The Greatest Lie And Deception Ever
"Believers Were First Called Christians in Antioch"
Really ???(updated 31-12-19)
("pw" in brackets refers to "pagan word")
The catholic "church" has, through, deceptive translation changed many words in the scriptures (see: Sunday Worship Terms ) to create a completely new religion, a rehashing of an already existing religion which existed before Yahushua the true Saviour came its name was "Christianity"
New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge confirms that the
"originated outside of Christian and Jewish circles".
The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible states that: "By the late first
early second centuries the name ‘Christian,’ which early believers
using of themselves, was beginning to be accepted".
Why would early believers avoid using the name Christian?
we prove this using scripture itself?
and we will in this article.
name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate,
understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions.
early followers of Yahushua refused to be called Christian, and call
Christ", because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans
gods." (reference http://nazirene.org/unfaithful2.htm).
Constantine further popularized this syncretic religion which allowed pagan worship to be mixed in from Graeco Roman / Babylonian Roots. (see Constantine Exposed) A new pagan religion needed a distinct name. It had to distance itself from the Elohim (pw God) of Yisrael and his commandments. It had to replace the appointed times / feast of Yah'uah with pagan festivals such as Easter and Christmas. Scripture shows whose calendar will and must be followed at the end times to honor Elohim. It is not the Christian / Catholic Gegorian calendar (see Whose Calendar Do You Follow ).This so-called new religion, though, had to appear to be endorsed by the scriptures. So the catholic church did its worst to make that happen.
The truth is "Christianity" is not the religion of the true scriptures (Genesis to Revelations) it is a pagan invention of Rome (Babylon). There is no new religion in the scriptures. It is only a fresh covenant by the blood of Mashiak that CONFIRMS the EVERLASTING COVENANT made with Abraham which Yah'uah Elohim founded upon his To'rah and was foretold by his prophets. Salvation is Hebrew not Graeco-Roman. It is of the Yah'udim. Yah'ushua (pw Jesus) himself tells us
Jn 4: 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Yahudim*
* means worshippers of Yah(uah) - this word was also corrupted being replaced with the modern byword "Jews" which has a totally different meaning today and conjures up ideas of secular Pharisaism/Judaism rather than To'rah obedient worshipers of Yah'uah (Yahudim) such as Shaul (Paul) and all the other Hebrew apostles and includes those converted heathens (pw Gentiles) who join themselves to Yah'uah's renewed covenant in To'rah.
Christianity on the other hand defies the commandments (To'rah) of Yah'uah and teaches pagan trinitarian doctrines (see Why Jesus is not God) and blasphemy through idolatry in all shapes and sizes where the true Mashiak, Yah'ushua is replaced with the Jesus / J-Esus /J-Zeus Messiah who is made to appear as a Son who siezes his Father's throne and makes himself a "GOD" (a pagan Baal idol -See His Name) defying and destroying the To'rah.
The Christian Label
The First Step to True Revival and Reformation is to know who you should be, how you should be and who you should serve.
A label should correctly refer to the true contents.
If the label is incorrect it needs to be changed. If the label and the contents are incorrect a complete re-filing and re-labelling is required.
If you believe you are filled with the Spirit of "Christ" and are a "Christian" you may wish to recheck that your label and contents are genuine before your expiry date.
"Christ / Christian"Comes from the Greek word "Christos" meaning "anointed / anointed one," and was used in the pagan Greek and Roman religions to give reference to their Sun-god, "Helios." Roman Emperor Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." Christos originates from the Greek word "Chrestos" which means "good" and alludes to the Greek / Roman god "Chrestos." "Chrestos" can be seen on a Mithras (Roman cult) relief in the Vatican. "Chrestos" as reverenced by Greeks and Romans was none other than "Osiris," a Sun-diety of Egypt. Heretic Gnostics during the time of circulation of so-called New Testament scriptures also used the title of "Christos" for their purposes. Christian comes from the Greek word meaning "good men," but was derogatorily applied in mockery to believers of Mashiak because they worshipped "Mashiak of Israel" or the "anointed one of Israel" and not the "anointed" Greek god "Chrestos."
In the scriptures the word "Christian" only appears twice, "Christians" once and "Christianity" does not appear at all. The greatest deception by the Catholic "church" in translation has led to the acceptance of "Christian" being the title for people like Shaul (Paul) and believers who worship Yah'uah when it is not! The single verse which supports such an outrageous conclusion is
The Greek for "called" here is "chrematizo" Strongs defines it as follows:
Thus the correct interpretation is:
Some may argue that it is not possible to choose this option for the translation since the sentence would read "and the diciples were warned of Elohim (?) Christians first in Antioch since there is no "of" or "about" in the Greek of this verse. We would however easily blow that contention out of the water since in the very same book of Acts verse 11:30 we have the same thing going on. We show the Strong's Greek after each word as presented in the KJV:
Thus we have "the hands (?) Barnabas"
This word we are submitting as the correct translation is seen elsewhere. The very same use of "chrematizo" is found in Heb 11:7
We see that the warning of Elohim is not about trivial matters. In Noah's case the warning referred to the seriousness of the coming flood and in the case of the early disciples the warning was about the "Christians" and their pagan influence and corruption upon the various congregations of Yahuah. Antioch was indeed filled with pagan syncretic Hellinistic (Greek) Jews who were not following the religion of Yah'uah (pw God) as taught by the Mashiak.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
32 And now, brethren, I commend you to Elohim (pw God), and to the word (To'rah) of his influence upon your heart (moral conviction pagan word faith) through his gift (pw grace), which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are purified (pw sanctified).
33 I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.
We know that overseers were replaced with pagan Catholic inventions ie Bishops who taught perverse things ie Christianity, trinity, "Jesus is God", hating To'rah, replacing Elohim etc etc and we know that they were and are hired clerics being paid silver and gold. We know that the headquarters of "Christianity" in Rome has become the epitomy of silver and gold coveting by the sheer presence of it in the Vatican and within its own Vatican bank. It has profited from its pagan perverse sites, pagan festivals and pagan teachings with visitors flocking to see and hear.
A further interpretation is that the true believers simply had to bear or endure this incorrect derogatory title or label of "Christianity" imposed on them since "chrematizo" also means "bear as a title". This is similar to what happened with the word "Jew" which is a derogatory term from the true meaning Yahudi (worshiper of Yah(uah). This seems to be the very case when it was assumed by Agrippa that Shaul is a "Chrestos" This would be understandable as the secular people would just use this term as a general label not being able to discern the difference amongst the masses of pagan "Christians" claiming to follow a Messiah as well, but a false one Helios etc. We remember of course that Yah'ushua warned there would be many false Mashiaks.
This becomes more evident when we look at the use of the word "Christian" in the scriptures.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him honor Elohim on this behalf.If these pagan"Christians" were suffering ableit for following a false religion they were suffering nonetheless. A byword "Christian" was being used to mock them. Today we have atheists who mock religion and true religion is thus mocked under that umbrella. Thus if Shimon Kipha (Simon Peter) says if you suffer as a Christian it would be equivalent to someone saying if you suffer as a "religious freak" don't be ashamed. This does not mean you are a religious freak following a false religion. It does not mean you are a Christian, you are simply suffering under the misguided label.
Now attached to that idea comes the consolation by Kipha when he says do not be ashamed but rather honor Elohim on this behalf or in this circumstance. Honoring Elohim and his To'rah is thus NOT A SHAMEFUL THING contrary to what "christianity"teaches". It goes as far as saying one is cursed if one keeps To'rah. Now the "christian" who believes christianity is the so-called "new religion" of the bible will speed over that portion "let him honor Elohim". They will not grasp this conclusive declaration which separates the true believing sufferer from the suffering "Christian" . One honors Elohim the other honors the pagan "chrestos". The very term honor Elohim reminds us of the very first commandment, the basic tenet of a true believer versus a "christian" . This is the very foundation to which Moses and Yah'ushua the Mashiak himself points us to as well:
Mar 12:29 And Yah'ushua answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; YAH'UAH (יהוה) our Elohim is one YAH'UAH (יהוה):
Honor Elohim means obey him as the one true Elohim and do not transgress his To'rah, do not worship pagan mighty ones such as Chrestos of the sun cult religion. Since context is everything let's look at verses preceding the following:
The actual cause of this suffering of the true believer who honors Elohim is revealed here:
So the suffering is ostracising those who obey To'rah and who do not live as the world. True believers no longer walk in the ways of To'rahlessness.
That is something of the past, it is what an unbeliever does.
It makes special note of IDOLATRY which Christianity on the other hand continues to commit with "Chrestos" which does away with To'rah and replaces shabbat with SUNday worship (See Antisabbath Doctrines), Christ Mass (See Saving Christmas) etc.
The suffering here is not talking about suffering because you are a Christian. On the contrary you are suffering because you are being lumped together with other religions in general which in this instance included Christians or the byword "christian" but you must remember that you are being judged by men in the flesh who do not know any difference. The same would apply to us who keep To'rah. We are often judged and suffer as if we are now Jews (a modern byword) or Judaizers which of course is not the case. The judging is not accroding to To'rah because the judging is by men in the flesh who hate or are ignorant of To'rah.
And is that not how you can honor Elohim in this very circumstance of suffering and miguided labelling, by telling them who you honor and obey -Elohim and his To'rah? The suffering then whether rightfully or wrongfully given must be overcome with the mind of Mashiak not Chrestos and must be of one who HAS CEASED FROM TRANSGRESSING TO'RAH.
1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, BUT TO THE WILL OF ELOHIM
Yes, he lives to obey Elohim's To'rah, he honors Elohim which is what Kipha concluded in v16 amidst the misguided label of "christian"
Is this not what Shaul did with Agrippa then? Did he not turn Agrippa to the real reason he is suffering, because he obeys and honors Elohim, that he is not a pagan "Chrestos"? The answer is yes.
Shaul does not endorse the term "Christian" here when Agrippa suspects him of being a "chrestos /christian". Shaul instead deflects away from such an idea and clears things up for the undiscerning Agrippa, the man who judges in the flesh (1 Pet 4:6):
3641 oligos ol-ee'-gos of uncertain affinity; puny (in extent, degree, number, duration or value); especially neuter (adverbially) somewhat:--+ almost, brief(-ly), few, (a) little, + long, a season, short, small, a while.
Agrippa, for a while, had the preconceived idea that he was being persuaded to be a "Christian" because of the way Shaul was arguing his case so strongly. A similar stereotypical or preconceived situation would also result if a true believer began to present the same good message( pw gospel) to someone at the door of his house and that person suddenly said "for a moment or short while you persuaded me to be a Jehovah Witness." Truth may sometimes overlap or be confused with a cult and this is exactly what occurs with "christianity" . But when Shaul refers to the prophets, then that is when Agrippa realises that Shaul is speaking of a different religion to christianity and that the prophets of Elohim (see verse 27) are To'rah founded not pagan founded as seen later with catholic "church fathers". Agrippa is being reminded he should believe in the ancient paths and not some new religion called "Christianity" that rejects the prophets by its new pagan lawless ideas and Graeco-Roman syncretism. We recall that Mashiak Yah'ushua said he did not come to destroy the law (To'rah) or the prophets, "Christianity" however does try to do that by promoting a lawless imposter called "Jesus" who they make to be Elohim (pw God). It has in fact deceived the whole world.
So Shaul says to Agrippa "be as I am", and how is Shaul? He explained already to his brethren:
In Acts Shaul bounces the word "almost", that Agrippa used, back at him:
but Shaul further adds the word "altogether". In other words his request is that Agrippa for a short while should instead consider being like him (and not like a "Christian"), Shaul includes that Agrippa also do it "altogether" (Greek-polus ) ie give himself wholly to being as Shaul is. "Altogether" here is the complete opposite to the syncretism of Christianity, the luke warm religion that Yah'uah spits out. He advises Agrippa to be an uncompromising Mashiak follower (Greek mimetes) not a "Christian" which is alleged to mean follower of Christ ( a pagan Chrestos). Shaul has his doctrine altogether in the To'rah and not gathered all over the place from paganism as does Christianity.
Now let's go to the beginning of Shaul's preaching and we will see it reflecting the very thing Kipha was saying about suffering as though one were a Christian.
Paul Tells of His Conversion Back to To'rah and away from Persecuting To'rah keepers:
Act 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from shamayim above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
Act 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue (not Greek), Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goads.
Act 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Master? And he said, I am Yah'ushua whom thou persecutest.
Act 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Act 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto Elohim, that they may receive forgiveness of transgression of To'rah, and inheritance among them which are purified by emunah / moral conviction ( pw faith) that is in me.
Act 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the vision of shamayim (pw heaven):
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to Elohim, and do works meet for repentance.
Act 26:21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of Elohim, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:23 That Mashiak should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
Act 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
Act 26:25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
Act 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
Act 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
We note the mention of the sun by Shaul during his vision of Yah'ushua and one would immediately perhaps see why Agrippa may think of Chrestos Helios / or Christ the true Sun, a very similar pagan image promoted later by Constantine with his supposed vision of a pagan cross in the sun. Yet if one were not listening correctly one would miss the revelation of Shaul's words
I do not think this is a trivial thing. It occured here to conquer the "chrestos" sun god worshipers. This light with Yah'ushua's presence is not the sun but exceeds it. This is the great light (shemesh) of Yah'uah that will replace the sun in the New Shamayim.
Thus if Agrippa were listening and being honest he would not have drawn the conclusion of a sun cult called Christianity. Thirdly the Mashiak of Shaul is Yah'ushua (v15) not Helios or Zeus / J-Zeus. Yah'ushua bears the name of the Father Yah'uah, and means Yah who saves, redeems, avenges etc.... It bears the mark of the prophesied Mashiak, prophesied by the prophets as the one who would turn men to repent from disobeying To'rah and do works of righteousness, ie obeying To'rah.
not works against To'rah as we see with "Chrestos"/Christ / "christianity". Shaul then clearly shows why he suffered
Shaul does not say he suffered because he was a "Christian" , the very opposite which is opposed to true repentance and obedience to To'rah.
Shaul tries to get Agrippa to admit that he is not ignorant of these things which have taken place and are widely publicised and which cannot be atributed to some pagan religion but to the true and living Elohim who has prophesied these things by his prophets for centuries.
Shaul makes it clear that this is not a new religion, a religion called christianity which the Catholic church pretends was invented by Shaul / Peter and replaces To'rah. No! Shaul says it is based on the To'rah and the prophets. It is the covenant renewal by Yah'ushua of the everlasting covenant (founded upon To'rah) with Abraham. Shaul clearly shows that the persecution is against those who preach and keep To'rah. The abomination called "christianity" has nothing to do with the true religion of Elohim and his Son.
"Christian" did really mean a follower of Mashiak
should at least see the word "mimetes" (follower) contained within the
word "Chrestos" / Christos but it is never there because it does not
mean follower of the Mashiak Yah'ushua! Shaul could have simply said
to Agrippa "Yes be a Christian" but he does not! Even if it did mean
Christos or "Christos-like" we still would not want to be associated
with it since Mashiak Yah'ushua is not a pagan "christos" he is
not "Christ the True Sun" but
Yah'ushua haMashiak the true Son.
Shaul says he suffered because he preached to men to repent and return to To'rah. He did not suffer because he was a "Christian" or "Chrestos" follower, period!
CHRISTIAN GREETINGS NON-EXISTENT
After the first mention of believers supposedly being now called "christians" no such reference is made to them as "christians" EVER in the epistles by Shaul or any of the apostles when referring to them or adressing them. They are always addressed as believers, saints, disciples etc but NEVER, NOT ONCE "Christian" or "Christians" !!
This is clear evidence against the pagan term "Christian".
The evidence is further strengthened by the fact that Shaul's Hebrew name has the introduction of his Roman name "Paul" in Acts and thereafter we then DO see the actual usage of "Paul" to such an extent in fact that people make the mistake that his name was changed.
with the word "Christian". "Shaul
does not even use the term "christian" in this letter which by this
stage should have been a commonly used term if it truly were the
correct term to use
it truly had been used by the disciples in Antioch a whole 14 years
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother [????christian ] be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
|Founding of Church at Antioch
|Writing of Matthew's Gospel
|James Killed by Herod
His First Missionary Journey Begun
|Council at Jerusalem
Second Missionary Journey Begun
|Writing of I Thessalonians
|Writing of II Thessalonians
Third Missionary Journey Begun
|Writing of I Corinthians
|...Paul Writes Colossians
another 5 years on and Shaul still does not use a term that supposedly bears the word Christ but instead writes out a long descriptive term that avoids it.
Would it not have been easier for the aging Shaul to simply write Christian.
We see this over and over again and if Shaul who was overseeing and visiting the assemblies throughout, would he not have been instrumental in promoting this term in his letters if he indeed endorsed or invented it and thus create unity in the use of it?
Let's return to the key verse: Acts 11:26 with our submission in brackets and then include the following three verses:
Act 11:27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
Act 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth (famine) throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Act 11:29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
Act 11:30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
We see that in the same days that they were supposedly called Christians in Antioch we have prophets coming to Antioch and again warning of a coming famine. Here again we see that in those same days in verse 29 it again uses the word "disciples" not "Christians" who send relief from Antioch to "brethren" in Judea. So even if Judeans were not yet called Christians but brothers why were those in Antioch still called disciples (v 29) and not Christians after the very context has apparently stated so. We submit it does not call them Christians but warns of them.
Is it not fitting that in this context there should be two warnings:
1) the warning by Elohim of the coming Christian infiltration beginning at Antioch the pagan city comparable to Alexandria and
2) the warning of the coinciding world famine
Would this not be a signal of the beginning of the world's spiritual decline as it began to look to Antioch's pagan Christian doctrines. Is a world famine not also prophesied for those in the end times who come against Israel ( ie those who are against his Torah keeping people) in Zechariah 14? Is this not the culmination of the pagan Christian doctrines of Rome coming against Israel?
We note that is is DISCIPLES (talmidim) who are the ones that can supply food and not the Christians. So too in Zechariah 14 we see the people who came against Israel will only receive rain when they go up to Jerusalem for sukkot (feast of tabernacels), NOT Christmas in Rome.
Yahushua is not Christian
And to put the last nail into the coffin, Yah'ushua haMashiak himself NEVER refers to us as "Christians" before or after in the book of Revelations, 53 years after the Antioch claim!
Yah'ushua speaks to John (Yahuchanon) concerning the assemblies (pw church) of saints not "christians"!
Strongs Greek for "saints" :
From ἅγος hagos (an awful thing) compare G53, [H2282]; ...(physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.
So the kodesh / pure ones - not christians.
Yah'ushua does however WARN of all the unpure, unrighteous pagan Babylonian corruption within the seven assemblies which is clearly where the Babylonian "Christian" religion became saturated under the Roman Catholic "church" control and finally led to the world deception today. Thus they venerate (idolise )and pray to (necormance) their so-called "christian saints" who were To'rahless, eg Saint Nicholas aka Santa Clause (first venerated on the 6th of the Pope Gregory's invention called December and later moved to 25 December).
Revelations 2 is clearly exposing "Christian" doctrines of Balaam (Babylonian SUN / SUNday worship and Mithraism (Bull worship) 25 December etc spiritual fornication, eating things offered to idols-raisin cakes, hot cross (T) buns to Tammuz, Christ mass ham, cannabilistic transubstantiation called Mass), Jezebel (spiritual fornication and idolatry with Eostre (Easter) fertility godess, Maria worship - Isis(queen of "Heaven"), St Nikolas(Father Christ mass) etc. The Nicolaitans (paid Bishops / Pastors and clerics "lording" over men with their unchallenged, monologue, pagan doctrines now called "sermons").
* Instead of "Christian" we should use scriptural titles used by the apostles of the early assembly:
Yahudim - true worshipers of Yah(uah)
"disciple" (Hebrew talmidim) of Mashiak Yah'ushua
called out ones
those of the way (derek) of Yah'uah
or "Natsarim" (see Who are the Natsarim ) etc
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way (derek) of truth shall be evil spoken of.