Comments about ‘Comparing the use of 'Christian' and 'saint' in scriptures’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 22 2012 5:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
donn
layton, UT

RE: The New “Testament” church that the Lord established when he was on the earth.
Modern translation are helpful. The word "testament" doesn't occur in the : RSV,NASB,NIV, ESV,NLT.

“Testament” (c.1300, KJV) is from L.L. vetus testamentum and novum testamentum, loan-translations of Gk.(Old) palaia (Covenant)diatheke and (New)kaine (Covenant)diatheke. L.L. testamentum in this case was a Mistranslation of Gk. diatheke, which meant both "covenant, dispensation" and "will, testament," and was used in the former sense in the account of the Last Supper but was falsely interpreted as Christ's "last will."

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible mis-translates(s/b coveant0 testament in: MT 26:24; Mark,14:23,Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; Heb 7:20.

the truth
Holladay, UT

RE: donn

you make the same mistake that others make,

believing that documents written hundreds of years later after events contain the full truth.

they probably do not.

Translation and translating is not a trivial thing, nor is preserving the full truth.

a correct translation does not guarantee that the original source contains the correct information.

there is difference between correct content and translated content.

If I wrote a "Book of Donn" two hundred years after you had lived of things you had said and done, from handed down sources and memories, then translated it to a new language like english, how do know the content is correct correct even if you know the translation is correct.

I believe we should more concerned with correct and truthful content, rather than dickering over translations.

KTC John
Wetumpka, AL

Donn,
Your comment has nothing to do with the article. Consequently, "the truth's" response to your article also has nothting to do with the article. The article basically states that Christ never referred to the members of his church as "Christians," and Joseph Smith did not make the mistake of referring to the members of Christ's church as "Christians." That's quite amazing in view of the fact that the common word usage of Joseph's day was to refer to the members of Christ's church as "Christians." Now, someone tell me why that is not truly amazing---or agree that it is indeed truly amazing.

donn
layton, UT

RE: Truth, The word “saints” is the regular and common reference used for all of the members[People] of the N.T.church. Wrong,
“As translated correctly”. The word Saint( 12th c) Latin Sanctus meaning “Holy”. A direct translation from the Greek word (hagios) meaning “Holy”. In its original scriptural usage it simply means “Holy” or “Sanctified”. It can be applied to a “Holy” PERSON, a PLACE, The Holy Mountain, a THING like Scripture itself, Holy Bible, or God The Holy Spirit/Ghost same Greek word( pneuma).

Apostles Creed: I believe in the Holy=(hagios) Spirit; the holy=(hagios) Catholic Church; the communion of saints=(hagios).
“ J S didn't know,” that Saint is a Latin/ KJV word. Not found the NLT,NIV, translations.

“ AS translated poorly”: the angels which kept not their first estate…=(*archē ,746)…(Jude 1: 6 KJV & JST).
the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority,..(Jude 1: 6 NIV)
… the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority…( Jude 1:6 NLT) Fallen angels(demons).

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"If a man were fraudulently attempting to establish in the 19th century a counterfeit of the original Church of Jesus Christ, his claimed revelatory writings would likely contain the descriptive term “Christian” with some degree of regularity."

That seems like a really random assertion to start an article is. Besides, it doesn't really make sense. You want me to believe that it's logical for a group trying to assert that it is correct and is restoring the Gospel (regardless of whether or not it's fraud)... to use terms that the mainstream churches use? I would think they'd be trying to distinguish themselves more.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@KTC John

"That's quite amazing in view of the fact that the common word usage of Joseph's day was to refer to the members of Christ's church as "Christians." Now, someone tell me why that is not truly amazing---or agree that it is indeed truly amazing."

It's not amazing at all. A group distinguishing itself from the "rest" of the churches is not likely to use words associated with the rest of the churches. The LDS church just had an Easter advertising campaign that focused on Jesus, the primary purpose of which was to inform non-LDS that the LDS church is a Christian church so considering the recent moves towards the term, it would seem that God doesn't care about the term being used.

Abeille
West Haven, Utah

Donn, Atl134, et al: I have a quiz for you -

1. Complete the following phrase, meaning taking a resting body and putting it into motion:
"Ready, Set, ______"
a. Commence!
b. Start!
c. Go!
d. Begin!

2. Jesus is the _____
a. Christ
b. Messiah

3. Directly translate this common French phrase 'J'Allez Ches Moi.'

Question #1 shows that, in the English vernecular, many different words can be used to mean the same thing. Although you probably answered 'C - GO!', any of the four would work. You probably selected C because that's the popular phrasing of the sentence. Similarly, referring to members of the church as 'Christian' would have been the popular vernacular at the time of Joseph Smith. The fact that he did not use 'Christian' to describe the members of the church is significant.

Question #2 shows that, just like Question #1, words having different roots can be used to mean the same thing in a language. In English, Christ (Christos - greek) and Messiah (Cyrillic) mean the same thing. The fact that the word could be translated to mean 'Holy' rather than 'Saint' is immaterial, as the reference is to members of the original church (continued).

Abeille
West Haven, Utah

Question #3, directly translate the common French phrase 'J'Allez Chez Moi' reminds us that, sometimes, the direct translation becomes meaningless in a diffferent language. 'J'Allez Chez Moi' directly translates to 'I go to me', which is meaningless in English. Since the meaning is more important than direct translation, we would understand this phrase as meaning 'I'm going home'. So, which held the most meaning to you - the direct translation, or the meaning of the phrase? Me too - without the meaning of the phrase, understanding does not take place. Therefore, the dual translation of the word as pointed out by Donn is superfluous. Meaning trumps direct translation every time!

Donn and Atl134 - Your comments are nearly always derogatory toward the LDS Faith. If you really feel this way toward my beliefs, why read the articles? This article holds a great thought and some good ideas. Yet you seem to want to pick it apart, rather than try to understand its meaning. What good do you feel you're doing by reading articles such as this one and making derogatory comments on them? It must make for some great unhappiness in your lives.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Abeille
"The fact that he did not use 'Christian' to describe the members of the church is significant."

Not really no, because he wanted to establish clear separation with the other churches.

"Your comments are nearly always derogatory toward the LDS Faith."

I question things (like in this case I question how Joseph Smith not using Christian helps prove the church is true especially since the church works hard nowadays to convey the fact that they are Christian). Some think that's derogatory I guess, those are the few LDS members who think anything other than agreement is hate. I know most LDS members aren't like that. I know it's a Christian church. I know it's not a cult. I know it's full of mostly decent people. I just don't believe in it, that's all. I read religion articles because they're interesting.

donn
layton, UT

Re: Abeille, What good do you feel you're doing by reading articles such as this?
...speaking the truth in love(Eph4:15)I share Jesus with my Mormon in-laws too.

Jesus is the “Hellenized-anglicized form of “Yeshua”,which means “salvation”. Yeshua never heard the name “Jesus”in His lifetime. He was called Yeshua which is very similar to Joshua a common Hebrew name at the time.

Christ is a title not His last name, taken from the Hebrew word Mashiach or anointed one ,which was translated and Anglicized from Christos to Christ. Messiah is more accurate than Christ. ,Examples of this in the Old Covenant are Dan 9:25 Yeshua claimed this title Messiah in the New Covenant(Mk 14: 61-62) Messianic Judaism.

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM(the Being).(Ex 3:14 Septuagint).
you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I Am [God the being] who I claim to be, you will die in your sins(John 8:24 Greek N.T.)

If you have a personal relationship with someone getting their character and nature right, is essential.

Abeille
West Haven, Utah

Atl134 -

I thank you for your response. I have no problem whatsoever that you disagree with my theology. Please feel free to believe as you see fit. Nor do I equate the term 'derogatory' with 'hate'. I don't think you 'hate' Latter-Day Saints. I simply find it interesting that, in general, you read these articles, then find something negative to say about them. However, based on your response, I have this to offer:

If you want absolute 'proof' that a theology is true, you won't find it in any of these articles. In my opinion, we were meant to live by faith. Having 'proof' that something is right means you no longer have 'faith', since you have a sure knowledge (proof) of it. Articles such as this one are not 'proof', nor are they intended to be. They are 'evidences' for us to explore, which reassures us of our faith. So, in the 'proof' sense, you're right - this article does not 'prove' anything. In the 'evidence' sense, it has great value.

The only proof you can have about theology is given by the Holy Ghost - which one can receive only by excercising faith.

Abeille
West Haven, Utah

Donn -

Thank you very much for your response. I am also grateful that your stated intent is to help me understand the nature of Jesus the Christ, whom I accept as my Lord and my Savior. I have had that 'change of heart', or, in the New Testament, that change of spirit spoken of.

I realize that Christ is not the surname of Jesus. If anything, he was probably known as (anglicized version) 'Jesus Bar Joseph', which I think both of us would agree is somewhat inaccurate.

Also inaccurate was your quote of Ex 3:14. It says (KJV) 'And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sesnt me unto you. Obviously, one of the titles of Yah'Weh (The God of the Old Testament) is I AM. The LDS believe that the God of the Old Testament, Yah'weh, and Yeshua of the New Testament, are the same - more commonly known as Jesus.

I also agree that getting the character and nature of Jesus right is essential. Let me know how else I can help.

donn
layton, UT

Re: Abeille The LDS believe that the God of the Old Testament, Yah'weh, and Yeshua of the New Testament, are the same.

From LDS revelation, we learn that ‘Jehovah‘ is the English form of the actual name by which the Lord Jesus was known ANCIETLY. (D&C 110:3) p.788 Mormon Doctrine.

Jehovah appears to JS? Abraham 2:8 ,My is name is Jehovah. s/b YHWH, JS was unaware of the poor KJV and didn’t know the Personal name of God(LORD)YHWH. Google Tetragrammmaton.

The spelling Jehovah appeared first during the 1762-1769 editing of the KJV Bible. The transcription Jehovah is nothing but a misunderstanding by Christian translators of Jewish reading traditions."

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became flesh .(John 1:1,14 KJV) God becomes man not man becomes God.

…we perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us…1 John 3:16(KJV) God on the cross.
(Mosiah 7:27; 15:1-2)teaches Jesus has always been God as well. (Kenosis doctrine)

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Abeille
"I simply find it interesting that, in general, you read these articles, then find something negative to say about them."

Since this is an LDS site and most commenters here are LDS, I think it just ends up probability based that when I find something to disagree with it'll be from a pro-LDS side more often than not. On the flip side of that, when it comes to disagreeing with comments about religion on the other newspapers' site, I'm frequently arguing against things that are anti-LDS.

"If you want absolute 'proof' that a theology is true, you won't find it in any of these articles.

The only proof you can have about theology is given by the Holy Ghost - which one can receive only by excercising faith."

Right, of course the Holy Spirit isn't exactly foolproof either, by which I mean that people in all sorts of different Christian faiths believe to be following the Spirit.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments