Christians: What is a Christian?

[Baerly]

This is good stuff. Who gave the name Christian to Gods people? God himself did. Can I prove this? SURE

(Isahah 62:2) - 2. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

Please notice the above verse even tells us WHEN God would name his people. It says and the Gentiles shall see they righteousness. Notice in (Acts 10) that the Gentiles were accepted into the church of the Lord (Acts 10:34,35,47). It is then in (Acts 11) after all flesh was accepted into the church of our Lord (Jew and Gentile) that God gave his people a name (Acts 11:26). Let us accept the word of God.

Notice also what (2Chron.7:14) says -


14.If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Please notice that there was no forgiveness under the O.T.Law (Heb.10:4). So the Lord must have been speaking of a time to come. The people of God had a name given to them by God in (Acts 11:26) according to (Isa.62:2).

What is a Christian? - An alien sinner (Eph.2:12), who hears the gospel (1Cor.15:1-4) (2Thess.2:14) (John 6:44,45), believes it (John 8:24), repents of their sins (luke 13:3) (Mt.21:28-31), confesses that Jesus is the son of God (Acts 8:37), and is baptized in water for the remission of sins (Acts 8:38,39) (Acts 22:16), and then continues in the word of God til death (1Cor.15:58) (Rev.2:10) (2 Peter 2:20-22).

Please notice it was not until the Ethiopian eunich was baptized in water that he REJOICED (Acts 8:39). This was recorded by the Holy Spirit to let us know when a person can be happy about their reaction to the word of God. Philip was sent to make sure this person UNDERSTOOD what to do to become a Christian (Acts 8:31,32).

Notice also that it was not till after those were baptized in water for the remission of their sins that the Lord added those who obeyed to the church (Acts 2:47).

Jesus will come to save one church according to (Eph.5:23). So being a member of the Lords church is very important if one waants to be saved.

in love Baerly

 

[Baerly]

I noticed where someone thought Jesus was going to come back to set up his kingdom. The kingdom had its begining on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). So the kingdom has been in existence sinced that time. We read some were translated into the kingdom in (Col.1:13). John said he was a companion in tribulation,and in the kingdom... How could these statements be made if the kingdom was not yet established ?

Here are a few good lessons:

http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/JacksnW1.htm

http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/Hardema1.htm

in love Baerly

 

[madcap]

I don't know what the least common denominator is for someone to be called a Christian. I suppose it would be to give priority to the teachings of Jesus where religion is concerned. That doesn't mean all other ideologies have to be ruled out.

I would disagree that a Christian has to believe in the mythology: that Christ was both man and God, that he was resurrected, that he performed miracles, that he died for the sins of mankind, etc. Those are all fine beliefs that may give the practice of Christianity greater meaning, but I don't believe they are essential. Naturally many Christians would disagree.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters how we define Christianity or any other religion for someone else. Many self-described Christians would not consider me a member of the club because I don't necessarily believe in the miraculous stuff. But religion is about how individuals connect to existence, the universe, and the reason behind it all. It's not a census.

 

[Baerly]

Jesus told the disciples to wait until the comforter has come, the Holy Spirit to give them power. The Bible plainly teaches that the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost to empower, teach, lead, engift, and fill us so we may proclaim the gospel.

I must disagree that the Holy Spirit fills us in the SAME WAY that HE filled the apostles. When reading (John 14:26 ; 16:13) (Luke 24:49) (Acts 1:4), we must remember that Jesus was talking to his disciples (not us today) just before he ascended to heaven. I do agree that the Holy Spirit filled and led the apostles in (Acts 2).

Baptism of the Holy Spirit was only promised to the apostles( Luke 24:49) (Acts 1:4). Not to anyone today.

Today we must read and understand what the bible commands us to do (Eph.3:3,4). This is how we are led by the spirit today (Rom.8:14) (2Cor.3:18).

We learn nothing from the Holy Spirit directly. God does not speak to people directly today. We learn in (Heb.1:1,2) that in times past God spoke to man in many different ways,but in these last days (anytime past Acts 2) spoke to us by his son (Jesus Christ). Jesus is not hear now, but we have his words recorded in the bible (John 12:48). All we need to do is read the bible ,accept the word of God,and obey it, as those did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38,41,47) (Heb.5:8,9).

Today everyone must learn about Jesus and salvation through reading the bible or hearing a sermon preached according to (John 6:44,45).

It is sad,but many will reject truth (Acts 13:46) (2THess.2:10-12).

in love Baerly

 

[TehuTi]

Some Christian Will That Yashua / Jesus Founded It . However , they are wrong Christianity as we know it today came into being within the period of time , teaching of Yashua / Jesus were first brought to Greece and Rome , By Self Appointed Apostle Paul of Tarsus .

Until its acceptance as the official state religion of The Roman Empire . When Constantine ( Roman Emperor 306 - 337 A.D. ) Who Adopted Christianity ( 280-337 A.D. ) Came to the throne . He declared an end to the persecution of Christians '' < A Shrewd Man Constantine Saw The Potential Of The Community Of Jesus ' Socalled Folloers Under Persecution . >

They displayed the qualities of courage and resilience and remained unified after years of suffering . Thus . He Accepted them and made them the basis for the spiritual unity of The Roman Empire . In that span of time most if not all of the original ( Twelve Disciples ) Were Dead , And The Gospel was left to be propagated by men who had not know Jesus .

Some of these men had only second and third hand report to go by , And thus more susceptible to The Influence Of Other Men Seeking Their Own Fame . In Greece , The Philosophies of Plato Aristotle and The Hellenistic Mystery Religons found their way into the original doctrine of Christianity and also borrowed from it to enhance their own .

When the people witnessed the works of the Disciples . They looked upon them as The Gods of their Pantheons Manifested . An example of this is found in Acts 14;11-12 . As you can see they just made them Their Own '' Gods '' JUST LIKE THEY DID JESUS WITH ZEUS .

Take A LQQk At The Following Quote Luke 4 ; 27 . And I Quote ; And Many Lepers Were In Israel In The Time Of Eliseus The Prophets ; And None Of Them Was Cleansed Saying Naaman The Syrian .

You can really see the influence of The Roman in this Translation . The bolded word in Arabic is '' Aliysha'a . This word in the same as Yashua < Aramic > This is how they changed Jesus real name from Isa or Yashua to < Jesus - Jah - Zeus . Just Say It Fast And You Will See .

So . The Romans pretended Acceptance of the truth after almost two hundred years of persecuting the people who propagated it ; The followers of Jesus . They altered as much as they wanted so that they could Accomodate their pagan rites and festivals and incorporated

into it the ideas of their So-called '' Theologians '' The '' Church '' which was once at odds with imperial authorites , had now become a part of the states . Thus was the birth of the '' Holy Roman Empire ''

 

[*Paul*]

No, No we won't go.

.

 

[James the Persian]

Just thought I'd pull out a few major errors in this screed that show you need to do some research.

Until its acceptance as the official state religion of The Roman Empire . When Constantine ( Roman Emperor 306 - 337 A.D. ) Who Adopted Christianity ( 280-337 A.D. ) Came to the throne. >

Constantine the Great did not do anything more than tolerate Christianity. It was not the state religion until several rulers later when Theodosius I outlawed paganism after ascending the throne subsequent to the death of the pagan Enperor Julian the Apostate during the battle of Ctesiphon.

In Greece , The Philosophies of Plato Aristotle and The Hellenistic Mystery Religons found their way into the original doctrine of Christianity

No, neither Plato nor Aristotle's ideas found their way into Christianity. The language of neo-Platonism was used by the Church Fathers (though in ways that the likes of Plotinus would not have used) but neo-Platonism and Plato's ideas are not the same thing. Aristotelian philosophy was always opposed by the Greek Fathers and never made it into the theology of the Eastern Church. It only began to have an impact on the western, Latin, church, post-Schism when it started to filter in via the Arabs.

This is how they changed Jesus real name from Isa or Yashua to < Jesus - Jah - Zeus . Just Say It Fast And You Will See .

Not this tosh again. Learn something about linguistics before commenting, please. Jesus is an Anglicised version of the Latinisation of the Greek version which is Iesous. This sounds nothing like what you are claiming and, in addition, was used long prior to the Incarnation in, for example, the Septuagint translation of the OT. Jesus = Joshua, after all.

Thus was the birth of the '' Holy Roman Empire ''

No, the Holy Roman Empire didn't even exist back then. That was the creation of the Frankish King Charlemagne, had nothing to do with Romans and barely was an Empire.

It seems that you need to research the following areas to avoid falling flat on your face in future:

• Church history
• Secular European history
• Lingusitics
• Philosophy
• Patristics
• Theology

I'll help you if you like.

James

 

[sparkyluv]

back to the OP...

A Christian is someone who has accpeted Jesus Christ as there Lord and Savior and lives their life as His disciple and lives according to His will.

 

[TehuTi]

Just thought I'd pull out a few major errors in this screed that show you need to do some research.

Constantine the Great did not do anything more than tolerate Christianity. It was not the state religion until several rulers later when Theodosius I outlawed paganism after ascending the throne subsequent to the death of the pagan Enperor Julian the Apostate during the battle of Ctesiphon.


No, neither Plato nor Aristotle's ideas found their way into Christianity. The language of neo-Platonism was used by the Church Fathers (though in ways that the likes of Plotinus would not have used) but neo-Platonism and Plato's ideas are not the same thing. Aristotelian philosophy was always opposed by the Greek Fathers and never made it into the theology of the Eastern Church. It only began to have an impact on the western, Latin, church, post-Schism when it started to filter in via the Arabs.


Not this tosh again. Learn something about linguistics before commenting, please. Jesus is an Anglicised version of the Latinisation of the Greek version which is Iesous. This sounds nothing like what you are claiming and, in addition, was used long prior to the Incarnation in, for example, the Septuagint translation of the OT. Jesus = Joshua, after all.


No, the Holy Roman Empire didn't even exist back then. That was the creation of the Frankish King Charlemagne, had nothing to do with Romans and barely was an Empire.

It seems that you need to research the following areas to avoid falling flat on your face in future:

• Church history
• Secular European history
• Lingusitics
• Philosophy
• Patristics
• Theology

I'll help you if you like.

James

james Says <> I'll help you if you like

TehuTi Say <> No Thank's ( You Wil Have Your Decision , And I Will Have Mines . )

 

[Katzpur]

james Says <> I'll help you if you like

TehuTi Say <> No Thank's ( You Wil Have Your Decision , And I Will Have Mines . )

In other words, don't confuse you with the facts?

 

[James the Persian]

In other words, don't confuse you with the facts?

That seems to about sum it up, yes.

TehuTi,

Nothing I wrote was a personal opinion. They are all easily demonstrable facts, hence the reason that I described what you wrote as containing major errors.

James

 

[TehuTi]

That seems to about sum it up, yes.

TehuTi,

Nothing I wrote was a personal opinion. They are all easily demonstrable facts, hence the reason that I described what you wrote as containing major errors.

James

Let's Try This Again ( TehuTi Say <> No Thank's ( You Wil Have Your Decision , And I Will Have Mines . )

 

[pete29]

Beautiful quote.

Now, read Chapters 14,15, and 16 of that same book and see where Yeshua prophesies the coming King Messiah. Yeshua was not the King Messiah.

I took your advice and reread John, chapters 14, 15, and 16. Jesus states that He will come back. That He is the Way, and that He is the True Vine. He sure sounds like the Messiah to me.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

>What is a Christian?

I would define the word as one who accepts and believes in both Christ and the Bible!

By which definition, please note, Baha'is clearly are Christian as every one of us world wide shares these two things.

Best,

Bruce

 

[michaelm]

I find when talking to Christians of different denominations that often their definition is more to do with defining other denominations as 'not proper' than to answer the question. They will, if encouraged slightly, soon explain why Catholic/Anglican/Baptist/ JWs etc etc are not quite proper - dependent on their own stance.

I know some state you have to believe that Christ's body ascended to heaven - but I can see no point or purpose to that. Why would Christ want his bag of flesh and bones in heaven?
Also, I am told, 'proper' Christians should believe Christ died for our sins....but I have witnessed the dangers in that belief...the guy who told me that he is without sin as Christ took all his sins away, past, present and future. How scary is that!?

 

[Muffled]

I find when talking to Christians of different denominations that often their definition is more to do with defining other denominations as 'not proper' than to answer the question. They will, if encouraged slightly, soon explain why Catholic/Anglican/Baptist/ JWs etc etc are not quite proper - dependent on their own stance.

I know some state you have to believe that Christ's body ascended to heaven - but I can see no point or purpose to that. Why would Christ want his bag of flesh and bones in heaven?
Also, I am told, 'proper' Christians should believe Christ died for our sins....but I have witnessed the dangers in that belief...the guy who told me that he is without sin as Christ took all his sins away, past, present and future. How scary is that!?

Obviously a fundamental belief does not guarantee accretion to the whole set of beliefs that go with it. So the Messianic Jew celebrates Succoth while the Gentile Christian does not. If a Muslim became a Christian (and survived) he could celebrate Ramadan. The latter seems to be frowned upon by Muslims and Christians alike.

The bottom line is what a Muslim pointed out to me, that Jesus did not ordain a religion except in a few instances that in my Baptist background were called ordinances. Christianity is a living faith. It is the Paraclete that makes it so and the Paraclete that distinguishes Christianity from a strictly Jewish view that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus.

Getting back to fundamentals, I can construe myself as being Islamic because the meaning is "one who obeys God." In that sense also Jesus was Islamic. What I am not is: Islamic in the sense of following a religion prescribed for Arabs nor am I Jewish in the sense of having to celebrate Succoth.

 

[Katzpur]

The bottom line is what a Muslim pointed out to me, that Jesus did not ordain a religion except in a few instances that in my Baptist background were called ordinances.

So when Jesus told Peter that "upon this rock I will build my Church," He didn't really mean it? He did establish a Church, you know, and He built it on a foundation of prophets and apostles. And yes, He also gave certain individuals the authority to perform certain ordinances in His name.

 

[James the Persian]

I find when talking to Christians of different denominations that often their definition is more to do with defining other denominations as 'not proper' than to answer the question. They will, if encouraged slightly, soon explain why Catholic/Anglican/Baptist/ JWs etc etc are not quite proper - dependent on their own stance.

I know some state you have to believe that Christ's body ascended to heaven - but I can see no point or purpose to that. Why would Christ want his bag of flesh and bones in heaven?

Seems to me that you need to look into the ancient understanding of the Church Fathers which remains the eastern understanding. I've posted a link to an article on it in the EO forum and if you read that it will be immediately apparent why the Resurection and Ascension must have been in the body. This view, by the way, is much, much older than the soteriological model, penal substitutionary atonement, commonly held to in the west.

Also, I am told, 'proper' Christians should believe Christ died for our sins....but I have witnessed the dangers in that belief...the guy who told me that he is without sin as Christ took all his sins away, past, present and future. How scary is that!?

Well, I reject the idea of Christ as a sacrifice for my sins in the sense you seem to mean it (as that would be PSA again). Through His death and Resurrection he destroyed the hold of death over man and hence made salvation possible - only in that way was He a sacrifice, a self-sacrifice - men can certainly continue to sin and perseverance to the end is required of us, perseverance in the battle against our own sins. You sound like someone who is only familiar witha narrow subsection of western Christianity to be honest.

James

 

[Muffled]

So when Jesus told Peter that "upon this rock I will build my Church," He didn't really mean it? He did establish a Church, you know, and He built it on a foundation of prophets and apostles. And yes, He also gave certain individuals the authority to perform certain ordinances in His name.

Of course he meant it. There is a church and I never said there wasn't one. I simply said that there wasn't a mandated religion. The church isn't built on a religion but upon believers. That is why a church building can burn down but the church lives on. That is why people can practice a large variety of religious observances and yet still be one church. The Christian church was never founded on prophets or apostles. James the brother of Jesus was a leader of the early church but never was an apostle. However some of his decisions were foundational. You could say that he presided over the first church split.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory with some Biblical evidence for this statement. Of course if you wanted to get gritty about it, the ordinances died with the people "authorized" to perform them. I find it difficult to conceive why you think that an order by Jesus requires authorization instead of obedience.

 

[Katzpur]

Of course he meant it. There is a church and I never said there wasn't one. I simply said that there wasn't a mandated religion.

Of course there was a mandated religion -- His.

The church isn't built on a religion but upon believers. That is why a church building can burn down but the church lives on. That is why people can practice a large variety of religious observances and yet still be one church.

I'm not talking about a meeting place, Muffled, and I suspect you know that. I'm talking about the organization and structure that Jesus established, about the power and authority He left with His chosen leadership to preside in His physical absense, and about the continued direction He would provide His Church through those individuals. He never instructed His followers to "just try to remember what I've told you, and do your best."

The Christian church was never founded on prophets or apostles.

Uh, why would you say that? Ephesians 2:20 clearly describes the Church as "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."

James the brother of Jesus was a leader of the early church but never was an apostle. However some of his decisions were foundational. You could say that he presided over the first church split.

Again, the Bible says differently. James was referred to (in Galatians 1:19) as an apostle.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory with some Biblical evidence for this statement.

I'm not sure which statement, in particular, you are referring to. If the two passages I've already mentioned are not sufficient, let me know and I'll find some more.

Of course if you wanted to get gritty about it, the ordinances died with the people "authorized" to perform them.

Oh, you can definitely count on my getting "gritty" about this issue, but I'll bet it will surprise you to learn that I actually agree with your statement. The ordinances did, as you said, die with the people authorized to perform them.

I find it difficult to conceive why you think that an order by Jesus requires authorization instead of obedience.

It's very simple. It requires both. Unfortunately, I have to leave for work now, so I can't respond in any more depth right now.