What's wrong with 'Christian'?

[Globexgirl]

I can see why you wouldn't want to be called a Christian, because Christians really have grown a horrible name among non-believers. It's just a select few that can ruin the idea of Christianity for everyone, even if there are so many out there that really are believers and followers (well, they try hard to follow anyway) in the Christian ways. I personally think there are two kinds of Christians: Those who say they are Christian, have prayed, and do nothing about it. Sure they may go to Church sometimes, but they don't really try to follow the Christian ways.

And then there are those that become Christians, and do try to change there lives. It may not happen overnight, it may even take a couple years. But they see themselves as instruments of God and try to do as they think God would want them to do or what the know God wants them to do by means of a vision or something.

It's because of the first group that we have been given such a bad name, but there are so many Christians out there that really do take it serious and are honestly good people through Christ's love. It makes me so angry that just the few in the first group had to ruin the name for everyone. Although, i do stand proudly behind my religion and make it quite obvious that I am a proud Christian and follower of the Christian way. I also take it as a personal challenge to be kind to everyone and anyone even if they insult my religion or anything about me.

 

[Higher Truth]

Many who are of Jewish heritage, and who bellieve in Jesus /Yeshua do not even call themselves Mesianic anymore because of all of the negative connotations that are associated with many that are now claiming to be "Messianics". They choose to refer to themselves as Jewish believers.

 

[Higher Truth]

Below is a link to an article from one of the many sites that I frequent on a regular basis.The webmaster, who claims to be Christian [although her views are not typical of the mainstream] has an interesting view of things Messianic from outside of the bubble.


http://www.SeekGod.ca/spreadingroots.htm

 

[Superman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Superman
Paul consistently preached that we are one body in Christ, no Jew, no Greek classifications.

This is an old hackneyed statement and incomplete.

How so? Your comments that follow reaffirm exactly what I was getting at:

Sha'ul also said that there was "neither male nor female." So, the distinction between the sexes no longer exists?? Of course not. Just a case of scripture taken out of context and used to support a taught/learned position rather than what the scripture actually teaches.

That section of scripture is specifically addressing distinctions as pertains to salvation only not roles or positions in this world/community.

I agree that Paul was addressing issues in regards to God's view of man in salvation. The whole problem of the Galatian church was that Gentiles were trying to become Jewish, as if that was supposed to make them properly saved.

My point is this: If God makes no distinction of race/gender/social class in regards to who can be saved, then we as "saved" people should not view each other that way when it comes to our relationships with each other. I don't see why I cannot think of someone as a fellow-believer, I must also attach a name to distinguish him from me. Im not saying that Jews must throw out their heritage, be proud of it if you like. But all of that should have nothing to do with my relationship to you as a fellow-bheliever in Christ.

The separation and classification of different peoples was actually brought on by SIN. God separated the nations when they tried to build a tower to reach Heaven. Therefore, I don't think it is necessary to go and chop up the Body of Christ into sub-catagories because someone was born a Jew and others weren't. To me, that smacks of arrogance. The fact one may be of Jewish decent, a female, or whatever has no bearing on who they are in Christ, and that is how I divide people, are they saved, or unsaved.

This may be off-topic, but the other day I was watching a Christian show about "The Black Church." And there was a panel of ministers and it was an open forum discussing issues only involved with blacks and their churches. For most of the show, all of the experts stayed within the confines of "the Black Church is this... The Black Church needs to do that... This is wrong with the Black Church..." etc.

Of 12 panalists on there, only one bothered to get up and say "We need to remember that the word "church" does not mean there is a Black Church and a White Church, etc, but One Church." I think that is important to remember.

It's quite en vogue to have "The Jewish Church" "The Black Church" or all these other separate "Churches." I wonder what these guys would have to say about a "White Church." Sounds racist, doesn't it? How is then that other ethnic groups can do that?

That is not to say Im calling Blacks or Jews racist, (because I am not) Im saying that perhaps people that segregate themsleves based on ethnicity never considered how others feel about being excluded because they are "different." Being a white male, if I started an orginization that only catered to white Anglo-Saxons, I'd be dubbed a racist by everyone. But if a Black or a Jew or a Latino does it, its heritage. That's a crock. But let me get back on topic.... Just had to get that out of my system...

I think if we put effort into separating ourselves into groups, we will begin to look internally more than externally. Being proud of a heritage is one thing, taking it an extra step to divide the Church into "multiple churches" is bad. That is why I dont like the concept of denominations, although I understand it cant be helped when doctrines differ.

It requires effort to to be separate, and as I said, Paul rebuked Peter for separating himslef from the Gentiles at Antioch, and that separation was based on holding onto their heritage. I believe to have an "Us and Them" attitude in the Church is no different. That is why in the Church, there are no Jews/Gentiles/Male/Female/Bond/Free. You are my spiritual brother in Christ, and I don't think you should expend the effort to take natural divisions and bring it into Christ.

 

[Henaynei]

You are my spiritual brother in Christ, and I don't think you should expend the effort to take natural divisions and bring it into Christ.

LOL
No, I am your spiritual *sister* - but I guess using your argument I have to be your to be your "spiritual brother," even though G-d made me female.

Brother, G-d made these distinctions - see posts in "Chosen people" - it is He who said the Jew was separate and unique.

As to salvation all have equal access - but not all have the same position. Anymore than in a family - the husband is the head, not the wife - because G-d so ordained it, a G-d made division of office/purpose/calling.

He whom you call "Christ" is the self-same G-d who said the Jew is "high above all the nations," "above all the peoples of the earth" - and in Him is no shadow of turning, neither has He changed His mind.

These are NOT natural divisions, rather they are G-d made divisions.

 

[Higher Truth]

Romans 2

28 For he is not a Jew that is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that outwardly in flesh;
29 but he is a Jew that is one inwardly, and circumcision is of heart, in spirit, not in letter; of whom the praise is not from men, but from God.

Before Abraham there was no distinction. Abraham was chosen because of obedience, not bloodline.

 

[yod]

As someone who considers myself to be messianic, I have to agree that these distinctions are for the most part extremely artificial. There are sincere people on both sides of this discussion who are just wrong (biblically speaking)

Yeshua broke down the wall of partition. Who are we to reconstruct it?

shame, shame, shame....

 

[Henaynei]

As someone who considers myself to be messianic, I have to agree that these distinctions are for the most part extremely artificial. There are sincere people on both sides of this discussion who are just wrong (biblically speaking)

Yeshua broke down the wall of partition. Who are we to reconstruct it?

shame, shame, shame....

Shame? Wall of Partition?

You can't claim what ever you want to be the wall of partition.

Yeshua is not some separate or higher G-d who can over rule that angry separatist G-d of the OT!! He is the SAME G-d who stated many times that the Jew is unique and chosen. Not better, but definately different.

Why must the body of Messiah fall into the same cesspool of the lies of political correctness that says we all have to be the same in order to be equal!?

The middle wall of partition was the fact that prior to Yeshua's sacrifice the only way to obtain the righteousness that led to eternal life and a relationship with G-d was through the sacrifices in the Temple (done with a contrite and humble obedience). With Yeshua's sacrifice a perfect sacrifice was made once for all - those who kept Torah and those who didn't but also submitted to G-d. We all became one in our access to righteousness and a relationship with G-d.

But prophesy in and out of the Ketuvim Natzrim is replete with clear references to the special place Jews STILL have in the scheme of G-d's world and plans.

Our wanting it to be different or feeling somehow slighted because we are not the same as the Jews in no way obligates G-d or the Jews to agree that things are not as they are. This is what He set up and we have no right to insist that it work our way.

Here is the context about the middle wall of partition - it deals specifically with access to salvation and nothing else.

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: [/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one * * new man, so making peace; [/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby *: [/font]

We are now, miracles of miracles, members of the Commonwealth of Israel - is that not good enough fo us?? Must we also claim the bed of the first born??

And now I really must sign off and get my head and heart straight for Yom Kippur.

Shalom
Henaynei

 

[Higher Truth]

Yod said:

Yeshua broke down the wall of partition. Who are we to reconstruct it?

shame, shame, shame....

HT:
Good point Yod. This is a phenomenon that has been created by the "latter day pharisees" so that they can have a feeling of superiority. You know how they love the "chief seats", and many use this as a stick to beat the non-Jews into a place of submission. The funny thing is that many of the people who take this stance are not even Jewish.

Check out Rev 2:9 and 3:9. The Messiah saw it coming.

 

[simchat_torah]

Before Abraham there was no distinction. Abraham was chosen because of obedience, not bloodline.

Quite correct, but after HaShem chose Abraham, he made his bloodline unique among the nations. Scripture makes this quite clear.

 

[yod]

Why must the body of Messiah fall into the same cesspool of the lies of political correctness that says we all have to be the same in order to be equal!?

I have no idea what that sentence has to do with this discussion. No one has said anything about being the "same"....

Yes, HaShem said in Exodus that the sons of Jacob would be a peculiar people and a nation of priests.

Yet, a "grafted-in" son of a Kennezite was chosen as a prince of Judah to spy out the land. Caleb was also given the choicest city, Hebron, the burial place of the patriarchs. He gave this back for the use of the Levites. I think this is a good analogy of the role of gentiles in the kingdom.

Kefa repeated to the diaspora that "we" are this nation of priests. He included gentile christians equally because the Lord had made it clear not to call any man unclean whom the Lord had made clean.

Paul says that all have been shut up in disobedience that God could show mercy to all of us. This is one place where the "no difference between jew or gentile, man or woman" correctly applies...

But ignore them.

Yeshua says that we, all of His people, should be One even as He and the Father are One....so that the world would know Him.

There is nothing wrong with cultural differences...and we each have our own roles. But to place any artificial distinction between jews and gentiles IN THE MESSIAH is direct rebellion against Jesus' prayer in John 17.


Our righteousness is no better (or worse) than that of any "christians". I prefer being a messianic but I am under no illusions of spiritual superiority over Catholics, Pentecostals, Baptists or whatever...the righteous man will live by faith.

Adonai Tsidkeinu

 

[simchat_torah]

I can actually see the point being made. Being "the same" is attributed to saying there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. In other words, those who say there is no difference are trying to do the same as many political liberal movements today... instead of destroying the root of racism (hate) they destroy races themselves.

Anyway, I completely agree. We are equal, yet we are not the same. That was the point that Sha'ul was making... though there is Jew and Greek, they are equal in HaShem's eyes. They each are unique in that they have a role to fulfill... both physically and prophetically, yet when each fulfill's their role they are considered righteous. They are equal in his eyes... by doing his will.

shalom,
Yafet.

 

[Henaynei]

I can actually see the point being made. Being "the same" is attributed to saying there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. In other words, those who say there is no difference are trying to do the same as many political liberal movements today... instead of destroying the root of racism (hate) they destroy races themselves.

Anyway, I completely agree. We are equal, yet we are not the same. That was the point that Sha'ul was making... though there is Jew and Greek, they are equal in HaShem's eyes. They each are unique in that they have a role to fulfill... both physically and prophetically, yet when each fulfill's their role they are considered righteous. They are equal in his eyes... by doing his will.

shalom,
Yafet.

Todah Yafet - Todah

Sometimes I get way to complicated in my explainations - you have put it so very simply, and clearly

G'mar Khasima Tovah
May you have an easy fast

 

[Superman]

Quite correct, but after HaShem chose Abraham, he made his bloodline unique among the nations. Scripture makes this quite clear.

*sigh*

Galatians
2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

2:12
For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. *

2:13
The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. *

2:14
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

This is the famous rebuke by Paul to Peter. In particular, I would like those of you who feel the need to segregate the Church based on your race to look at verse 14.

Paul said Peter "although he was a Jew, lived like the Gentiles." Now there is no way to tell what this exactly meant. We do know from the Gospels that Jesus and the disciples did not observe some of the ritual cleansings. We also know that Jesus reinterpreted the Sabbath laws. We also know Peter was the one who received the vision of the sheet with the "unclean" animals and was told to eat, and while he pondered this, some men came and asked him to come to Cornelius' house. While at his house, the Holy Spirit fell, and Peter was amazed. Peter took the vision to mean the Gentiles were now welcome into the family of God, and this partition, like the ritual sacrifices and cleansings and so on was now out of style.

I get the impression that a more relaxed view of Jewish customs and laws were probably not enough to be considered "live like a Gentile." Did Peter also do away with the food laws too? I don't know. So I cannot say just how much Peter "lived like a Gentile and not a like a Jew" but it was enough that Paul could use it against him.

But when more Jews came around, Peter and the rest who were already living like the Gentiles, snapped back to their old Jewish customs and split the Church.

Jewish Christians on the right, Gentile Christians on the left.

How do you think that made the Gentiles feel?

Paul called this a hypocritical thing to do.

My arguments are not about destroying races or cultures at all. My arguments are that when they get to a point they start forming factions in the Church, there is a problem.

Celebrate Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles. I think all of that is pretty cool. My heritage is based largely of getting drunk whenever an excuse comes around (stupid Europeans). But don't let it make you, make the Church a collection of several churches based on race.

Paul said it was hypocricy. I think it is also arrogance.

And let me point out to those of you who are saying I am taking the verse "There is no Jew or Greek in Christ" out of context... That statement is in the very same book that Paul relayed this story about Peter. This story is in part the basis for his arguments later, which is why I think you are wrong in saying I am taking this out of context. So think about that.

 

[Higher Truth]

Romans 11

16 Now if the firstfruit is holy, so also the lump. And if the root is holy, so also the branches.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree were grafted in among them, and became a sharer of the root and the fatness of the olive tree,
18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, it is not you that bears the root, but the root bears you.
19 You will say then, The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.
20 Well! For unbelief they were broken off. And you stand by faith. Do not be highminded, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear that it may be He will not spare you either.
22 Behold, then, the kindness and severity of God: On those having fallen, severity. But on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise, you will also be cut off.
23 And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut out of the natural wild olive tree, and against nature were grafted into a good olive tree, how much more these being according to nature will be grafted into their own olive tree?

a) And if the root is holy, so also the branches.

It does not say that the root is MORE Holy than the branches

b) You will say then, The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.
Well! For unbelief they were broken off. And you stand by faith.

faith is the key...not heritage.....when a branch is grafted in, it is fed from the same root and the same sap. Abraham was chosen for obedience. His father was an idol maker in Chaldee.

 

[Henaynei]

Romans 11:24 For if you were cut out of the natural wild olive tree, and against nature were grafted into a good olive tree, how much more these being according to nature will be grafted into their own olive tree?

a) And if the root is holy, so also the branches.

It does not say that the root is MORE Holy than the branches

b) You will say then, The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.
Well! For unbelief they were broken off. And you stand by faith.

faith is the key...not heritage.....when a branch is grafted in, it is fed from the same root and the same sap. Abraham was chosen for obedience. His father was an idol maker in Chaldee.

True, faith (a.k.a. trusting - as evidenced by obedience) is the "how" of getting grafted into the good Olive Tree. But the "key" to the scripture is the answer to this question: "What is the good Olive Tree." The natural wild olive tree was clearly life without salvation, without redemption.

Replacement theologists have for quite some time defined the good Olive Tree as Israel but an objective reading will belie that assumption.

The good Olive Tree is that into which Avram the pagan (he was chosen before he obeyed) was grafted - and he then had a living/salvific relationship with G-d and became Avraham the follower and friend of G-d. And descendants of Avraham, who continued to follow, obey and serve HaShem and thereby continued that living/redemptive relationship with Him became called Jews.

The only ones with access to the good Olive Tree prior to Yeshua's sacrifice were those who were circumcised and obeyed Torah with their hearts, i.e. they had a living relationship with G-d.

The good Olive Tree is that living/salvific/redemptive relationship with HaShem that only was accessible by becoming a Jew prior to Yeshua's sacrifice. The very fact that some Jews were broken off proves that the good Olive Tree is not Israel per se. When one is grafted in one becomes part of the commonwealth of Israel, but not Jewish.

Both Jews and non-Jews (a.k.a. Gentiles) can be part of the good Olive Tree. In fact that very scripture states that Jews would be grafted *back* in. Even in this scripture there is clear designation differentiating between Jews and Gentiles. Both have equal access to the relationship with G-d, but they are singularly identified as different entities.

We all have equal acess to salvation, we are not all Jews.

G'mar khasima tovah

 

[simchat_torah]

Abraham was chosen for obedience.

Aye, he certainly was. And from that point on his bloodline was unique among the nations.

His father was an idol maker in Chaldee.

So, are you now accepting Rabbinic literature?
just curious.

 

[simchat_torah]

Superman,

The point of contention being made in the Galations passage was over the Oral Interpretation of the law. The specific law in question states that one is not to associate with pagans. The Rabbinic code interpreted that to say one could not associate (well, specifically, sit down to dinner with) gentiles.... as gentiles were all considered pagan. However, in Acts 10 you can see the where the oral law was re-interpreted to show that gentiles were not necessarily pagan. There were gentiles who feared G-d and who worshipped him, thus were made clean.

It is correct that Jews are not better than gentiles. However, there remains a difference between the gentile and the jew... at the very least you have to recognize the prophetic difference which is played out even to the end of days in Revelations. However, please keep in mind that Difference does not equal Better (or superior).

G-d has a unique calling on the Jew and he has a unique calling on the Gentile. This does not place one above the other, but each must fulfill their role.

Shalom,
Yafet.

 

[Higher Truth]

quote:
So, are you now accepting Rabbinic literature? just curious.

HT:

All history of the Hebrew Tribes is not necessarily rabbinic.

All rabbinic commentary is not necessarily history.[review what they said about Messiah}

 

[simchat_torah]

Quite true Higher Truth. However, the specific refrence to Abraham's father being an idol maker comes from Rabbinic tradition of Abraham the iconoclastic monotheist.

It comes from Rav Chiyya the son of Rav Ada of Yaffo (Jaffa), in the collection of Rabbinic exegesis called the Midrash Rabba. Actually, it was originally used as a children's story. Typically, this story is told to children during the parsha Lech Lecha. Here is that story:

Abraham's father, Terach, was an idol salesman. One day, while his father was out to lunch, Abraham destroyed all of the idols in the shop but one. He left the largest one unharmed, and placed a big club in its hands. When Terach returned to the showroom and saw the destruction, he confronted Abraham. "He did it", Abraham said, pointing to the largest statue. "A girl brought a grain offering to the shop, and there was a fight among the gods over who would eat it first, and he destroyed all of the smaller gods." Terach scoffed at this; we all know that statues can't eat, or move, or pick up a club. Abraham than said to him: "Let your ears hear what your mouth has said."

Terach, however, was not convinced by Abraham's logic and, instead of rejecting idolatry and embracing monotheism, turned his son in to the pagan police. He brought Abraham to the king, Nimrod, on charges of idol-smashing and general heresy. For this crime against the state-sanctioned religion, Nimrod sentenced Abraham to be placed in a fiery furnace, fire being the force worshipped by Nimrod's people. Miraculously, Abraham entered the furnace, and then emerged from the ordeal unscathed.


So while your statement may be true, the actual story you were referring to is a part of Rabbinic literature as I stated in my previous post: Midrash Rabba

Shalom,
Yafet.