How Do the Mainstreams of Christianity Look MJ As?

[yonah_mishael]

Incorrect, as meaning is determined by the context others use the term in. Believers in the early church used the term "Christian" to mean "Christ-Bearer" and that was shared often...simultaneously with being identified as a "little Christ".

You’ve done nothing to demonstrate this claim. “Christian” does not mean “little Christ” (this is almost blasphemy, is it not?) or “Christ-bearer.” That is simply not what the word mean, and there is nothing in the writings of the New Testament (or after) to suggest that this is what they meant. “Christian” is “one who follows Christ/Messiah” (מָשִׁיחַ = Χριστός “anointed one&#8221. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests anything other than this. Paul uses the expression οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“those who belong to Christ&#8221 as a synonym of this word, and it is possible that Χριστιανός/Χριστιανοί came about as a synthesis of this expression.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You’ve done nothing to demonstrate this claim. “Christian” does not mean “little Christ” . (this is almost blasphemy, is it not?) or “Christ-bearer.”

You've done nothing in regards to showing where the early Jewish church (when using the term "Christian") did not use it interchangeably with being a bearer of Christ or one who reflects the Lord as a bearer of His name---just as Roman soldiders bear the name of the Roman Empire and are not divorced from being ROMAN. That's a basic in cultural linguistics and one has to resort to argumentation via selection to say otherwise in light of how often the early body of believers discussed the issue of being children of the Messiah/God and imitating him as little reflections (i.e. "children of God", "be imitators of God and Christ", etc). If one can't be honest with those basic facts, then one really has no need talking on what it means to follow Christ as a Christian.....

Again, it's semantical trying to say that a "Christian" is different from being a "Christ-bearer" (Christophoros), as terms are often used interchangeably with the same principle illustrated in differing ways. One bearing Christ is connected to Christ, just as one belonging to Christ REFLECTS Christ and is called to represent him. For when you bear the name of someone, then you show your allegiance to them and that you belong to them. THis is the principle of being IMITATORS of God and Christ as the apostle noted ( 1 Thessalonians 2:14, Ephesians 5:1 , etc)---or becoming a small representation of your master to the world when it comes to being a "child of the light" (John 12:35-37/ Ephesians 5:7-9/1 Thessalonians 5:4-6 ) or a "child of God" ( Romans 8:13-15 , Romans 8:18-20 , Galatians 3:25-27 , Philippians 2:14-16 , 1 John 3:1-3 , 1 John 5:1-3 , Luke 20:35-37 )--or saying that the BODY OF Christ represents Christ on the earth ( I Corinthians 12 ) as Christ is present throughout as the focus and the one whom His followers belong to/represent.

It's no different than a father seeing his son or daughter being a "mini-me"/small version of who they are and knowing they were called to imitate their parents. The same concept is present when we are small versions of Christ to others and illustrating who the Father is by acting like small versions of Him (as Christ noted when saying that we're like our Father in Heaven when we act like Him, Luke 6:35-37Luke 6 ). As said before, Messianic Jew Alan Hirsch noted the issue when it came to the meaning of what it meant to belong to Christ and be a follower of Christ/one who bears him (as seen here and here).

That is simply not what the word mean, and there is nothing in the writings of the New Testament (or after) to suggest that this is what they meant.

And there's nothing to say that "gay" means exactly the same as one committed to a same-sex lifestyle, yet the term is used interchangeably with that due to CONTEXT and setting--despite the fact that not all people claimng to be "gay" are really "happy" as the term originally meant. The same as it concerns the term "black" and it not meaning the abscence of color whenever ethnic groups use it to describe themselves as "black people" or united in the black struggle. The same principle is present when it comes to the term "Christian" which was used by early believers to symbolize others who followed Christ, bore His name and represented Him. To argue against that is making mountains out of molehills and being inconsistent with the use of language today as it is. Cultural etymology makes a world of difference.

If you're going to argue over support of gay lifestyles as being valid and no one says anything when noting that the term "gay" didn't always mean in the strict sense a same-sex lifestyle, then there's no point in trying to argue over others who note that being a Christian means that one bears Christ or belongs to Him when the early believers did the same/used terms interchangeably depending on the context.

“Christian” is “one who follows Christ/Messiah” (מָשִׁיחַ = Χριστός “anointed one&#8221. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests anything other than this.

Seeing that no one argued against that, there is really nothing that was ever in question---and thus, you're arguing over things that were never an issue. It's pointless..

Paul uses the expression οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“those who belong to Christ&#8221 as a synonym of this word, and it is possible that Χριστιανός/Χριστιανοί came about as a synthesis of this expression

Indeed, as was noted earlier. Again, you're arguing over that which was NEVER said.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

God did indeed give different laws to different people but the difference in laws does not imply that not everyone could be a part of God's people. Salvation is available to all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, bond or free.

Thank goodness for His salvation

 

[yonah_mishael]

You've done nothing in regards to showing where the early Jewish church (when using the term "Christian") did not use it interchangeably with being a bearer of Christ or one who reflects the Lord as a bearer of His name---just as Roman soldiders bear the name of the Roman Empire and are not divorced from being ROMAN.

You made a positive claim, so onus probandi is upon you – not me. I don’t need to demonstrate what is not the case. I have supplied evidence that it means “follower of Christ” in three ways: (1) the general meaning of the –an/–ian suffix in other terms; (2) provision of a synonym (οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ and, (3) an explanation of how this synonym probably evolved into the later form (Χριστιανό&#962. You have done nothing but maintain your claim without any reason for making it, and your claim is the one that must be supported.

Again, it's semantical trying to say that a "Christian" is different from being a "Christ-bearer" (Christophoros), as terms are often used interchangeably with the same principle illustrated in differing ways.

So, show us where Χριστόφορος is used even once of believers generally in the New Testament (or even later).

And there's nothing to say that "gay" means exactly the same as one committed to a same-sex lifestyle, yet the term is used interchangeably with that due to CONTEXT and setting--despite the fact that not all people claimng to be "gay" are really "happy" as the term originally meant. The same as it concerns the term "black" and it not meaning the abscence of color whenever ethnic groups use it to describe themselves as "black people" or united in the black struggle. The same principle is present when it comes to the term "Christian" which was used by early believers to symbolize others who followed Christ, bore His name and represented Him. To argue against that is making mountains out of molehills and being inconsistent with the use of language today as it is. Cultural etymology makes a world of difference.

“Gay” and “Black” are not the same, since it can be demonstrate that both terms are used to refer to groups of people. Where can you show that Χριστόφοροι (plural of Χριστόφορο&#962 was a term that was used of Christians generally?

Seeing that no one argued against that, there is really nothing that was ever in question---and thus, you're arguing over things that were never an issue. It's pointless..Indeed, as was noted earlier. Again, you're arguing over that which was NEVER said.

I’m simply saying that you’re giving a false meaning of the term. One might argue that a Christian “bears Christ” within him, just as one might argue that a Jehovah’s Witness avoids blood transfusion as a matter of principle. However, “no blood transfusions” is not inherent in the meaning of “Jehovah’s Witness,” and there might some day be a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses that reject the prohibition on blood transfusions. Similarly, there may be groups of Christians that do not speak of “bearing Christ” but only of “following him.” There is no “bearing” inherent in the meaning of the term “Christian,” though the idea of “following” or “belonging” is certainly there. You’re injecting meaning by association rather than the meaning of the term itself.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You made a positive claim, so onus probandi is upon you – not me. I don’t need to demonstrate what is not the case. I have supplied evidence that it means “follower of Christ” in three ways: (1) the general meaning of the –an/–ian suffix in other terms; (2) provision of a synonym (οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ and, (3) an explanation of how this synonym probably evolved into the later form (Χριστιανό&#962. You have done nothing but maintain your claim without any reason for making it, and your claim is the one that must be supported.
.

Again, sounds nice---but nothing here remotely addresses what was said nor does it address the ignoral on your part of where the term "follower of Christ" (as it concerns "Christian" was used by early believers to mean one who was an Imitator of Christ/God and bore the image of the Messiah and one belonging to him. So long as one ignores basic facts to argue over nothing, it is not upon anyone to prove anything since you made the claim that early believers DIDN'T use the term "Christian" to mean that they did not bear the name of Christ in reflecting him. That you choose to ignore history is your own issue that you can dance alone on'

So, show us where Χριστόφορος is used even once of believers generally in the New Testament (or even later).

As it was already shown and you waste time avoiding it in order to argue over nothing, there's no need. Again, show where being a follower of someone is different from bearing the name of the person...as it concerns the issue you tried to make out of nothing when saying that being a "Christ-bearer" isn't the same as belonging to Christ. Logically, as said before, to argue against the concept of being a "Christ-Bearer" and "belonging to Christ" is as foolish as saying one doesn't bear the image of America/representing when they claim to be an American (i.e belonging to America).

“Gay” and “Black” are not the same, since it can be demonstrate that both terms are used to refer to groups of people.

Not what was said and it's silly trying to argue past that/change the goal posts, o being "gay" isn't strictly meant to mean "happy" and the cultural context of the term changes and you've already done so often. The term, although used to describe a group of people (just as it was with the term "black") does NOT mean reference to a group of people with sexual orientation in its strict format. That was something that was adopted later by people advocating for gay lifestyles. It's the same with the concept of "Christ-Bearer" being equivalent to being a follower of Christ/belonging to Christ, even though it did not strickly mean that in its early use. Moreover, what is present is that the term Christian was used both to refer to those who belong to Him as well as those who bear His name---the SAME Group of people involved regardless.

Where can you show that Χριστόφοροι (plural of Χριστόφορο&#962 was a term that was used of Christians generally?

Already did--and as said before, until you can be honest with the facts, no need in bringing it up again till then.

I’m simply saying that you’re giving a false meaning of the term

No more giving a "false meaning" than you are giving an accurate meaning by saying you support gay people when the term "gay" means happiness rather than sexual orientation. There's no need for consistent inconsistency on your part with that one, or ignoral of where the term "Christian" was used to show one who is a follower of God and Christ and bearing HIS name/image.

For the term "Christian" is used in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like". The word "Christian" is used three times in the New Testament, and each time as a term of reproach or derision. Here in Antioch, the name Christianos was coined to distinguish the worshippers of the Christ from the Kaisarianos, the worshippers of Caesar.

One might argue that a Christian “bears Christ” within him, just as one might argue that a Jehovah’s Witness avoids blood transfusion as a matter of principle. However, “no blood transfusions” is not inherent in the meaning of “Jehovah’s Witness,” and there might some day be a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses that reject the prohibition on blood transfusions. Similarly, there may be groups of Christians that do not speak of “bearing Christ” but only of “following him.”

Moot point, as the lack of claiming to "bear Christ" or "bearing Christ" when it comes to describing onself as following him does nothing as it concerns the principle/metaphysical concept of bearing him regardless. It's no different than someone saying that they love Hip Hop culture/follow it. Their devotion to Hip Hop culture as followers of it isn't divorced from them bearing the name of Hip Hop when it comes to representing it.

It'd behoove you to understand the concept of what it means to bear something...as they means to take OWNERSHIP and identification. The same thing as it concerns identification when it comes to "following" something.

Examples throughout scripture where bearing something meant identification, be it bearing that which was good bearing that which was bad:

Genesis 43:9
I myself will guarantee his safety; you can hold me personally responsible for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him here before you, I will bear the blame before you all my life.
Genesis 43:8-10

Exodus 28:11-13
11 Engrave the names of the sons of Israel on the two stones the way a gem cutter engraves a seal. Then mount the stones in gold filigree settings 12 and fasten them on the shoulder pieces of the ephod as memorial stones for the sons of Israel. Aaron is to bear the names on his shoulders as a memorial before the Lord. 13 Make gold filigree settings
​

Exodus 28:29
“Whenever Aaron enters the Holy Place, he will bear the names of the sons of Israel over his heart on the breastpiece of decision as a continuing memorial before the LORD.
Exodus 28:28-30

Exodus 28:38
It will be on Aaron’s forehead, and he will bear the guilt involved in the sacred gifts the Israelites consecrate, whatever their gifts may be. It will be on Aaron’s forehead continually so that they will be acceptable to the LORD.
Exodus 28:37-39

Deuteronomy 1:12
But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself?
Deuteronomy 1:11-13 (

Jeremiah 12:13
They will sow wheat but reap thorns; they will wear themselves out but gain nothing. They will bear the shame of their harvest because of the LORD’s fierce anger.”
Jeremiah 12:12-14

Jeremiah 15:16
When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty.
Jeremiah 15:15-17

Jeremiah 32:34
They set up their vile images in the house that bears my Name and defiled it.
Jeremiah 32:33-35 (

Galatians 6:17
From now on, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.
Galatians 6:16-18

1 Corinthians 15:49
And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
1 Corinthians 15:48-50
​

There is no “bearing” inherent in the meaning of the term “Christian,” though the idea of “following” or “belonging” is certainly there. You’re injecting meaning by association rather than the meaning of the term itself

As said before, you're arguing against what was never said and reading more things into it than were present.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Again, sounds nice---but nothing here remotely addresses what was said nor does it address the ignoral on your part of where the term "follower of Christ" (as it concerns "Christian" was used by early believers to mean one who was an Imitator of Christ/God and bore the image of the Messiah and one belonging to him. So long as one ignores basic facts to argue over nothing, it is not upon anyone to prove anything since you made the claim that early believers DIDN'T use the term "Christian" to mean that they did not bear the name of Christ in reflecting him. That you choose to ignore history is your own issue that you can dance alone on

It is clear that Paul said that Christians have the Spirit (that is, the Spirit of Christ – and by implication Christ) within them. It is also clear that Paul said that Christians should be imitators of Christ. He also wrote that they must love their neighbors and that this is the fulfilment of the whole law. Additionally, he wrote that Christians were buried with Christ in baptism and returned to life with him. However, the word “Christian” does not mean “one who was buried with Christ in baptism.” Christian means “follower of Christ,” no matter what one says about Christians. We’re talking about the meaning of the term, which is not “Christ-bearer,” as you stated. No matter if Paul said that “all Christians are Christ-bearers,” and he didn’t, this doesn’t change the meaning of “Christian,” though it changes the associations of the term and how it is applied. “Christian” does not mean “one who believes in the Trinity,” though most Christians believe in Trinity. It is not the meaning of the word – and neither is “Christ-bearer.” Simple as that. I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue this.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is clear that Paul said that Christians have the Spirit (that is, the Spirit of Christ – and by implication Christ) within them. It is also clear that Paul said that Christians should be imitators of Christ. He also wrote that they must love their neighbors and that this is the fulfilment of the whole law. .



Additionally, he wrote that Christians were buried with Christ in baptism and returned to life with him. However, the word “Christian” does not mean “one who was buried with Christ in baptism.”

It is also clear that Paul noted plainly that believers/Christians bear the image of the Lord upon them and that we reflect His likeness...the heart reflecting who someone is ( Proverbs 27:19 ). And he noted that believers have a nature that now reflects the IMAGE of who Christ is.

Ephesians 4:9
So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.
20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
​

Romans 8:29 gives the eternal purpose of God the Father for all believers in Jesus Christ. "For whom He foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son . . All whom God foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Just as we have born the image of the earthly Adam, we will also bear the image of the heavenly Adam (1 Corinthians 15:49). Christ "will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself" (Philippians 3:21, NET). "When Christ (who is your life) appears, then you too will be revealed in glory with him" (Colossians 3:4, NET). We are conformed to the image of Christ in holiness, because Christ is made unto us sanctification. Second Corinthians 3:18 says we are being changed into the image of our Lord from glory to glory. "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."

All of that dealing explictly with bearing the name/glory and Image of Christ as He is.....which is what is found in the concept of Christian and how terms were used. Thus, why you argue against that is needless.

Christian means “follower of Christ,” no matter what one says about Christians.

And "gay" means "happy" no matter what others say when speaking in advocacy of it, although it's already understood (as said before) that the etymology of the word doesn't equate to it being inaccurate simply because another association is given to it (as is the case with gay being connected with same-sex lifestyles). And the same applies to the concept of Christian.

One cannot argue that being a "follower of Christ" isn't the same as being one bearing the IMAGE of Christ anymore than they could argue that being an American doesn't mean you bear the name of America on your identification. The same thing applies if one were to claim you don't belong to the Israeli state/nation when they see your identification on passports and the Israeli flag being represented. That you bear the image of the nation and represent for them is a part of your belonging to the nation. To bear the name of someone is to follow them as well and represent for them, regardless of protest.

We’re talking about the meaning of the term, which is not “Christ-bearer,” as you stated.

Wrong, as what I'm talking about is how the term was USED and what it meant when it came to application by believers in the early body of believers. Having a term that doesn't mean something strictly like "Christ-bearer" isn't the same as saying all believers in the early body of believers used the term to equate to being one who bears Christ. That is the nature of cultural etymology and without it one ends up directly at the foolishness others do when saying that a term used in a strict sense is what the term means and then divorcing that from the ways others use it in a given setting/context and seeing what they said.

No matter if Paul said that “all Christians are Christ-bearers,” and he didn’t,


this doesn’t change the meaning of “Christian,” though it changes the associations of the term and how it is applied.

Incorrect, as Paul noted multiple times where believers bore the image of CHrist and made clear that to bear His name was to be connected to him/belong to him and thus it was a serious issue for one to say that they were a believer in Christ/Christian since with that came associations. The strict meaning of a term from a language perspective wasn't the same as saying what the USAGE of a word was meant to imply in everyday dialouge/language. It's one of the reasons why many terms were used interchangeably, such as "child of God" , "child of the Light", "children of the Light", "servants of the Most High" and many others---all of it pointing back to one's association with Christ the Messiah and their allegiance to Him alone. They were not arguing over terms and saying "Well, you're not really bearing the name of Christ if you say you're a 'Christian' because that term technically means that you follow Christ!!!" since they had a different understanding of what the terms meant.

IMHO, it'd behoove you to address what he did say before speaking on it since it doesn't do well for accuracy.

“Christian” does not mean “one who believes in the Trinity,” though most Christians believe in Trinity.

It is not the meaning of the word – and neither is “Christ-bearer.” Simple as that.


I don’t know why you’re continuing to argue this

As no one mentioned anything about CHristians believing in the Trintiy (since that was never required to be a follower of Christ), it's a moot point..or false scenario since one is injecting (on your part) prior assumptions to the word that were never a part of the discussion. One can be a believer in Christ/Christian and yet be a Non-Trinitarian or one who has a differing understanding of what it meant for the Holy Spirit to come down. Same thing happened in the early body of believers who differed in view. What is in view here is belonging to Christ....not belonging to other groups of Christians who may disagree with one another on differing points of doctrine. Why you argue against that reality is needless.

 

[yonah_mishael]

One cannot argue that being a "follower of Christ" isn't the same as being one bearing the IMAGE of Christ anymore than they could argue that being an American doesn't mean you bear the name of America on your identification. To bear the name of someone is to follow them as well and represent for them, regardless of protest.

The multitude of your words does not change the fact that your original statement is just mistaken. And now I’m done with this conversation. Thanks a lot.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The multitude of your words does not change the fact that your original statement is just mistaken. And now I’m done with this conversation. Thanks a lot.

Claiming "Multitude" has no bearing on the discussion (as it is ad-hominem done needlessly when one cannot deal credibly with an issue or feels limited in rebuttal). One could argue similarily if saying "The use of linguistic jargon doesn't do anything in regards to responses" everytime you attempt to throw out a term in discussions/debates---but that would be petty and a distraction from any points raised.

That said, had you understood the context, one would not have made a pointless error in arguing against that which was never said when it comes to the term "Christian" being connected with following Christ and belonging to him....and seeing how that connects to bearing His name/image and being conformed to that image daily as we reflect him to others. Christ noted the same reality in Matthew 22:17 and the book of Mark when it came to identity.

Mark 12:14

Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar

13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax[b] to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him.
​

The denarius was the common Roman coin of that day. On one side of the coin was the portrait of the Roman emperor (Tiberius) with the inscription in Latin: "Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the Divine Augustus." The coin bearing the image of the emperor was to be given to him, but their hearts (which were made by the Father ) belonged to the Lord and their ultimate allegiance was to be for Him alone. This is the concept of giving to man what is man and giving to God what is His.

And this is the concept behind what Peter was talking on when encouraging believers to rejoice that they bore the name of Christ upon them:

1 Peter 4:16
12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
1 Peter 4:15-17
​

Bearing His Image being simultaneous with following Him is a basic as it concerns what it means for the body of believers to reflect the Messiah (I Corinthians 12 for starters among many others), although your choice of not following Christ helps to explain the absence of understanding on that reality when trying to argue on an issue that believers never were focused on. The lack of substance in your reply doesn't erase the realtiy that one is unable to show where bearing the image of someone is not the same as being a follower/associated with them (just like belonging to Israel is connected with having the name/image and flag of Israel on your identification). There's never a need for making issues where there is none. As said before, it'd behoove you to do better research next time prior to speaking on the use of the term "Christian" and how the early body of believers actually used it when discussing how it meant to follow the Messiah and reflect/bear him. Shalom

 

[yonah_mishael]

The lack of substance in your reply doesn't erase the realtiy that one is unable to show where bearing the image of someone is not the same as being a follower/associated with them...and making issue where there is none. The ad-hominem is needless, but generally done when one cannot deal credibly with an issue. No surprise

LOL

Uh huh.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

LOL

Uh huh.

Indeed. LOL. Always a trip when people cop out when an argument doesn't work and they resort to quips like they have a point As it is, there's already enough pretense since one claimed they were done (as said here in #68 )and yet are still commenting. The nature of pretense ( Proverbs 21:29 )

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The law given to free men is different then those given to slaves. The law given to those who live in the land of Israel is different then those given outside of the land of Israel.

For example, the Jewish people were only to marry Jewish people. By implication you could say, Gentiles should not marry Jewish people, but only non-Jewish people.

God did indeed give different laws to different people but the difference in laws does not imply that not everyone could be a part of God's people. Salvation is available to all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, bond or free.

There's the dynamic of Mosaic Law being different from Pre-Mosaic Law and that being different from what happened with the Babylonian exile (where the role of the rabbi seemed to develop in the lack of a temple/priesthood and thus that became dominant above the priest dynamic) and the dynamic of what Christ came/did.

 

[yedida]

Actually, the various laws applied at different times are given to specific people groups. Plus, the law given to females are different then the law given to males. The law given to free men is different then those given to slaves. The law given to those who live in the land of Israel is different then those given outside of the land of Israel.

For example, the Jewish people were only to marry Jewish people. By implication you could say, Gentiles should not marry Jewish people, but only non-Jewish people.

God did indeed give different laws to different people but the difference in laws does not imply that not everyone could be a part of God's people. Salvation is available to all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, bond or free.

That goes without saying, that there are some laws that cannot be obeyed by ALL. It's understood, or should be.

 

[yedida]

I cannot help but see Paul agreeing with your reasoning but not with your conclusions. Paul would agree that it’s all or nothing. Either Gentiles and Jews are in the same boat and have the same relationship to God, or they are not and do not. Yet, his reasoning would take him the other direction – not that Gentiles should do as the Jews, but that Jews should do as the Gentiles (those who come to faith). Gentiles before faith were chained in service to elemental forces and primitive beliefs and ways of thinking. Faith releases them from such servitude, freeing them to live a life of love and devotion to their fellows (“love your neighbor as yourself”), and love itself becomes the prime law. Jews who are slaves to Torah observance, once they become believers in Jesus, are freed from their slavery just as the Gentiles are freed from their slavery. All come to Christ from slavery in order to be free, in order to serve one another and God in freedom and love. No one should add any shackle of slavery, whether to elementals or to legal codes, which would violate the freedom that is in God through Christ. This is Paul’s position throughout his letters, and he would have opposed the idea that Jews (let alone Gentiles!) should be obligated to Torah observance – whether dietary, customary or cultic.

But then that would mean that God gave a bad thing to the Jews. That He made a mistake. It would mean that God had changed where He says He doesn't. It would mean just throw it all away, go about your merry way, eat, drink and be merry for tomrorrow we die and there is nothing more than that. I can't live with that hopelessness.

 

[Qnts2]

But then that would mean that God gave a bad thing to the Jews. That He made a mistake. It would mean that God had changed where He says He doesn't. It would mean just throw it all away, go about your merry way, eat, drink and be merry for tomrorrow we die and there is nothing more than that. I can't live with that hopelessness.

Well, since I see the New Covenant as different and better then the Mosaic covenant...

When I was about 3 years old, my father gave me a tricycle. When I was in high school, he gave me a multi-speed bicycle. And when I reach my junior year in college, he gave me a car.

When he gave me the tricycle it was not bad. It was great. But, if he gave me that same tricycle when I was a junior in college, it wouldn't have been so great.

God gave the Mosaic covenant to the Jewish people at Mt. Sinai and it was very very good. God offered the New Covenant thru His Son and it is a better covenant. Just as the tricycle was very very good, but in college, the car was better. God doesn't change. But we do. Under the New Covenant, we change significantly.

 

[yedida]

Well, since I see the New Covenant as different and better then the Mosaic covenant...

When I was about 3 years old, my father gave me a tricycle. When I was in high school, he gave me a multi-speed bicycle. And when I reach my junior year in college, he gave me a car.

When he gave me the tricycle it was not bad. It was great. But, if he gave me that same tricycle when I was a junior in college, it wouldn't have been so great.

God gave the Mosaic covenant to the Jewish people at Mt. Sinai and it was very very good. God offered the New Covenant thru His Son and it is a better covenant. Just as the tricycle was very very good, but in college, the car was better. God doesn't change. But we do. Under the New Covenant, we change significantly.

I don't see the "New Covenant" in full effect yet until His return. And I don't really see it differing that much except in the sin department. How we are to behave as we go about our lives has not been changed, except that He now dwells within us. But that does not mean that we no longer need His instructions as given at Sinai.

 

[yonah_mishael]

But then that would mean that God gave a bad thing to the Jews. That He made a mistake. It would mean that God had changed where He says He doesn't. It would mean just throw it all away, go about your merry way, eat, drink and be merry for tomrorrow we die and there is nothing more than that. I can't live with that hopelessness.

The traditional Christian voice was that the Jews simply misunderstood the covenant from the get-go because of (1) hardness of hearts and (2) violation of the covenant at Sinai. Thus, the Epistle of Barnabas explains that the prohibition against “eating” pork was really intended as a symbol prohibiting the “association with” people who live like pigs. The same with all of the eating prohibitions. They were misunderstood and turned into something physical because of the blindness of the people. The reality of the Torah and such was always (according to early Christianity) the Messiah and had nothing at all to do with legalism. Therefore, God did not change his mind, he simply let the people believe in falsehoods because they rejected his grace from the beginning, worshiping a golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain receiving the Torah – the very copy of which Moses initially broke to pieces (representing the breaking of the covenant). This is standard Christian thinking from the earliest of times.

 

[yedida]

The traditional Christian voice was that the Jews simply misunderstood the covenant from the get-go because of (1) hardness of hearts and (2) violation of the covenant at Sinai. Thus, the Epistle of Barnabas explains that the prohibition against “eating” pork was really intended as a symbol prohibiting the “association with” people who live like pigs. The same with all of the eating prohibitions. They were misunderstood and turned into something physical because of the blindness of the people. The reality of the Torah and such was always (according to early Christianity) the Messiah and had nothing at all to do with legalism. Therefore, God did not change his mind, he simply let the people believe in falsehoods because they rejected his grace from the beginning, worshiping a golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain receiving the Torah – the very copy of which Moses initially broke to pieces (representing the breaking of the covenant). This is standard Christian thinking from the earliest of times.

I don't know how "traditional" it is, this is the first time I've ever heard this....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

I was under the impression that MJs were Christian?
Many do and many don't.

But I suppose that depends on one's definition of same
yep

NASB) 1 Peter 4:16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.
That's just a translation.

As Gandhi exclaimed:

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians
They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi​

​

You quoted it, not me.....

Not sure what you mean by "That's just a translation". Sorry

 

[yonah_mishael]

I don't know how "traditional" it is, this is the first time I've ever heard this....

But this is probably because you have not had a historical training in the doctrines of the Church, and it probably also has something to do with why you rejected the Church in the first place. The formers of the doctrines of Christianity really did take most perspectives into account before adopting their formulas and beliefs. They wrestled with what to do with the division that exists between Jews and Gentiles, how to formulate the relationships between the various persons in the Godhead, how to understand Jesus’ nature in terms of both humanity and deity, etc. All of these things were argued and settled aeons ago, and yet so many today argue as if these questions and answers have not already been given, often because they do not understand the thought processes of the founders or the writings that came after the New Testament.

It would do you nothing but good to read through the writings of the Church Fathers all the way up to the settling of the canon and the councils that put together Church doctrine in the fourth Century. It would be good to know why Judaizing was declared heresy and why many of the arguments used today would not have held water even then. And at that point, if you want to reject Christianity – actually knowing what Christianity really is and not just how it has come to be expressed in the United States in our own days – you would be free to reject it on the basis of knowledge and not on the basis of an emotional reaction.

Best wishes,
YM