their categories, and so they had to invent a new name for them. It is never used in the New Testament by Christians about themselves. It occurs here in this text; it occurs in Agrippa’s half-contemptuous exclamation: ‘You seem to think it is a very small matter to make me-me, a king!-a Christian, one of those despised people!’ And it occurs once more, where the Apostle Peter is specifying the charges brought against them: ‘If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf {1 Peter 4:16}. That sounds like the beginning of the process which has gone on ever since, by which the nickname, flung by the sarcastic men of Antioch, has been turned into the designation by which, all over the world, the followers of Jesus Christ have been proud to call themselves.

Now in this text there are the outside name by which the world calls the followers of Jesus Christ, and one of the many interior names by which the Church called itself. I have thought it might be profitable now to put all the New Testament names for Christ’s followers together, and think about them.

Is that your only problem with the entire post? To know the pope that turned babies into spiritual soldiers when they are yet to know even what their hands are meant. Hope you know that babies are surprised when their own hands or keg comes into view... You are probably not a father or mother yet

RandomGuy48:
Exactly which pope did this?

R