What is a true Christian?

[waitasec]

You'll get a lot of varied answers on this thread.

pretty telling...

there is no such thing as a true christian.

 

[idea]

A true Christian is someone who is kind/charitable/loving/hard working/pure/humble/clean etc. etc. - has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Shermana]

So in Matthew 7:22-23 when Jesus says "Away from me ye doers of lawlessness", who are those who he's referring to?

 

[waitasec]

A true Christian is someone who is kind/charitable/loving/hard working/pure/humble/clean etc. etc. - has nothing to do with evolution.

hmmm, that's a good person...
what makes a good christian?

 

[Pegg]

hmmm, that's a good person...
what makes a good christian?

according to Jesus

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will

 

[waitasec]

according to Jesus

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will

but of course god's will is subject to interpretation

 

[Pegg]

but of course god's will is subject to interpretation

not if people read the bible

 

[Shermana]

not if people read the bible

Right, if they read it they'll see he wants them to obey the Torah and adhere to the Prophets so far as possible.

 

[Pegg]

Right, if they read it they'll see he wants them to obey the Torah and adhere to the Prophets so far as possible.

if he required a strict adherence to the mosaic law, why did he pour his holy spirit on uncircumcised people of the nations who had never practiced or known mosiac law?

it was for this reason that the jewish apostles came to a unanimous decision about the mosaic law...they reasoned on the scriptures and came to the conclusion that it was no longer the way to gain Gods approval.

 

[Shermana]

]if he required a strict adherence to the mosaic law, why did he pour his holy spirit on uncircumcised people of the nations who had never practiced or known mosiac law?

Assuming Acts is legitimate and not a mid 2nd century spurious work, (It wasn't referenced until Iraneus (late second century) for one thing, long after the initial split between the Paulinists and the Ebionite-Nazarenes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

Parallels between Acts and Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (written in 75-80) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) have long been argued.[23] Several scholars have argued that Acts used material from both of Josephus' works, rather than the other way around, which would indicate that Acts was written around the year 100 or later.[24][25] Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited: (1) The circumstances attending the death of Agrippa I in 44. Here Acts 12:21-23 is largely parallel to Antiquities 19.8.2; (2) the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts 21:37f and in Josephus (War 2.13.5; Antiquities 20.8.6); (3) the curious resemblance as to the order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both (Acts 5:36f; Antiquities 20.5.1).[citation needed]
According to John T. Townsend, "it is not before the last decades of the second century that one finds undisputed traces of the work."[26] Townsend, turning to the sources behind the pseudo-Clementine writings, argues that the middle of the 2nd century is the terminus ad quem for the final composition. According to Richard I. Pervo, "Townsend's methodologically adventurous but ultimately cautious essay is another valuable lesson in the danger of establishing the date of Acts–or any work–by arguing for the earliest possible time of origin

it might have something to do with the fact that there's no commandment in the Torah to circumcise yourself. Only your offspring. Abraham was a special case in which he was told to do it after obeying all of the statutes and commandments til he was in his 90s.

it was for this reason that the jewish apostles came to a unanimous decision about the mosaic law...they reasoned on the scriptures and came to the conclusion that it was no longer the way to gain Gods approval.

Not at all, and this interpretation is based on what many scholars to be a completely spurious passage that has no historicity, Acts 15 is disputed as I've mentioned many times before. Matthew 5:17-20 is quite clear. If the Apostles did teach this, they'd be in total violation of 7:22-23. And then there's the issue as raised by FR Mcguire and a few others that Galatians, despite the scholarly concensus, is not necessarily written by Paul.

And assuming Acts 15 is authentic, does that mean Christians are ONLY bound by those 4 laws? No more?

Jesus clearly implied that one must obey ALL the commandments. To teach otherwise will make you among the least in Heaven, or called the least by those in Heaven. The passages which say otherwise are likely interpolations by the gentile sects.

Now you are welcome to believe that Acts was truly written as Divinely inspired, but then that there is a question for debate as to whether it is truly a book for and about "True Christians", including the dubious passages like in Acts 15.

 

[waitasec]

not if people read the bible

especially if they read the bible

 

[Pegg]

Not at all, and this interpretation is based on what many scholars to be a completely spurious passage that has no historicity, Acts 15 is disputed as I've mentioned many times before.

You cant just choose bits and pieces out of entire manuscripts and claim they were additions or are 'spurious'

the way the letters were originally written were all in one full manuscript...there was no chapter 15

it was one entire scroll. So if you are going to ditch the parts of the letter you dont personally agree with, you might as well throw out the entire thing rather then try to claim that a particular 'chapter' is in is not authentic or true.

that is just a way to get around truths that you dont like to admit.

Jesus clearly implied that one must obey ALL the commandments. To teach otherwise will make you among the least in Heaven, or called the least by those in Heaven. The passages which say otherwise are likely interpolations by the gentile sects.

were the gentiles who became members of the annointed Christians obeying all the commandments of the mosaic law?

No, they weren't even circumcised! That as a strict requirement for anyone to be a member of Isreal...without circumcision, a person could not worship Jehovah. Yet after Jesus death and resurrection, the evidence was clear, that particular mosaic law requirement was not something God required anymore. And if that particular law was not necessary, then dont you think its reasonable that perhaps others were not necessary also??

If you want to look at that prophet Amos words about this, he said it quite clearly that people of the nations would be invited to worship God...
Amos 9:11 '...and I shall certainly build it up as in the days of long ago, 12 to the end that they may take possession of what is left remaining of E′dom, and all the nations upon whom my name has been called

People of the nations (not proselytes because proselytes were considered a part of Isreal) would also 'take possession' of what God was going to build up. This is clear scriptural proof that adherence to all the commandments of the mosaic law was not a requirement of God. If you want it to be a requirement, then by all means you can obey all 613 mosaic laws....but you wont get any bonus points for doing so.

 

[Agnostic75]

So if you are going to ditch the parts of the letter you don't personally agree with, you might as well throw out the entire thing rather than try to claim that a particular 'chapter' is not authentic or true.

Are you implying that people should accept creationism, and the global flood theory, or reject the entire Bible?

In your opinion, can a professing Christian reject creationism, and the global flood theory, and have eternal life?

 

[Thief]

You cant just choose bits and pieces out of entire manuscripts and claim they were additions or are 'spurious'

the way the letters were originally written were all in one full manuscript...there was no chapter 15

it was one entire scroll. So if you are going to ditch the parts of the letter you dont personally agree with, you might as well throw out the entire thing rather then try to claim that a particular 'chapter' is in is not authentic or true.

that is just a way to get around truths that you dont like to admit.



were the gentiles who became members of the annointed Christians obeying all the commandments of the mosaic law?

No, they weren't even circumcised! That as a strict requirement for anyone to be a member of Isreal...without circumcision, a person could not worship Jehovah. Yet after Jesus death and resurrection, the evidence was clear, that particular mosaic law requirement was not something God required anymore. And if that particular law was not necessary, then dont you think its reasonable that perhaps others were not necessary also??

If you want to look at that prophet Amos words about this, he said it quite clearly that people of the nations would be invited to worship God...
Amos 9:11 '...and I shall certainly build it up as in the days of long ago, 12 to the end that they may take possession of what is left remaining of E′dom, and all the nations upon whom my name has been called

People of the nations (not proselytes because proselytes were considered a part of Isreal) would also 'take possession' of what God was going to build up. This is clear scriptural proof that adherence to all the commandments of the mosaic law was not a requirement of God. If you want it to be a requirement, then by all means you can obey all 613 mosaic laws....but you wont get any bonus points for doing so.

So which is it?
Pick and choose what I like or able to perform?
or accept all that is written as is?

If it is not required to adhere to all tenants of the law....
then by all means pick and choose.

 

[Shermana]

You cant just choose bits and pieces out of entire manuscripts and claim they were additions or are 'spurious'

I'd say 9.8 out of 10 Scholars would disagree with you. Do you think the Pericope Adulterae is authentic? Mark 16? The study of what is and isn't an interpolation you are just going to throw out completely and demand that people accept the entire manuscript as authentic and ignore the scholarly arguments and evidence as if they have absolutely no basis? Do you think I'm the only one who says that Acts 15 is an interpolation? Do you think the many scholars who say so are just talking without reason?

You also avoided my question of whether Christians are ONLY to follow the 4 precepts at the council.

the way the letters were originally written were all in one full manuscript...there was no chapter 15

Please give some evidence for this. Yes, they didn't have chapter numbers, that's not the point. The point is that what happens in what is currently numbered Chapter 15 most likely didn't exist according to several scholars. And then there's the issue that many regard Acts as being written in the mid 2nd century to begin with. But the main contention is that Acts 15 may have been added later well after Acts was already written, or at the very least, is not historically accurate.

it was one entire scroll. So if you are going to ditch the parts of the letter you dont personally agree with, you might as well throw out the entire thing rather then try to claim that a particular 'chapter' is in is not authentic or true.

Please prove that it was all written in one scroll. Do you really think any scholar would agree with you that there's no such thing as interpolated parts? It's quite clear that the Antinomians and Trinitarians added a few things over the years. I am far from alone in claiming that the Council of Jerusalem is interpolated.

http://monash.academia.edu/JonathanBurke/Papers/440558/Studies_In_The_Historicity_of_Acts

that is just a way to get around truths that you dont like to admit.

Your idea that there's no interpolations and you can just ignore the scholarly arguments is ludicrous.

were the gentiles who became members of the annointed Christians obeying all the commandments of the mosaic law?

I'd say yes.

No, they weren't even circumcised!

Did you completely ignore what I said that there's no commandment to circumcise yourself except for your offspring? Or do I have to repeat it each time?

That as a strict requirement for anyone to be a member of Isreal...without circumcision, a person could not worship Jehovah. Yet after Jesus death and resurrection, the evidence was clear, that particular mosaic law requirement was not something God required anymore. And if that particular law was not necessary, then dont you think its reasonable that perhaps others were not necessary also??

Quote the commandment that says you must circumcise yourself.

If you want to look at that prophet Amos words about this, he said it quite clearly that people of the nations would be invited to worship God...
Amos 9:11 '...and I shall certainly build it up as in the days of long ago, 12 to the end that they may take possession of what is left remaining of E′dom, and all the nations upon whom my name has been called

That's right, no problem there. And there's also passages that say they will obey Succoth and things like that. Why would the Egyptians practice Succoth?

People of the nations (not proselytes because proselytes were considered a part of Isreal) would also 'take possession' of what God was going to build up. This is clear scriptural proof that adherence to all the commandments of the mosaic law was not a requirement of God. If you want it to be a requirement, then by all means you can obey all 613 mosaic laws....but you wont get any bonus points for doing so.

[/quote]

"Take posession" doesn't mean "tear down" but to "do as what the posession does". You're aware that it says the Egyptians and others will obey the holidays like Succoth right? How can one possibly interpret that "take possession" means "you don't have to do the same things commanded"?

 

[Pegg]

Are you implying that people should accept creationism, and the global flood theory, or reject the entire Bible?

In your opinion, can a professing Christian reject creationism, and the global flood theory, and have eternal life?

we either accept Gods account of how life and the universe came into existence, or we dont.

the details in between are petty because God did not reveal how he brought matter together or how animals multiplied or how they spread out across the earth or when and how the many different varieties came into existence

so evolutionists and creationists can argue all they like over those petty details...but it doesnt change the fact that all things came into existence through Gods creative power. But i dont believe its possible to reject Gods creative power as the means.

 

[Pegg]

So which is it?
Pick and choose what I like or able to perform?
or accept all that is written as is?

Jesus stressed what is required of christians...there are only 3 things that we are required to do
Love God, Love our Neighbor & Do Gods Will.
Christians are to follow Christs teachings in the way the Isrealites were to follow Moses. Yet Christ has superseded Moses and so it is pointless for christians to become followers of Moses.

If it is not required to adhere to all tenants of the law....
then by all means pick and choose.

why choose any?

Simply follow Christ if you are a christian. If not, keep following Moses and the laws given through him. But if someone chooses moses, then they shouldnt try to impose the laws of Moses on Christians who are striving to obey the laws of Christ.

 

[Shermana]

Yet Christ has superseded Moses and so it is pointless for christians to become followers of Moses.

Well then you can completely ignore what Christ said that the Law will never be void, or what he said to the Rich Man. You can completely ignore 1 John as well.

Simply follow Christ if you are a christian

Does that involve following what he actually teaches such as in Matthew 5:17-20 or do you think that only applied for the few days while he was alive?

But if someone chooses moses, then they shouldnt try to impose the laws of Moses on Christians who are striving to obey the laws of Christ.

There's a difference between imposing and correcting post-schism, post-Marcion misunderstandings about what he actually taught.

At what point do the Egyptians observe Succoth?

Even Paul said "As the Law says".

 

[Pegg]

You also avoided my question of whether Christians are ONLY to follow the 4 precepts at the council.

christianity lays out more requirements then only those 4 things mentioned... are we to conclude that every other requirement Christ put forward, such as 'You must love Jehovah your God...and you neighbor as yourself" irrelevant. No, of course not.

but in regards to the new gentile believers, these 4 things were normal practices for them. That is why the apostles highlighted those 4 things as necessary to avoid...they also happen to be mosaic laws....it was only natural to put those 4 mosaic laws as binding on the new gentiles to observe.

but that doesnt mean the entire mosaic law was being included.

Your idea that there's no interpolations and you can just ignore the scholarly arguments is ludicrous.

you can chase after the advise of scholars all you like, but i'd prefer to take my p's and q's from Christians who respect Gods word... and by that it doesnt mean that christians are blind to deliberate additions. There are a number of known additions that trinitarians have deviantly added which are known and rejected...so its not like im saying we must accept it all without question. But there is no issue with Acts 15.

I'd say yes.
Did you completely ignore what I said that there's no commandment to circumcise yourself except for your offspring? Or do I have to repeat it each time?

you are ignoring the clear scriptural requirement for gentiles to become Isrealites under the law of Moses:
Exodus 12:48, 49 And in case an alien resident resides as an alien with you and he will actually celebrate the passover to Jehovah, let there be a circumcising of every male of his. First then he may come near to celebrate it; and he must become like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised man may eat of it.
If a native wants to partake of the passover, he and all his household must be circumcised. Otherwise, if he did not circumcise himself, he could not partake of the passover....and this is what the verse stipulates...if any alien wants to celebrate the passover let their be a circumcising of every male of his. Every male of his would include himself....he is the beginning of 'every male of his' just as Abraham was the beginning of every male of his own household. And was Abraham circumcised? Yes.

Esther 8:17 And in all the different jurisdictional districts and in all the different cities wherever the word of the king and his law were reaching there were rejoicing and exultation for the Jews, a banquet and a good day; and many of the peoples of the land “were getting circumcised and Judaizing" according to the LXX greek Septuagint. These were the 'people of the land', the gentiles who were getting circumcised...not just the children of the gentiles.
Gentiles had to be circumcised to dwell with the Israelites and to join Israel in the worship of Jehovah. That was the requirement...not only the children of gentiles, but the gentiles themselves. So I dont understand your argument that only children had to be circumcised.

 

[Pegg]

Well then you can completely ignore what Christ said that the Law will never be void, or what he said to the Rich Man. You can completely ignore 1 John as well.

and we should never conclude that the laws of God will ever be void. But those laws existed before the mosaic law existed because the mosaic law was for a specific purpose and a specific time.

Jesus is the end of the law. Why? Because Jesus himself said that every mosaic law is build around the principle of 'love'. Love is to govern a christians life and if it does, then the mosaic law will never be broken.

Does that involve following what he actually teaches such as in Matthew 5:17-20 or do you think that only applied for the few days while he was alive?

well you need to get to the crux of what Jesus was talking about for a start. What was he referring to when he said: "sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place"

he is not speaking about 'rules' taking place here. He is talking about 'prophecy' taking place. So you may be misapplying this verse entirely if you think it refers only to Mosaic law and if you are using it as the basis of enforcing an adherence of mosaic law on christians.