And why do you think in dates, that must be incredibly difficult to do, in all this Churchian mire
Philip talks to us on the brink of Chrestianity and Christianity:
101. The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. For from the Chrism we are called XRISTIANOS not because of the Baptism. And was called the XS because of the Chrism. For the Father anointed the Son, yet the Son anointed the Apostles, yet the Apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed has the totality—he has the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Sacred Spirit. The Father bestowed this upon him in the Bridal-Chamber he received.
The Chrism is the Greek word xrisma, 'anointing'. So far so good, right?
72. The truth did not come unto the world naked, but rather it has come in symbolic images. (The world) will not receive it in any other fashion. There is a rebirth together with a reborn image. It is truly appropriate not to be reborn thru the image. What is the resurrection with its image?—it is appropriate to arise thru the image. The Bridal-Chamber with its image?—it is appropriate to come into the truth thru the image, which is this restoration. It is appropriate for those born not only of the words ‘the Father with the Son with the Sacred Spirit’, but (moreover) are begotten of them themselves. Whoever is not begotten of them, will have the name also taken from him. Yet one receives them in the Chrism of the fullness in the power of the cross, which the Apostles call: the right with the left. For this-one is no longer [a XRηSTI]ANOS but rather a XRS.
Here, in an earlier logion, we see the connection between Chrestians and Chrism: "being born into/by" the words of the Trinity is not enough to become Christians, the anointing is imperative.
It is highly interesting that Philip talks of Apostles and not Disciples: the four gospels speak only of the latter, Romans ff only of the former - and as usual, Acts is the glue in between.
Hebrews, as always, doesn't play along
63. If one goes down into the water and comes back up without having received anything, saying ‘I’m a XRηSTIANOS’, he has taken the name on loan. Yet if he receives the Sacred Spirit, he has the gift of the name. He who has received a gift is not deprived of it, but he who has taken a loan has it demanded from him.
And this logion comes before the other two, and we have a nice sequential story about Chrestianity using Baptism. Yet one must receive the holy spirit before one can call himself CHRESTIAN - not Christian
When, in addition to that, one receives the anointing, then one can call himself XRS - which apparently is a step up from a baptised Chrestian who received the Holy Spirit
101. The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. For from the Chrism we are called XRISTIANOS not because of the Baptism. And was called the XS because of the Chrism
And here is the "explanation" again, and we witness the evolution of baptised Chrestians who received the Holy Spirit into 'proper' Christians because they also received an anointing.
So not only were there Chrestians; they were also being baptised.
And not only were they being baptised, they were being baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
And still, they weren't Christians at that point
And we see the change of Chrestians into Christians being facilitated by the Chrism, the anointing, which is also put forth as an explanation of the name change
Only 1 John 2 speaks of anointing others than Jesus; was all of the NT written before there was any talk of Christians? The Chrestians in Acts 11:26, 26:28 and 1 Pete 4:15 seem to attest to that, and would confirm Philip's account