GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: So who really is a Christian ?  (Read 1532 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LexKnight

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #35 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 11:12:53 »
Kaisarianos was a term used to describe one who belongs and adhere to Kaisar, or Caesar, like a slave. They gave a similar term to the brethren, Kristianos, one who adheres to and belongs to Kristos. That's the word used for "Christian," and thus is the true meaning. However, indeed it was first used as an insult by the world to those who would consider a dead laborer from an obscured Provence as a King and the Son of an Almighty God. With that said, a Christian is merely one who follows Him.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #35 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 11:12:53 »

Offline MeMyself

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15981
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Female
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #36 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 11:24:45 »
Quote
No, Jesus didn't refer to Christians.
It was Paul who said the followers of the way were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26
Neither Paul nor Jesus 'referred to Christians.'  Rather, Paul simply wrote that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (v. 26). 

The relevant question is, by whom were the disciples called Christians?  Point:  It wasn't by Paul...

Quote
So who really is a Christian?

so who is, ? not according to you or I but according to Jesus... - come back home now - any comments - wincam
I do not claim the worldly title of 'Christian.' The term 'Christian' was used to describe a follower of Christ in terms of the world, from the world’s point of view. The pagans at Antioch called the apostles "Christians" first (Acts 11:26; 26:28) and used it derogatorily because the apostles didn’t follow the commercial world of the pagans. "Christian" is an adjective, not a noun. The substance is not in the word "Christian", the substance is in the heart of the man it is attempting to describe, and which the pagan user cannot see.

Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians. Christ never used an adjective to describe himself. So how are we to identify ourselves then? In scripture, the disciples called each other, "brethren", "disciples", "apostles", "servants", "believers", "followers", "the faithful", "the elect", "the called", and "saints." We can also identify ourselves as "bondservants" of Christ.

The world's "-anity's" and "-ism's" go hand-in-hand with "religion."
 

How very sad. ::frown::  I am proud to follow Christ as a Christian, and have no issue at all with a mere word that describes who I follow and who is Lord of my life.  I am also proud to be named as one of the family of other Christians, Jesus body here on earth, of whom I know many who love and follow him with passion and commitment.

Of course Christ didnt call Himself a Christian, He wasnt one, He IS Christ.   ::clappingoverhead::

The term has really lost its identity to when it was first used. You say you are proud to identify with this word in todays world. This word has reduced Christ's church to a mere religion amongst many religions that are in the world. Many who would call themselves Christian have not a clue to what it meant to be a true follower of Christ. It is a word we needs to put in the garbage can along with all the different false doctrines and belief systems. Why not be a Christian Scientist or a Morman. Don't they call them selves Christian ?

Oh, but I'm sure the "new" word you all come up with will be purely holy and right.  ::frown::

Just a buncha protesting and majoring about another very minor point...reminds me of that saying, "too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good."

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #36 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 11:24:45 »

Jd34

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #37 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 11:57:05 »
We live in a modern day and the meaning of words can change over time...

Just a quick google search for the definition of Christian yielded this :

Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."


So by modern day definition of the word, who here can say that they are not a Christian-- I hope no one.


Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30579
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #38 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 13:12:49 »
Quote
No, Jesus didn't refer to Christians.
It was Paul who said the followers of the way were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26
Neither Paul nor Jesus 'referred to Christians.'  Rather, Paul simply wrote that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (v. 26). 

The relevant question is, by whom were the disciples called Christians?  Point:  It wasn't by Paul...

Quote
So who really is a Christian?

so who is, ? not according to you or I but according to Jesus... - come back home now - any comments - wincam
I do not claim the worldly title of 'Christian.' The term 'Christian' was used to describe a follower of Christ in terms of the world, from the world’s point of view. The pagans at Antioch called the apostles "Christians" first (Acts 11:26; 26:28) and used it derogatorily because the apostles didn’t follow the commercial world of the pagans. "Christian" is an adjective, not a noun. The substance is not in the word "Christian", the substance is in the heart of the man it is attempting to describe, and which the pagan user cannot see.

Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians. Christ never used an adjective to describe himself. So how are we to identify ourselves then? In scripture, the disciples called each other, "brethren", "disciples", "apostles", "servants", "believers", "followers", "the faithful", "the elect", "the called", and "saints." We can also identify ourselves as "bondservants" of Christ.

The world's "-anity's" and "-ism's" go hand-in-hand with "religion."
 

How very sad. ::frown::  I am proud to follow Christ as a Christian, and have no issue at all with a mere word that describes who I follow and who is Lord of my life.  I am also proud to be named as one of the family of other Christians, Jesus body here on earth, of whom I know many who love and follow him with passion and commitment.

Of course Christ didnt call Himself a Christian, He wasnt one, He IS Christ.   ::clappingoverhead::

The term has really lost its identity to when it was first used. You say you are proud to identify with this word in todays world. This word has reduced Christ's church to a mere religion amongst many religions that are in the world. Many who would call themselves Christian have not a clue to what it meant to be a true follower of Christ. It is a word we needs to put in the garbage can along with all the different false doctrines and belief systems. Why not be a Christian Scientist or a Morman. Don't they call them selves Christian ?

Its not my responsibility what others call themselves, just what I call myself, and I am a Christian and happy to be one.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #38 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 13:12:49 »

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #39 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 14:43:04 »
Quote
No, Jesus didn't refer to Christians.
It was Paul who said the followers of the way were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26
Neither Paul nor Jesus 'referred to Christians.'  Rather, Paul simply wrote that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (v. 26). 

The relevant question is, by whom were the disciples called Christians?  Point:  It wasn't by Paul...

Quote
So who really is a Christian?

so who is, ? not according to you or I but according to Jesus... - come back home now - any comments - wincam
I do not claim the worldly title of 'Christian.' The term 'Christian' was used to describe a follower of Christ in terms of the world, from the world’s point of view. The pagans at Antioch called the apostles "Christians" first (Acts 11:26; 26:28) and used it derogatorily because the apostles didn’t follow the commercial world of the pagans. "Christian" is an adjective, not a noun. The substance is not in the word "Christian", the substance is in the heart of the man it is attempting to describe, and which the pagan user cannot see.

Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians. Christ never used an adjective to describe himself. So how are we to identify ourselves then? In scripture, the disciples called each other, "brethren", "disciples", "apostles", "servants", "believers", "followers", "the faithful", "the elect", "the called", and "saints." We can also identify ourselves as "bondservants" of Christ.

The world's "-anity's" and "-ism's" go hand-in-hand with "religion."
 

How very sad. ::frown::  I am proud to follow Christ as a Christian, and have no issue at all with a mere word that describes who I follow and who is Lord of my life.  I am also proud to be named as one of the family of other Christians, Jesus body here on earth, of whom I know many who love and follow him with passion and commitment.

Of course Christ didnt call Himself a Christian, He wasnt one, He IS Christ.   ::clappingoverhead::

The term has really lost its identity to when it was first used. You say you are proud to identify with this word in todays world. This word has reduced Christ's church to a mere religion amongst many religions that are in the world. Many who would call themselves Christian have not a clue to what it meant to be a true follower of Christ. It is a word we needs to put in the garbage can along with all the different false doctrines and belief systems. Why not be a Christian Scientist or a Morman. Don't they call them selves Christian ?

Oh, but I'm sure the "new" word you all come up with will be purely holy and right.  ::frown::

Just a buncha protesting and majoring about another very minor point...reminds me of that saying, "too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good."

Why would I come up with a new word. Jesus gave no name for His church and the word Christian was given by none believers in Antioch  Before that believers were just followers of Christ. That is what I identify with.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #39 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 14:43:04 »



Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #40 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 14:46:01 »
Quote
No, Jesus didn't refer to Christians.
It was Paul who said the followers of the way were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26
Neither Paul nor Jesus 'referred to Christians.'  Rather, Paul simply wrote that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (v. 26). 

The relevant question is, by whom were the disciples called Christians?  Point:  It wasn't by Paul...

Quote
So who really is a Christian?

so who is, ? not according to you or I but according to Jesus... - come back home now - any comments - wincam
I do not claim the worldly title of 'Christian.' The term 'Christian' was used to describe a follower of Christ in terms of the world, from the world’s point of view. The pagans at Antioch called the apostles "Christians" first (Acts 11:26; 26:28) and used it derogatorily because the apostles didn’t follow the commercial world of the pagans. "Christian" is an adjective, not a noun. The substance is not in the word "Christian", the substance is in the heart of the man it is attempting to describe, and which the pagan user cannot see.

Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians. Christ never used an adjective to describe himself. So how are we to identify ourselves then? In scripture, the disciples called each other, "brethren", "disciples", "apostles", "servants", "believers", "followers", "the faithful", "the elect", "the called", and "saints." We can also identify ourselves as "bondservants" of Christ.

The world's "-anity's" and "-ism's" go hand-in-hand with "religion."
 

How very sad. ::frown::  I am proud to follow Christ as a Christian, and have no issue at all with a mere word that describes who I follow and who is Lord of my life.  I am also proud to be named as one of the family of other Christians, Jesus body here on earth, of whom I know many who love and follow him with passion and commitment.

Of course Christ didnt call Himself a Christian, He wasnt one, He IS Christ.   ::clappingoverhead::

The term has really lost its identity to when it was first used. You say you are proud to identify with this word in todays world. This word has reduced Christ's church to a mere religion amongst many religions that are in the world. Many who would call themselves Christian have not a clue to what it meant to be a true follower of Christ. It is a word we needs to put in the garbage can along with all the different false doctrines and belief systems. Why not be a Christian Scientist or a Morman. Don't they call them selves Christian ?

Its not my responsibility what others call themselves, just what I call myself, and I am a Christian and happy to be one.

And I am just a follower of Christ and very happy to be one.

sojourner4Christ

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #41 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 14:47:44 »
Quote
How very sad.    I am proud to...I am also proud to be...
Pride is one of the intended fruits of accepting a worldly label.  [Perhaps “pride” is not exactly what you meant, but "pride” is what you said:

Proverbs 16:19 - Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

James 4:6 - But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

1 Peter 5:5 - Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.]

Quote
Of course Christ didnt call Himself a Christian, He wasnt one...
Neither are his people “Christians.”  That’s the world’s attempt to label us, humanize us, vilify us, and then toss us around like a political football.

The labeling of born again believers as “Christians” is the world’s one-step-removed-from-the-truth tactic to sully our witness.

Quote
You say you are proud to identify with this word in todays world. This word has reduced Christ's church to a mere religion amongst many religions that are in the world. Many who would call themselves Christian have not a clue to what it meant to be a true follower of Christ. It is a word we needs to put in the garbage can along with all the different false doctrines and belief systems. Why not be a Christian Scientist or a Morman. Don't they call them selves Christian ?
Amen.

Quote
Kaisarianos was a term used to describe one who belongs and adhere to Kaisar, or Caesar, like a slave. They gave a similar term to the brethren...
Again, “They gave...” i.e. WHO “gave”???

Quote
With that said, a Christian is merely one who follows Him.
Exactly @ “merely,” as that’s the worldly plan of the worldly types who would derogatorily label born again believers as such.  It’s a declension, a step down from the Real Thing.

Quote
Oh, but I'm sure the "new" word you all come up with will be purely holy and right.   

Just a buncha protesting and majoring about another very minor point...reminds me of that saying, "too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good."
When’s the last time you used the words “Jesus Christ” in your witness, rather than “Christian”?

Quote
We live in a modern day and the meaning of words can change over time...
The meanings do not change. Every lawyer and every judge in the land know this. That’s why they will always reference their Law Dictionary, while we fumble with a sanitized and watered down Dictionary for Dummies. It also forms the basis of their code books -- legal code, tax code, motor vehicle code, etc. They know that meanings do NOT change over time; they count on our ignorance of that fact, to the end that today, only their Caesarian-qualified people know how to read their code.

[Covetous men shall] with feigned words make merchandise of you (2 Peter 2:3).

We cannot take an unclean word and make it clean. For example, let's take the word 'nice,' which is derived from the Latin 'nescire.'

Nice: "Strange, lazy, foolish, stupid, ignorant, not knowing, to be ignorant, difficult to please, fastidious, discriminative." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 914.

People say this is the "archaic" definition of this word, but the substance of all words are in the meaning. The meanings never change; the usages of them change, but that doesn't change the original meaning of them. When we use the word 'nice' today, we are trying to make clean that which is unclean, by trying to change its meaning to the exact opposite. But again, Scripture tells us we can't do that:

Job 14:4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one."

So we can't make clean that which is already unclean.

Here are other examples of "archaic" definitions. Notice how the original definitions of these words mean the exact opposite of how they are used today. The following two definitions are from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:

Corpse: "A living body." Page 311. (Today it means, "a dead body").

Awful: "Highly impressive. Reverential." Page 96. (Today it means, "very bad, ugly, unpleasant, etc.").

And here are some definitions from a law dictionary. These are from A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893:

Bank: "A judge's seat; also, a court sitting for the decision of matters of law." Page 104. (Today it means, "An institution for the deposit, discount, or circulation of money").

Caucus: "See BRIBERY." Page 155. (Today it means, "a meeting of a committee of a political party or faction to decide on policy, pick candidates, etc., without bribery").

Elopement: "The act in a wife of voluntarily leaving her husband to live with another man." Page 398. (Today it means, "the act of one who is unmarried running away secretly in order to get married").

Lobbying: "Seeking to influence the vote of a member of the legislature by bribery, promise of reward, intimidation, or other dishonest means. Lobbying is a felony, by the constitution of California and Georgia." Page 636. (Today it means, "Seeking to influence the introduction of or voting on legislation or the decisions of government administrators, by honest means, and it is not a crime").

Permanent: "Does not always embrace the idea of absolute perpetuity." Page 769. (Today it means, "Lasting indefinitely without change").

Sea-worthy: "Not capable of going to sea or being navigated on the sea." Page 926. (Today it means, "Fit to travel on the open sea; sturdy").

Surcharge: "Overcharge; an excessive or unlawful charge." Page 995. (Today it means, "An additional amount added to the usual charge, lawfully).

Willful; willfully: "In common parlance "willful" means intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary; in penal statutes it means with evil intent, with legal malice, without ground for believing the act to be lawful. The ordinary meaning of "willful" in statutes, is not merely "voluntary," but with a bad purpose. Sometimes it means little more than "intentional" or "designed." But that is not its ordinary signification in criminal and penal statutes; in them it most frequently conveys the idea of legal malice in greater or less degree – implies an evil intent without justifiable excuse." Pages 1114-1115. (Today it means, "Said or done deliberately or intentionally, without an evil intent").

Therefore, we must be careful, for we may be condemning ourselves, unknowingly, if we use the words of the world to describe us, instead of the words of Almighty God. For example, at the end of the above list, the words "willful" and "willfully" do not appear in scripture. They are created terms by the natural man, and are used for deceptive purposes. The words of the world are used to describe those who are of the world. They denote self-will, which is opposed to God's Will.

Quote
Just a quick google search for the definition of Christian yielded this :

Chris•tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."

So by modern day definition of the word, who here can say that they are not a Christian-- I hope no one.
By that definition, Satan is a believer also; he knows God is King; and many of Satan’s minions, “ministers of righteousness” and “angels of light,” also "profess Christianity.”   Rather, one must be born again.  It is God’s Holy Spirit that the world would deny, via their “Christian” label -- because the heathen from antiquity think that Jesus is just another man.
« Last Edit: Sun May 17, 2015 - 14:50:37 by sojourner4Christ »

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #42 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 14:51:26 »
We live in a modern day and the meaning of words can change over time...

Just a quick google search for the definition of Christian yielded this :

Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."


So by modern day definition of the word, who here can say that they are not a Christian-- I hope no one.


Sorry to disappoint you. There is a lot more to this  than just a definition . Its about a big grab bag of stuff we see under this umbrella word Christian

sojourner4Christ

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #43 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 15:05:17 »
Quote
There is a lot more to this  than just a definition . Its about a big grab bag of stuff we see under this umbrella word Christian
Indeed.

The servants of Christ belong to the kingdom of God. If you do not belong to a certain kingdom, you are labeled or named by that kingdom to be of another kingdom. For example, people in the continent (kingdom) of North America call those from the continent (kingdom) of South America, South Americans; from Asia, Asians; from Africa, Africans; from Europe, Europeans. But South Americans don’t call themselves South Americans, Asians don’t call themselves Asians. Africans don’t call themselves Africans, and Europeans don’t call themselves Europeans. Do North Americans call themselves North Americans? When you introduce yourself to somebody, do you say, "Hi! I’m a North American!" No, you don’t, because those from the same kingdom do not place labels on themselves or others. If you are a constituent of a Kingdom, you do not name one in the same Kingdom any thing; but you call them according to the relation between the two of you (brother, sister, mother, father, workman, labourer, minister, bishop, deacon, etc). And who establishes the relation? The Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12).

The term "Christian" was imposed upon the servants of Christ by Christ’s enemies living outside the Kingdom of God, to label those living in the Kingdom of God. As a servant of Christ, I should not call myself Christian, since this would imply that I am not from the Kingdom of God. Just like someone in Asia would not call themselves ‘Asians’, I, living in Christ, should not call myself ‘Christian,’ because it would give the impression to others that I am from a different kingdom.

1 John 4:5, "They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world…"

As scripture says, those who are of the world speak of the world, and use the words of the world. By using the words of the world, or by using the words of another kingdom, one identifies himself as being of that kingdom. And, since the word "Christian" is a term of the world, it might be best to use the words of God to describe oneself.



Jd34

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #44 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 15:20:54 »
We live in a modern day and the meaning of words can change over time...

Just a quick google search for the definition of Christian yielded this :

Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."


So by modern day definition of the word, who here can say that they are not a Christian-- I hope no one.


Sorry to disappoint you. There is a lot more to this  than just a definition . Its about a big grab bag of stuff we see under this umbrella word Christian

So are you ashame to carry the label of a Christian?

1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."


Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34025
  • Manna: 759
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #45 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 15:23:41 »
And it might not be best. We could say we are folowers of Jesus, but Jesus never called himself Jesus. That is the greek version of The Hebrew or Aramaic name Yeshuah. One could carry this to pretty much any level of ridiculousness they choose.

Jd34

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #46 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 15:35:19 »
It seems to me that those who follow Christ and are opposed to referring to themselves as a Christian is a contradiction.

If a stranger walked up to you on the street and flat out told you that they were a Christian, what would that tell you about that person? Uhhhhh, maybe they believe in Jesus?

If Isis came up to you and asked if you were a Christian, would you deny it knowing what they mean?


sojourner4Christ

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #47 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 16:00:36 »
Quote
And it might not be best. We could say we are folowers of Jesus, but Jesus never called himself Jesus. That is the greek version of The Hebrew or Aramaic name Yeshuah. One could carry this to pretty much any level of ridiculousness they choose.
"Jesus" is a (proper) noun, whereas "Christian" is an adjective, a mere worldly description.

Quote
So are you ashame to carry the label of a Christian?

1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."
1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

First of all, keep in mind this is the one and only place in the entire scripture this word is used by any man of God. Secondly, Peter did not label the followers of Christ a "Christian" in the passage. Read it again, very carefully. He said they were to be "as a Christian." This is very important. The word as means "like or similar to," but it does not mean one is that word. For example:

Genesis 49:9, "...he couched as a lion," does not mean Judah was a lion when he couched!

Exodus 15:5, "...they sank into the bottom as a stone," does not mean they were a stone when they sank.

Matthew 17:20, "...If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed," does not mean faith is a mustard seed.

Matthew 23:37, "...gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens," does not mean God's children were chickens.

Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ," does not mean husbands are Christ when they love their wives.

And, therefore:

1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian," does not mean man is a Christian when they suffer.

When someone is "as" something else, it does not mean one is that something. It means we are similar, in some way, to that name, but we are not literally that name. You see, the heathens are the ones who called the followers of Christ "Christians" (Acts 11:26; 26:28). When Peter was referring to the title "Christian, " it is in the context of suffering, and is in reference to the name as imposed upon them by their enemies, because our enemies want us to suffer.

Is there other evidence in support of this position? Yes.

"Christian: A follower of the religion of Christ [Note carefully that Christ never started a religion - John 7:16]. It is probable that the name Christian, like that of Nazarenes and Galileans, was given to the disciples of our Lord in reproach or contempt. What confirms this opinion is, that the people of Antioch in Syria, Acts 11:26, where they were first called Christians observed by Zosimus, Procopius, and Zonaras, to have been remarkable for their scurrilous jesting. Some have indeed thought that this name was given by the disciples to themselves; others, that it was imposed on them by divine authority; in either of which cases we should have met with it in the subsequent history of the Acts, and in the Apostolic Epistles, all of which were written some years after; whereas it is found but in two more places in the New Testament, Acts 26:28, where a Jew is the speaker, and in 1 Peter 4:16, where reference appears to be made to the name as imposed on them by their enemies. The word used, Acts 11:26, signifies simply to be called or named, and when Doddridge and a few others take to imply a divine appointment, they disregard the usus loquendi [established acceptation of the term] which gives no support to that opinion. The words Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero, are remarkable, ‘vulgus Christianos appellabat,’ ‘the vulgar call them Christians.’ Epiphanius says, that they were called Jesseans, either from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is much more probable, from the name of Jesus, whose disciples they were. They were denominated Christians, A. D. 42 or 43; and though the name was first given reproachfully, they gloried in it, as expressing their adherence to Christ, and they soon generally accepted it." Richard Watson, Watson’s Bible Dictionary (1832), p. 233.

"Cristianos, Christian: a word formally not after the Greek but after the Roman manner, denoting attachment to or adherents to Christ. Only occurs as used by others of them, not by Christians of themselves. Tacitus (A.D. 96) says (Annals 15, 44), ‘The vulgar call them Christians. The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate.’" Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 152.

"This name (Christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is never used by Christians of themselves, only as spoken by or coming from those without the church. The general names by which the early Christians called themselves were ‘brethren,’ ‘disciples,’ ‘believers,’ and ‘saints.’ The presumption is that the name ‘Christian’ was originated by the heathen." Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths (1882), page 567, note 3.

"The name (Christian) given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch." Easton’s Bible Dictionary.

"Egypt, which you commanded to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about every breath of fame. The worshippers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ." The Emperor Adrian to Servianus, written A.D. 134.

If you go to Zodhiates Word Studies, he tells you that when they were called Christians at Antioch, using the word ‘crematezo,’ it was a "divine warning." In other words, be forewarned, avoid this word and the use of it. And that’s what the apostles did. You will never read any of these New Testament writers using the term ‘christian’ to describe themselves.

So, casually speaking, what is the gist of all this? When I witness the gospel to someone, if I mention the word "God," they stereotypically say, "Oh, what church do you go to?" That response is beyond commonplace. It's the same when I say I am a Christian. In other words, using that label of the world to describe who I am, rather than the words of Christ to define who I am, reduces the power of my witness and brings me into Caesar's venue and thus his jurisdiction.

How many of us use the words "Jesus Christ", rather than "Christian", when we witness? If you do, I guarantee your witness will be more effective. Indeed, some will manifest outright at the name of Jesus Christ, rather than merely yawn when you use the world's label of "Christian." Further, when is the last time in general you used the words "Jesus Christ" rather than "Christian"? Try it; you will not be disappointed or discouraged.

Either we endeavor to seek the truth, or we pander down to the P.C. thing and remain in bondage, knowingly or otherwise. The truth is always vehemently opposed at first. If we don’t want to discuss the truth of where the “Christian” label/title came from, then we’ve already declared our priority, haven’t we?

To this day, those of .the world still appropriate such labels in an attempt to vilify and dismiss people and things they are unable to otherwise deal with. When the born again believer appropriates the worldly label, he also accepts the package of worldly rubbish attached to it...

If you use the words of the world...if you use the words that Caesar created...beware. You may be brought under their jurisdiction. This is how the ungodly knows whether you’re speaking the Truth or not. They say, "You speak like one of us, and yet you say you’re not one of us." And they'll proceed to get jurisdiction over you due to bearing false witness.

You see, in simple terms, this is the test they use: "If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!" In other words, if someone looks like they are of "the world," and acts like they are of "the world," and speaks the words of "the world," then he is of "the world!" (Remember, all are in the world, but we are not to be of the world).

Lastly, I will relate a personal experience to further illustrate. I have spent time in incarceration. Those times when I said I was ”Christian,” the judge immediately obtained jurisdiction over me and I went to jail. When the Lord showed me my error, and in a later situation where I said I was a born again believer in, and follower of, Jesus Christ, the judge was unable to gain jurisdiction over me and I went free. It’s the same with the word “religion.” Caesar has jurisdiction over all who appropriate “titles” (e.g. “Christian”) and all “religious” arguments.

Indeed, the proposition on the table here is that the appropriation of the world's label of "Christian" is the cop out -- rather than the appropriation of the truth i.e. "Jesus Christ" -- the way, the truth, and the life.

I pray that this will encourage those reading this to be bold in their witness as they declare the name that is above all names, the name of Jesus Christ, in their witness of him.




« Last Edit: Mon May 18, 2015 - 02:40:59 by sojourner4Christ »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34025
  • Manna: 759
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #48 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 17:29:31 »
And you would think that one so anal about trivial things would not call a man Jesus who was only known as Yeshuah by his contemporaries. I am not that anal, but just pointed this out to show how ludicrous this can get.
« Last Edit: Sun May 17, 2015 - 17:31:40 by Jaime »

Offline MeMyself

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15981
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Female
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #49 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 17:35:52 »
And it might not be best. We could say we are folowers of Jesus, but Jesus never called himself Jesus. That is the greek version of The Hebrew or Aramaic name Yeshuah. One could carry this to pretty much any level of ridiculousness they choose.

 ::amen!::

Majoring on minors tends to do that...

down the rabbit hole we go...

Buster D Body Crab

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #50 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 21:26:28 »
It's experiences like this:
Quote
Lastly, I will relate a personal experience to further illustrate. I have spent time in incarceration. Those times when I said I was ”Christian,” the judge immediately obtained jurisdiction over me and I went to jail. When the Lord showed me my error, and in a later situation where I said I was a born again believer in, and follower of, Jesus Christ, the judge was unable to gain jurisdiction over me and I went free. It’s the same with the word “religion.”

That makes me even more grateful to be an American living in a democratic republic with a living Constitution.
Here, Judges preside over their jurisdiction and we only come before them when there is a warrant for our arrest, or we're being served and answering a complaint. And even so we are presumed innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.

Thank God again and again, that we are not prosecuted for admitting we are Christian. Thank God for our 1st amendment and all those inalienable civil rights that protects us from wrongful prosecution.


Jd34

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #51 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 22:27:33 »
So what exactly is wrong for me or anyone else on this forum to equate following Jesus with taking the title of a Christian?

The Romans tortured Christians ( those who proclaimed their Lord was Christ)

Christians were forced to sit in molten red hot iron chairs in the arena of pleasure for the masses..

As the title of this this thread suggest. who are really Christians?  The answer is those who have absolute trust and faith in Christ.


sojourner4Christ

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #52 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 23:17:18 »
Quote
That makes me even more grateful to be an American living in a democratic republic with a living Constitution.

The constitution is a dead thing, at law.  We'll give the details in a moment.

Some maintain that the constitution was ordained and established by God, but the constitution itself says it was 'ordained and established' by "the people," not God.

People can talk all they want to about a Christian constitution, but they will never be able to get around the fact that God is not even mentioned in it.

Worse, the majority have never read the very constitution to which they have voluntarily submitted.

Scripture tells us to test people, to see if they are of God or not.

1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

This only makes sense, when one is sincerely interested in associating with godly people, while avoiding the contamination and influence of ungodly men.

The key, however, to the rejection of the rule of God was Article VI, Clause 3, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several state Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Anyone who is an officer in the civil government must swear allegiance to Constitutional law as the highest law.  The constitution was a rebellion against Christ and his authority over the nation, replacing it with the rule of man. The Bible warns us, "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?" (Isaiah 2:22).

An objection is that the constitution contains Christian principles and therefore is a sort of halfway covenant. As evidence of this, they may offer that the constitution presents us with a system of divided authority and diffused powers. Even covenant-breaking historians would admit that Christian principles exist within the constitution while denying that it is a "Christian" covenant. The problem with this is that every government that exists contains Christian principles. In fact, any truth or correct morality is a "Christian" principle. All true and good principles are "Christian" principles because this universe is created and governed by the true and living God who has revealed himself in the Bible. Islamic governments contain many Biblical principles, such as capital punishment. That does not, however, save them from condemnation as apostate covenants. We must return to the question, what sort of “Christian” principles constitute a “Christian” government and what make an apostate government? The Biblical covenant model is the Biblical model and therefore the only proper judge of whether or not a state is a covenant-keeping one.

In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the United States Supreme Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause. This verifies that the U.S. Constitution allows Atheists to rule and make laws for bondservants of Christ!

In addition, the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). Do you realize that the constitution allows everybody to freely worship any god they choose to? This is one of the greatest abominations to God.

Old Testament Israel had this same exact law also, and God would punish them whenever they enacted this law. Whenever people would worship other gods in his country, he would command them to tear down their temples and idols. If they refused, God would always punish his people. Even if there was a mixture of people worshipping the True God and people worshipping false gods, this was an abomination also, as his people are not to mix the two. God even commanded his people to go to neighboring countries of the heathen and tear down their temples and idols.

The truth is, the freedom of religion is an abomination to God. Man only has the "right" to worship Almighty God. To be free to worship any other god or partake of any other religion is an abomination to him, and violates the first Two Commandments:

Exodus 20:3-5, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:"

If the U.S. Constitution is a godly piece of paper, why does is allow the very thing that God condemns throughout his Holy Scripture?

Quote
Here, Judges preside over their jurisdiction and we only come before them when there is a warrant for our arrest, or we're being served and answering a complaint.

Caesar’s judges have no jurisdiction over one who is an ambassador, a foreigner, a sojourner in a land he’s no citizen of.  All true ambassadors enjoy “diplomatic immunity.”

For example, if a German comes to America, and this German breaks the law, the government of America must ask permission from Germany to bring that German citizen to their courts! Why? Because it does not matter where you ARE that determines what law you are under, it matters what law you claim to follow that determines what law you are under. If you claim to follow the laws of the United States, then you are under a separate government. The laws you then follow are of man, and not of God. The government exists to keep corporations and the ungodly from doing violence to society, including themselves! Corporations and ungodly men do not live by God's Law, thus they are both 'low and lawless' in the eyes of God, and in the eyes of man. So, the government must control them somehow.

And, as Paul once was, I also have been a guest of the Iron Bar Hotel, an "ambassador in bonds" (Eph. 6:20).

Quote
And even so we are presumed innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.

How I wish that was true for Caesar’s citizens. However, in practice, it is not. We shall learn why in a moment.

You hear the phrase, "The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land." That's not what the word of God says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Did the constitution create the heaven and the earth? So how could it be the law of the land? Only he who creates, God, is the Law of the land. "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). Christ is before the constitution, and by Jesus, not the constitution, all things consist.

John 1:3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

All things were created by him and for him, not "by the people, and for the people" (Democracy); not for our enjoyment, not for our wants. We were created for God. The sole purpose of constitutions is to free human beings from God's Law in order to chain them to the morality of the State dictated in its codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, public policies, executive orders, laws, etc. All constitutions were created by the fallen reason of the natural man, and are molded by the "reasonable interpretation" of human beings wearing black robes. Private rights are always weighed against the greater public good and are regulated by the "police power".

Those who thus rely upon the words of any constitution for support are leaning upon a broken reed; and their sense of security is a false one. The constitution does not protect persons or property against unjust invasion, or prevent government control and regulation of business. After all, this depends on the interpretations and applications of the courts. Constitutional law is the morality of fascism and comes from the vain imaginations of men. It is a code, rule, or regulation for the dead thing it brings into being. Corporations are dead, at law. The United States is a Federal corporation. Thus, the United States is a dead thing.

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Charles Evans Hughes, Supreme Court Justice, in Dictionary of American Maxims (1955), p. 88.

Quote
Thank God again and again, that we are not prosecuted for admitting we are Christian.

Adolph Hitler said he was Christian.  George Bush says he is Christian.  The list is endless of those who say they are Christian, and history shows they are far less likely to be persecuted than born again believers who claim to follow Jesus Christ.

Rather, "...all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim. 3:12).

Quote
Thank God for our 1st amendment and all those inalienable civil rights that protects us from wrongful prosecution.

The legal basis for today’s intended trashing of the 1st amendment was built into the contract from the beginning.  But, as with the constitution, very few have actually read Patriot Act I and Patriot Act II -- or, for that matter, any of the Executive Orders.

The banker-hijacked government has eviscerated the constitution through tyrannical legislative acts such as:

The Military Commissions Act
https://www.aclu.org/military-commissions-act-2006?redirect=national-security/military-commissions-act-2006

The Patriot Acts I and II
http://100777.com/node/1090

The John Warner Defense Act
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5122

The NDAA
https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security?redirect=blog/tag/ndaa

Quantitative Easing I, II, and III
ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/13/qe3-what-is-quantitative-easing-and-will-it-help-the-economy/

...and to infinity. These events explain why a mass incarceration/genocide is a potential event in the future of America. Why? Simple, we are on the precipice of World War III and we are a false flag event away from total martial law and the above legislative acts and executive orders stand in evidence of this position.

The NDAA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/13/qe3-what-is-quantitative-easing-and-will-it-help-the-economy/

The NDAA should scare the life out of every American Citizen. This allows the government the authority to secretly arrest Americans, without due process, torture and even murder American citizens without so much as a trial.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness (Executive Order 13603)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

This allows the president, without going through the U.S. Congress, the ability to seize control of all corporate assets, manufacturing operations, and conscript American civilians into work brigades (i.e. slave labor), seize all food, impose restrictions and rations on all vital resources and to hand these resources to the Department of Homeland Security. Section 201 of this Executive Order allows the president to seize control of all corporate infrastructure, manufacturing operations, control of food, control of farm equipment, control of fuel, control electricity, control of water resources, and control of all civilian transportation.

God’s judgment for rejecting his rule is even now at the door.

Others may be be depending on you.  I pray you will do a bit more research on this.

Quote
So what exactly is wrong for me or anyone else on this forum to equate following Jesus with taking the title of a Christian?

You just said it yourself:  it’s the taking of a title.

God is no respector of persons (person = persona, literally, an actor’s mask i.e. one’s worldly status rather than one’s Godly character). We have callings placed on our lives by God; we do not assume worldly titles, as such is vanity and vexation of spirit.

You’ve admitted that “Christian” is a title. So I took a look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (it can be found online), and here’s a definition of “title”:

TITLE, persons. Titles are distinctions by which a person is known.

Persons?. We know that person comes from the Latin persona, meaning an actor’s mask. (What do we think about those actors today, who make their living in the theater? We call the most famous ones, “stars” and “celebrities.” IOW, we give respect to their status, their person, which, as we shall see, God says is a sin.)

The term person appears in the bible, but it is not a noun, it only describes the noun.

Matthew 22:16, "...for thou regardest not the person of men."

2 Corinthians 2:10, "...the person of Christ."

When the bible uses the term person, it is translated from a Greek or Hebrew word which means "presence or countenance", it does not mean ‘man.' Here is scriptural proof that "person" and "man" are not synonymous terms, for if they are synonymous, then God is a liar.

First of all, the scripture is very clear that God is no "respecter of persons" (2 Samuel 14:14, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). God does not respect persons, period!

Now, if the term 'person' is synonymous with 'man', then there is a contradiction in the scripture, because throughout scripture, God specifically says he does respect man! For example, "the LORD had respect unto Abel" (Genesis 4:4), God had respect "upon the children of Israel" (Exodus 2:25, Leviticus 26:9, 2 Kings 13:23), and God has "respect unto the lowly" (Psalms 138:6). Therefore, "person" and "man" are not the same.

Second of all, the scripture says that if we have respect of persons, we commit sin and transgress God's Law (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19, Proverbs 24:23; 28:21, James 2:1-4, 9). But in the same breath, Paul tells the first century believers to hold Timothy in honour (Philippians 2:29), and scripture commands us to honour all men (1 Peter 2:17)! So obviously, "persons" and "men" cannot be synonymous terms.

Let us look more closely at Leviticus 19:15. Notice it says ,"thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty." It does not say, "thou shalt not respect the poor, nor honour the mighty," but only the person of the poor and the person of the mighty. In other words, we are not to respect someone just because they are the president, or a police officer, or a banker, or a priest, or wealthy. These are the 'persons' of men. We are to respect men because of what's in their hearts, and not because of their image. Jesus did not accept the person of any (Luke 20:21), neither should we.

Another example is in James 2:1-4, where these religious people were sinning because they would give the best seats in their assembly to the persons of the rich, and not to the poor. This is discrimination. They were being partial and were giving judgment to the outward circumstances of man and not to their intrinsic merits. They preferred, as the more worthy, one whose "image" or "person" is one that is rich, high born, or powerful, over another who does not have these qualities.

To sum, the word “Christian” is a title, which indicates person-age, or status, which God does not respect. WOW!

« Last Edit: Sun May 17, 2015 - 23:44:39 by sojourner4Christ »

Jd34

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #53 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 23:40:10 »
So what exactly is wrong for me or anyone else on this forum to equate following Jesus with taking the title of a Christian?

The Romans tortured Christians ( those who proclaimed their Lord was Christ)

Christians were forced to sit in molten red hot iron chairs in the arena of pleasure for the masses..

As the title of this this thread suggest. who are really Christians?  The answer is those who have absolute trust and faith in Christ.

Let me ask again. What is wrong with calling oneself a Christian who follows Christ?

sojourner4Christ

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #54 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 23:52:24 »
Quote
Let me ask again. What is wrong with calling oneself a Christian who follows Christ?
I've already answered your question in my previous post.  Looks like our mails crossed paths.

You may call yourself whatever label/title you wish.  I judge no one.

However, we are also to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Mat. 10:16), being "not ignorant of [Satan's] devices" (2 Cor. 2:11).   I have documented but a few of the myriad of undesirable, even Satanic, consequences that await the unwary.

« Last Edit: Mon May 18, 2015 - 00:00:48 by sojourner4Christ »

Jd34

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #55 on: Sun May 17, 2015 - 23:56:32 »
I'll take the one true Gods' title anyday..you can call it anything you like...but in today's world it's known as being a Christian and I most certainly  allow myself to accept that title of a Christian. There are many takes on it but the ONLY thing that I know to be true is that it all rests withChrist.
Sad for you to allow yourself to get hung up on it. No big deal- really it's not


Jd34

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #56 on: Mon May 18, 2015 - 00:16:29 »
soujournrer4christ, before we go any further please provide a definition for the word "Christian" so we can get on the same page..

And please back it up with primary and secondary sources

sojourner4Christ

  • Guest
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #57 on: Mon May 18, 2015 - 01:04:12 »
For starters, see reply #47.

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30579
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #58 on: Mon May 18, 2015 - 04:08:31 »
I'll take the one true Gods' title anyday..you can call it anything you like...but in today's world it's known as being a Christian and I most certainly  allow myself to accept that title of a Christian. There are many takes on it but the ONLY thing that I know to be true is that it all rests withChrist.
Sad for you to allow yourself to get hung up on it. No big deal- really it's not

I agree with you, its a word that identifies those who are His children.  ::smile::

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30579
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: So who really is a Christian ?
« Reply #59 on: Mon May 18, 2015 - 04:09:21 »
And it might not be best. We could say we are folowers of Jesus, but Jesus never called himself Jesus. That is the greek version of The Hebrew or Aramaic name Yeshuah. One could carry this to pretty much any level of ridiculousness they choose.

 ::amen!::

Majoring on minors tends to do that...

down the rabbit hole we go...

 ::nodding::