What is Christianity, and what makes a Christian a Christian?

[Shermana]

You can't tell the difference between Abraham himself being directly commanded by G-d (at age 90 no less!!) and a Commandment given to Moses for the Israelites for one's 8-day year old offspring? Why such a difference between 8 days and 90 years? Is everyone also commanded to get ready to sacrifice their sons too?

I also mentioned that the authenticity of Acts 15 is in dispute. So are Christians only supposed to obey those 4 laws? You said:

There are laws to be followed outlined through out the Gospel and Epistles.

Well apparently we have a major contradiction with Acts 15. You agree that only those 4 rules that correspond to the Law apply or you accept that there's more than those 4 that correspond that apply.

 

[JacobEzra.]

You can't tell the difference between Abraham being directly commanded by G-d and a Commandment by Moses for one's offspring? Is everyone also commanded to get ready to sacrifice their sons too?

LOL It was a commandment directed towards Abraham and his offspring.

What part of;
[12] An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: [13] And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. [14] The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.


So which part of "every man child in your generations" do you not get? As well as "my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant"?? Seems the same as any of the other Mosaic laws.

Its always been considered to go along with the covenant made by Abraham and his offspring through Isaac, the chosen. Jews have always done this for their children and converts.

I also mentioned that the authenticity of Acts 15 is in dispute. So are Christians only supposed to obey those 4 laws? You said:

For one the authenticity has nothing to do with this. Its been in the bible for centuries.

Well apparently we have a major contradiction with Acts 15.

Not really.

 

[Shermana]

LOL It was a commandment directed towards Abraham and his offspring.

So that wouldn't be part of the specifically "Mosaic" Law now was it. That was a private arrangement with Abraham. Thus, the commandment does not require one to be c-cised if they weren't at birth, though they cannot celebrate Passover fully.

[12] An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: [13] And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. [14] The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.

Every "Male" child. He that is born in the house and purchased servants. Sorry indentured servants. However, it may actually mean "those born in your house of purchased servants".

So which part of "every man child in your generations" do you not get?

You apparently don't know the difference between "man child" and "male child" at 8 days.

As well as "my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant"?? Seems the same as any of the other Mosaic laws.

It will be perpetually, (for all generations, without ceasing). Any of the other Mosaic Laws? Do you have any idea what kind of a can of worms you are opening? So you can now Seance with the dead? You can now marry your sister? It's legal in Alabama! So any Christian who legally marries his sister in Alabama is not sinning now?

Its always been considered to go along with the covenant made by Abraham and his offspring through Isaac,

So Mosaic Law started with Abraham. While I technically I agree, the Mosaic Law is specifically what's at stake in what "Judaizer" is strawmanned to be. Noah and Abraham were not Jews. Neither was Malchezdiek.

the chosen. Jews have always done this for their children and converts.

Jews are the souls of the Chosen, but I disagree that one is required to be c-cised to convert. Except for purchased servants and the children born of them.

For one the authenticity has nothing to do with this. Its been in the bible for centuries.

Being in the bible for centuries has little to do with authenticity.1 John 5:7 in your version and the KJV has been that way for centuries, does that make the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus readings incorrect?

Not really.

Please elaborate how Acts 15 fits then considering it says "Only these 4 Laws".

 

[JacobEzra.]

Being in the bible for centuries has little to do with authenticity.1 John 5:7 in your version and the KJV has been that way for centuries, does that make the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus readings incorrect?

What does the original say? are you questioning their translation?

Please elaborate how Acts 15 fits then considering it says "Only these 4 Laws".

It talks of the mosaic law and what is to be retained. There are also other laws that Christ and the Apostles commanded to be followed. Maybe you should read the Gospel and Epistles more?

Especially on that funny bit about Alabama and marriage, I do believe that was outlined in an Epistle. Oh wait, you don't believe most of the Epistles lol.

Ex. 1 Corinthians Ch. 5-7

 

[Shermana]

What does the original say? are you questioning their translation?





It talks of the mosaic law and what is to be retained. There are also other laws that Christ and the Apostles commanded to be followed. Maybe you should read the Gospel and Epistles more?

Especially on that funny bit about Alabama and marriage, I do believe that was outlined in an Epistle. Oh wait, you don't believe most of the Epistles lol.

Ex. 1 Corinthians Ch. 5-7

So when they say "Only these 4" they meant to say "Only these 4 plus whatever laws happen to correspond to the gospels and epistles". Interesting theory, but I dont think the Gospels were written at that time.

1 Corinthians Ch 5-7 is about a Stepmother who is married to a man's father, that is merely committing adultery with an otherwise non-blood related woman, who your dad has happened to be married to. Brothers and sisters marrying are not the same thing. You are comparing a non-blood relation to a blood relation, a non adultery relationship to an adulterous one. You cannot say its comparing 'incest" when its not really incest but adultery with your dad's wife who is not related to you. How about with animals too? Does that comparison apply to the law against beast-relations as well?

 

[JacobEzra.]

So when they say "Only these 4" they meant to say "Only these 4 plus whatever laws happen to correspond to the gospels".

[20] But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

These 4 are very good.

Interesting theory, but I dont think the Gospels were written at that time.

You call it a theory but since Christ gave a few commandments and then from mosaic law told to keep 4, its us to you to keep it. Considering you do not believe much in the Gospel and the Apostles, thats your problem.

Id say your not a Christian. Anyone else who actually believes in the Gospels and Apostles are Christians.

 

[JacobEzra.]

1 Corinthians Ch 5-7 is about a Stepmother who is married to a man's father, that is merely committing adultery with a non-related woman, who your dad has happened to be married to. Brothers and sisters marrying are not the same thing. You are comparing a non-blood relation to a blood relation, a non adultery relationship to an adulterous one. You cannot say its comparing 'incest" when its not really incest but adultery with your dad's wife who is not related to you. How about with animals too? Does that comparison apply to the law against beast-relations as well?

lol You should read more.
1 Corinthians goes into much more as well as other Epistles.

Then again you question the authenticity of the whole Gospel and Epistles. Are you sure you even follow Christ?

 

[Shermana]

What part about "ONLY" these 4 do you want to avoid? I know.

Just out of curiosity, would you eat blood sausage?

 

[Katzpur]

Shermana, I know you've been pretty busy talking to Jacob, but when you can, please get back to me with your answers to the questions I asked on this post, okay?

 

[JacobEzra.]

What part about "ONLY" these 4 do you want to avoid? I know.

What part of the Gospel do you not understand?

Like I said, someone who does not even follow the whole Gospel and NT is hardly a Christian. Acts 15 gives proof that the Mosaic law is not to be followed. As well as some of the Epistles.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I have a couple of questions for you, Ismaila. The first one is, do you believe repentance is just a one-time thing? Repent, accept Jesus and that's it? The second question is, if a person claims to be "saved" and doesn't treat his or her fellow human beings respectfully, that person is not really "saved"? I know a whole lot of people who have told me they're Christians (I'm assuming by that they mean they are "saved") and who have treated me in a quite un-Christian like manner. Would I be safe in assuming that they're just claiming to be "saved" and really aren't? That they're just claiming to be Christians and really aren't?

The only thing that someone can do to be saved is to repent of all of their sins and accept Jesus as their Friend, God, Lord, and Savior.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, I know you've been pretty busy talking to Jacob, but when you can, please get back to me with your answers to the questions I asked on this post, okay?

I don't think Luther was a Christian because of his grace-only anti-Works (Anti-James) philosophy, or Calvin for that same matter. Many people find Calvinism's TULIP doctrine to be anti-christian.

As for who gets to declare someone "Christian", I made my case that it should only apply to Messianic Jews since those were the original. Not in today's term "Messianic Jews" but in the idea of a Jewish sect who was completely Torah obedient and accepted that Yashua was Moshiach. That's why I advocate the Hyphenation, to differentiate between the actual historical "Christians" and the ones who declare themselves to be "Christian" but have a Theological organization which is different than these original Messianic Jewish beliefs. Otherwise, you can call Gnostics Christians. Anyone who believed Jesus was some kind of "Christ" however they called it, you could call Christian, if you remove it from its initial 30-70 A.D. origins.

 

[Katzpur]

The only thing that someone can do to be saved is to repent of all of their sins and accept Jesus as their Friend, God, Lord, and Savior.

Ismaila, I'm afraid you're sounding very much like a broken record. (Maybe you're not old enough for that phrase to be meaningful. If you don't know what I mean, please ask.) You have posted that one sentence, almost verbatim, at least a half a dozen times on this forum since you joined. It's like that's what you type every single time you don't want to have to actually address the question being asked. Please re-read the post you responded to and then be so kind as to answer it without repeating yourself yet another time.

 

[Shermana]

What part of the Gospel do you not understand?

Like I said, someone who does not even follow the whole Gospel and NT is hardly a Christian. Acts 15 gives proof that the Mosaic law is not to be followed. As well as some of the Epistles.

Acts 15 gives proof that it says "Only these 4 Laws and no more". Either accept this fact or not, it implies Christians are only required to obey these 4 parts of the Law. Apparently the idea that you have to supplement the Gospel and Epistles means more than these 4 Laws.

not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

Anything.

So in your version, they didn't actually mean "Anything".

I suppose you think Jesus was lying in Matthew 5:17-20, or do I have to go over again what "fulfilled" means? Do you really want to be among the "Least"?

Once again, I ask, would you eat blood sausage?

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think Luther was a Christian because of his grace-only anti-Works (Anti-James) philosophy, or Calvin for that same matter. Many people find Calvin's TULIP doctrine to be anti-christian.

Okay, so I guess that makes Lutheranism a non-Christian denomination then, in your opinion. I mean I definitely don't agree with the doctrine of sola fide and I find the TULIP doctrine to be preposterous. Still, I believe that Lutherans do worship Jesus Christ. To me, that trumps everything else.

As for who gets to declare someone "Christian", I made my case that it should only apply to Messianic Jews since those were the original. Not in today's term "Messianic Jews" but in the idea of a Jewish sect who was completely Torah obedient and accepted that Yashua was Moshiach. That's why I advocate the Hyphenation, to differentiate between the actual historical "Christians" and the ones who declare themselves to be "Christian" but have a Theological organization which is different than these original Messianic Jewish beliefs.

Would it be too much to ask that you post some kind of a summary of what you believe those "original Messianic Jewish beliefs" to be?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Ismaila, I'm afraid you're sounding very much like a broken record. (Maybe you're not old enough for that phrase to be meaningful. If you don't know what I mean, please ask.) You have posted that one sentence, almost verbatim, at least a half a dozen times on this forum since you joined. It's like that's what you type every single time you don't want to have to actually address the question being asked. Please re-read the post you responded to and then be so kind as to answer it without repeating yourself yet another time.

You are wrong. I am just telling the truth about God's will. You are only insulting me because you cannot handle the truth. Edit: I did answer the question.

 

[Katzpur]

You are wrong. I am just telling the truth about God's will. You are only insulting me because you cannot handle the truth.

What? You didn't answer the question, and I didn't insult you. Look, you've pretty much aliented 90% of the people here on RF. I'm one of the few people who hasn't actually exchanged hateful words with you. Exactly what "truth" do you believe I can't handle?

Your answer did not address these questions:

1. Do you believe repentance is just a one-time thing?
2. If a person claims to be "saved" and doesn't treat his or her fellow human beings respectfully, that person is not really "saved"?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Luke 20

[16] For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [17] And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: [18] For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. [19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

2 Corinthians 3

[1] Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need (as some do) epistles of commendation to you, or from you? [2] You are our epistle, written in our hearts, which is known and read by all men: [3] Being manifested, that you are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart. [4] And such confidence we have, through Christ, towards God. [5] Not that we are sufficient to think any thing of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God.

[6] Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth. [7] Now if the ministration of death, engraven with letters upon stones, was glorious; so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which is made void: [8] How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather in glory? [9] For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more the ministration of justice aboundeth in glory. [10] For even that which was glorious in this part was not glorified, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

Hebrews 9

[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? [15] And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions, which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

What? You didn't answer the question, and I didn't insult you. Look, you've pretty much aliented 90% of the people here on RF. I'm one of the few people who hasn't actually exchanged hateful words with you. Exactly what "truth" do you believe I can't handle?

You are wrong. You asked how to be saved and I answered you. If you do not like it, that is too bad.

 

[JacobEzra.]

As for who gets to declare someone "Christian", I made my case that it should only apply to Messianic Jews since those were the original. Not in today's term "Messianic Jews" but in the idea of a Jewish sect who was completely Torah obedient and accepted that Yashua was Moshiach.

LOL They were not Torah observant according to the NT every Christian reads