What is a true Christian?

[waitasec]

This is just exchanging one lawgiver (Moses) for another (Jesus). However Jesus said that he didn't come to make a new law but to fulfill the old one. So even though people might think of themselves as Christian for following Jesus the truth is that they are really Judaistic in theology.

correction...
an edited version of the judaistic theology

 

[Shermana]

This is just exchanging one lawgiver (Moses) for another (Jesus). However Jesus said that he didn't come to make a new law but to fulfill the old one. So even though people might think of themselves as Christian for following Jesus the truth is that they are really Judaistic in theology.

So by your response, you're saying a Christian doesn't actually listen to Jesus's teachings? Quite a common interpretation sadly.

I can only imagine what you interpret Paul to mean when he says "Fulfill the Law of Christ".

Have you even read the Gospels? Jesus's teachings are completely Judaistic to begin with (as opposed to Pharisaical which he opposed since he believed they distorted the Law). I WISH more Christians had a more "Judaistic" theology.

But yeah, does anyone disagree that what Muffled is saying that being a Christian isn't about following his actual teachings?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Well if the type of sacrifices weren't important, there wouldn't be such elaborate instructions in Leviticus. One of the reasons Saul lost his kingdom was for making unauthorized Sacrifices. But all of that is moot until the Christ physically reigns from Jerusalem and the Temple is rebuilt.

Until then, the letter of the Law is very important, without the letter of the Law, there is no Spirit of the Law. How can there be a Spirit of the Law, without the Letter to begin with? Is not Mercy and Justice clearly indicated in the Law itself?

Micah 6:
6With what shall I come before the Lord
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
7Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Mercy and justice are the principles behind law. It's those principles which are the spirit of the Law. The Law is based on those two principles not the other way around.

 

[Shermana]

That's a very common misinterpretation of the passages, it's about the Israelites doing the sacrifices without the right motive and reason, or heart, denying the social aspects of the Law while fulfilling empty ritual. Any commentary will tell you that. And besides, it doesn't get around the fact that there are very detailed instructions on how to obey the sacrifices.

Hosea 9 for context:

1Do not rejoice, O Israel;
do not be jubilant like the other nations.
For you have been unfaithful to your God;
you love the wages of a prostitute
at every threshing floor.
2Threshing floors and winepresses will not feed the people;
the new wine will fail them.
3They will not remain in the Lord’s land;
Ephraim will return to Egypt
and eat uncleana food in Assyria.
4They will not pour out wine offerings to the Lord,
nor will their sacrifices please him.
Such sacrifices will be to them like the bread of mourners;
all who eat them will be unclean.
This food will be for themselves;
it will not come into the temple of the Lord.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's a very common misinterpretation of the passages, it's about the Israelites doing the sacrifices without the right motive and reason, or heart, denying the social aspects of the Law while fulfilling empty ritual. Any commentary will tell you that. And besides, it doesn't get around the fact that there are very detailed instructions on how to obey the sacrifices.

Hosea 9 for context:

1Do not rejoice, O Israel;
do not be jubilant like the other nations.
For you have been unfaithful to your God;
you love the wages of a prostitute
at every threshing floor.
2Threshing floors and winepresses will not feed the people;
the new wine will fail them.
3They will not remain in the Lord’s land;
Ephraim will return to Egypt
and eat uncleana food in Assyria.
4They will not pour out wine offerings to the Lord,
nor will their sacrifices please him.
Such sacrifices will be to them like the bread of mourners;
all who eat them will be unclean.
This food will be for themselves;
it will not come into the temple of the Lord.

Now your quoting out of context. it is the INTENT of the Law that is important, that is what the prophets are saying if you follow the Law without fulfilling the INTENT of the Law which is justice and mercy then you following the letter means nothing and isn't pleasing to God.

But that's how most legalist work, they believe that somehow blindly and robotically following the letter of the Law without any effect upon the heart to cultivate justice and mercy somehow wins them favor with God. It is being a narcissist par excellence

 

[Shermana]

Now your quoting out of context.

Can anyone else explain to me how quoting from 3 chapters later here is out of context? Do you think Hosea 6 clashes with all of Leviticus or something? Can you present a SINGLE commentary which says that the Sacrifices themselves are not vital as opposed to them being done without the right intent and without obeying the social aspects of the Law?

it is the INTENT of the Law that is important, that is what the prophets are saying if you follow the Law without fulfilling the INTENT of the Law which is justice and mercy then you following the letter means nothing and isn't pleasing to God.

Can anyone else explain how that is not exactly what I said?

it's about the Israelites doing the sacrifices without the right motive and reason, or heart, denying the social aspects of the Law while fulfilling empty ritual

Hmmm, "Without the right motive and reason, or heart" what did you think I meant by that?

But that's how most legalist work, they believe that somehow blindly and robotically following the letter of the Law without any effect upon the heart to cultivate justice and mercy somehow wins them favor with God. It is being a narcissist par excellence

Besides the fact that this is basically what I already said and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, so you're saying that believing that the commandments are binding regardless of intent (and intent is a subject I did in fact address) is being a narcissist?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Can anyone else explain to me how quoting from 3 chapters later here is out of context? Do you think Hosea 6 clashes with all of Leviticus or something? Can you present a SINGLE commentary which says that the Sacrifices themselves are not vital as opposed to them being done without the right intent and without obeying the social aspects of the Law?
Can anyone else explain how that is not exactly what I said?

Hmmm, "Without the right motive and reason, or heart" what did you think I meant by that?


Besides the fact that this is basically what I already said and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, so you're saying that believing that the commandments are binding regardless of intent (and intent is a subject I did in fact address) is being a narcissist?

If precepts are followed without fulfilling the intent then the Law becomes useless. To follow the letter of the Law without fulfilling the intent of the Law is mocking the law.

To follow every detail of the law but yet to miss the intent would be straining the gnat and yet swallowing the camel.

 

[Shermana]

If precepts are followed without fulfilling the intent then the Law becomes useless. To follow the letter of the Law without fulfilling the intent of the Law is mocking the law.

I completely agree. And that's kind of what Jesus was berating the Pharisees about too!

To follow every detail of the law but yet to miss the intent would be straining the gnat and yet swallowing the camel.

Sort of, the exact meaning of "straining for gnats" was the Pharisees creating artificial doctrines like ritual handwashing while treating the poor like dirt, in which they disobeyed the parts of the Law they felt were inconvenient like being fair to the poor.

 

[Muffled]

So by your response, you're saying a Christian doesn't actually listen to Jesus's teachings? Quite a common interpretation sadly.

I can only imagine what you interpret Paul to mean when he says "Fulfill the Law of Christ".

Have you even read the Gospels? Jesus's teachings are completely Judaistic to begin with (as opposed to Pharisaical which he opposed since he believed they distorted the Law). I WISH more Christians had a more "Judaistic" theology.

But yeah, does anyone disagree that what Muffled is saying that being a Christian isn't about following his actual teachings?

No. I am saying that Christian law is just improved Jewish law and a person following a law is not following Jesus.

Is it a contradiction since Paul says we are not under the law?: Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.
I don't believe tht it is but rather that the law falls under grace.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Agnostic,

What is a true Christian?

One that understands what a cross stands for whcih is:
a cross section where TIME is HERE-NOW and not just past/present.

Love & rgds

 

[waitasec]

Can anyone else explain to me how quoting from 3 chapters later here is out of context? Do you think Hosea 6 clashes with all of Leviticus or something? Can you present a SINGLE commentary which says that the Sacrifices themselves are not vital as opposed to them being done without the right intent and without obeying the social aspects of the Law?
Can anyone else explain how that is not exactly what I said?

Hmmm, "Without the right motive and reason, or heart" what did you think I meant by that?


Besides the fact that this is basically what I already said and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, so you're saying that believing that the commandments are binding regardless of intent (and intent is a subject I did in fact address) is being a narcissist?

If precepts are followed without fulfilling the intent then the Law becomes useless. To follow the letter of the Law without fulfilling the intent of the Law is mocking the law.

To follow every detail of the law but yet to miss the intent would be straining the gnat and yet swallowing the camel.

in other words...no

 

[CynthiaCypher]

in other words...no

Actually I could but Shermie doesn't accept a single word from this certain commentator so I didn't bother.

 

[waitasec]

Actually I could but Shermie doesn't accept a single word from this certain commentator so I didn't bother.

but you did bother....

 

[Nakosis]

I am using a thread that I just started at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...volutionists-true-christians.html#post2826564 at the Evolution versus Creationism forum as a basis for this thread.

I don't think there is any true Christianity. just people claiming their religion as such.

Christianity centers around the teachings of Jesus. I imagine anyone who finds value in his teaching and tries to follow/make use of them can call themselves a Christian.

 

[s2a]

Tell you what... when a definitive and compelling "piety test" is developed and crafted to once and for all define or reject any claimants as being "true believers", then I shall rejoice in the knowledge of knowing with absolute certainty just.... whom God favors most above all others..

Or you could just save us the effort and reveal the only "one and true" redemtive faith

 

[Shermana]

I don't think there is any true Christianity. just people claiming their religion as such.

Christianity centers around the teachings of Jesus. I imagine anyone who finds value in his teaching and tries to follow/make use of them can call themselves a Christian.

And his teachings are essentially 2nd Temple Judaism minus the Pharicaism. Thus a "True Christian" would be....like a Jew. Though most Protestants and Orthodox would like to revision what he taught, the original "Christians" were in fact a Jewish sect whom the Romans couldn't really distinguish from other Jews.

 

[Nakosis]

And his teachings are essentially 2nd Temple Judaism minus the Pharicaism. Thus a "True Christian" would be....like a Jew. Though most Protestants and Orthodox would like to revision what he taught, the original "Christians" were in fact a Jewish sect whom the Romans couldn't really distinguish from other Jews.

I don't think so. I suspect Judaism is relatively a young religious group with roots in Judea like Christianity. There were many religious groups in Judea at the time.

The people of Judea were a mixed group. Judea had been invaded by Persians, Greeks and Romans. There was likely a lot of mixing of people, culture and religious ideas. There's no reason to think there was a united group of people in Judea.

If fact a mere 100 years earlier the Maccabees fought against religious oppression because a majority of Judeans had become Hellenized. Hellenized Judeans is the likely source of the Christian movement Which had been around a few hundred years prior to the claimed birth of Jesus. No reason to think the Pharisee, Sadducee, Samaritans, Gnostics, Essenes or any other Group had any authority over the OT. They all claim it to some degree. Just like Christians now use it to claim God's authority. The original Hebrew tribes are lost or integrated. I doubt any group holds any real authority over the Pentateuch.

What survived out of that mess is Christianity and Judaism. Neither of them IMO holds any clear authority over the various beliefs of Judea and certainly no reason to accept either has any real connection to the group of slaves led of of Egypt by Moses.

You are of course free to believe otherwise. However I don't think you should expect anyone else to accept that modern Jewish or Christian or Islamic belief holds any greater authority than the other.

Islam believes Jews corrupted the Bible, Jews believe Christians corrupted the Bible, Christians believe both other groups corrupted the Word of God.

As far as I'm concerned none of them have the authority of God.

 

[Scott1]

Or you could just save us the effort and reveal the only "one and true" redemtive faith

Ummmm...... :drool:

Can I answer this one.....?

 

[Shermana]

I don't think so. I suspect Judaism is relatively a young religious group with roots in Judea like Christianity. There were many religious groups in Judea at the time.

You're not getting what I said. Jesus was teaching total Torah observance. The initial Christians were a Jewish sect. Any history of Christianity will tell you this. It's the Gentile Christians who often want to play revisionism with the actual history.

The people of Judea were a mixed group. Judea had been invaded by Persians, Greeks and Romans. There was likely a lot of mixing of people, culture and religious ideas. There's no reason to think there was a united group of people in Judea.

Now this is just silly if I understand what you're saying, there was indeed a united Umbrella "Jewish" people, otherwise you wouldn't have had the Jewish revolt against the Romans. Whether or not there were several sects, they all had the Torah as their basis. Now if you're talking about the ETHNICITY of the Jews, that's another story of which you have no proof against the idea of Ethnic homogonity.

If fact a mere 100 years earlier the Maccabees fought against religious oppression because a majority of Judeans had become Hellenized. Hellenized Judeans is the likely source of the Christian movement Which had been around a few hundred years prior to the claimed birth of Jesus. No reason to think the Pharisee, Sadducee, Samaritans, Gnostics, Essenes or any other Group had any authority over the OT. They all claim it to some degree. Just like Christians now use it to claim God's authority. The original Hebrew tribes are lost or integrated. I doubt any group holds any real authority over the Pentateuch.

There were indeed Hellenized Jews in the Christian movement. But this is more of a rant about who had the true version of Judaism than what I actually said. Jesus was teaching another sect of Torah obedience, claiming to be the correct one, away from the artificial arbitritations of groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees. He was likely a member of the "Nazarene" groups like the Essenes and became a leader of a breakaway sect of them.

What survived out of that mess is Christianity and Judaism. Neither of them IMO holds any clear authority over the various beliefs of Judea and certainly no reason to accept either has any real connection to the group of slaves led of of Egypt by Moses.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, the point being that what Jesus was teaching was in fact what he considered a "Pure" form of Torah obedience and "Old school" Jewish religion.

You are of course free to believe otherwise. However I don't think you should expect anyone else to accept that modern Jewish or Christian or Islamic belief holds any greater authority than the other.

It doesn't matter because what Jesus was clearly teaching was a reaction against Pharisaic and Sadducee versions of "Judaism".

Islam believes Jews corrupted the Bible, Jews believe Christians corrupted the Bible, Christians believe both other groups corrupted the Word of God.

Right, but Jesus was still teaching his portrayal of obedience to the Torah of his day, that's the concept.

As far as I'm concerned none of them have the authority of God.

I may agree that the OT today has seen its revisions just like the NT, but that doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown out.

 

[waitasec]

the worst christian is better than any atheist...