Peter called the followers of Jesus "Christians" in 1 Peter 4:16. So yes, the disciples did use this term - eventually, once it was coined.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
How do those on here define "being a Christian" ?
- Thread starter JudahYAHites
- Start date
A Christian is one who has submitted to the Most High as Lord over their life and believed on the finished work of Jesus. Redeemed from the curse of the law that the forefathers of Israel and the Apostles of Jesus were unable to bear. And free indeed!
Dead to sin and the Law, and counted as in Christ, seated at the right hand of God. Grafted onto the Root of Jesse (Jesus). Free from sin and death, free from the schoolmaster that was given because of transgressions. Called unto liberty, led of the Spirit. Heirs together, sons of God and the freewoman not the bondwoman.
Having received the Sprit by the hearing of faith it is counted to us as righteousness not by our works but His alone.
Dead to sin and the Law, and counted as in Christ, seated at the right hand of God. Grafted onto the Root of Jesse (Jesus). Free from sin and death, free from the schoolmaster that was given because of transgressions. Called unto liberty, led of the Spirit. Heirs together, sons of God and the freewoman not the bondwoman.
Having received the Sprit by the hearing of faith it is counted to us as righteousness not by our works but His alone.
Last edited:
Don't say "is" - that is your opinion.
You interpret Romans 14 as being limited to a very narrow topic.
I interpret Romans 14 as outlining a general concept, which is consistent with God looking at the heart of man and not his actions.
We could discuss which interpretation is correct, but you can't just assert my interpretation is wrong because you have a different one.
You're right. Seems they did accept it.
True. They called themselves primarily followers of "The Way," and also frequently used the Hebraic-mindset-oriented servant-description, that they "came in the Name of" their Master, Yahushua. (the name 'jesus' didn't appear for another 16 centuries, and followed the introduction of the letter 'j' in the English language (It wasn't in the 1599 Geneva, but was in the 1619 KJV.)
And, since I distinguish (as did Paul, at minimum) between "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached," and the Risen Messiah, Yahushua, who did not change "one yod or tiddle" of what He Wrote, I don't claim to be a 'follower of jesus,' since most here can't even agree on what that means.
But I will note, speaking ONLY for "me and my house," that if being 'christian' means
RE: I Peter 4:16 and 'coining terms' -
(It is my personal opinion that Kefa's letters were almost certainly originally penned in Hebrew, or Aramaic, then later translated. Nope; can't prove it, either way...we evidently have only copies, most of those much later.)
My understanding (subject to change - it's NOT confirmable via Scripture explicitly) is that 'christian' was first used as a pejorative, then ultimately became a "red badge of courage" - to use a much later metaphor.
(It is my personal opinion that Kefa's letters were almost certainly originally penned in Hebrew, or Aramaic, then later translated. Nope; can't prove it, either way...we evidently have only copies, most of those much later.)
That's pretty much how I would also define a Christian.
Though it is a bit of a cliche, the Christian believes on Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Anointed of God, as Savior and bows in submission to Him as Lord and Master.
One might also define a Christian as someone that belongs to Jesus. Christ has bought him with His blood, and the Holy Spirit of God has regenerated him, giving him a new nature. The man now hears, hopes in, reveres, loves, and follows Christ.
The Christian has died to the sinful nature, and died to the law, and now cleaves to the Man Himself.
I think the original post might actually have a different question in mind. I think he is perhaps wondering how the Christian should be guided to live.
Christ's teachings prior to the crucifixion were directly given to Jews under the Mosaic covenant. I believe they certainly also still apply to us, but in a little different way.
What if being a Christian means resting on and in the Man Himself, rather than a particular day?
What if it means discerning between the Real Messiah, and everything He said, rather than "another jesus"?
Your refusal to answer is telling.
Yes, there is a real Messiah, and He is the One we find in the Bible. On the day of His coming judgement, we better be found in Him, not following the religion of the Judaizers of Galatians, or any other kind of rebels.
Last edited:
I DID answer. That's why He said the "path is NARROW," and "few there be that find it."
Incorrect
You said we need to discern who the true Biblical Messiah is. That is true, and it is a good point.
You did not answer the question about resting in the Man Himself vs resting on a particular day.
I am talking about the Sabbath rest discussed in Hebrews chapter four. (I'm sure you are intimately familiar with the passage as you are both very knowledgeable and highly intelligent).
(This post was edited by the moderation team to bring it in compliance with forum guidelines. The editing was limited to the removal of two paragraphs at the end of the post. Everything that remains is exactly how the OP wrote it.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I get the impression there are some who prefer to be entangled in the yoke of bondage rather than stand fast in the liberty there is in Christ.
Gal.5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
But each one will answer for him or her self.
I see you have made a clever attempt to resurrect the Old Torah Observance debate, and you succeeded in that attempt, but it looks like the debate didn't go exactly as you had hoped. Perhaps we can start a debate on what this word "YAHushuWaH" is supposed to mean! We are better off focussing on what we agree on, and we will NEVER accomplish anything if we continue to have internal strife. "But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another." Gal 5:15
"If you love Me, keep My commands."
If I rest in Him, and He knows me, that means ALL of 'em.
You are, in fact, very wrong, and forgiven. I refer to the deceptive doctrine that inverts the message of Galatians as arguably the "most twisted" in Scripture. "Been there, done that," and the T-shirt is banned besides.
But Paul himself says this, right up front: (chapter 1:9-10) TWICE, even:
After "I marvel that you have turned SO SOON," away from Him (Who said He would NOT change so much as a single "yod or tiddle," so there should be no doubt!) to "a different gospel."
But if someone preaches something else, then, "let him be accursed." Then he says it again.
Here's the irony: I have no doubt we disagree on what that means. But if 'jesus' EVER changed so much as a single BIT of His 'teaching and instruction,' then that one is a "liar and the truth is not in him." Because the Real One said He would NOT. Paul knew that.
And he likewise warned about "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached." Paul is consistent, even if the twisting of what he wrote is not.
If 'judaizing' is intended to mean "teaching or forcing others to become JEWS" (I would say, 'to follow the Whore Synagogue') then what is the proper pejorative term for forcing others to follow 'another jesus' by the Whore Church?
There's no 'debate' - it's Hebrew 101. And Matthew 1:21 tells us* that His Name literally means His mission: He is 'Yahu-shua' because He is the 'shua' (salvation) of Yah. (And note that the name of the prophet who wrote so much about Him has the name which is a virtual anagram, Yeshe-Yahu, and means, "Salvation is of Yahu.")
You will find His Name throughout the Hebrew in Scripture.
-----------------------
* And it doesn't say the modern 'jesus' in ANY version for the first 16 centuries.
You are correct, it is Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. But the translations vary depending on the language it's translated into.
Which is ironic, because it's not SUPPOSED to. Proper nouns are to be transliterated, to reflect phonetic pronunciation in the new character set. Or just left alone. Or given a rendering AND explanation, as for the prophetic in Matthew 1:23.
His mother, not even once, EVER called Him, 'jesus'. Neither did any person who ever saw Him walk this earth in flesh. But they knew what the Name His Father gave Him meant.
I am simply responding to sarcasm that excuses error. But I am suggesting that if even His Name itself has been changed (while saying it's the ONLY one, under heaven and earth, that matters!) - what other "lies have been inherited from [so-called] fathers"?
But the real point is precisely the one Paul (Shaul) made in II Corinthians 11:4. He was right.
He says, "don't murder." I hope we can all see that. "Don't commit adultery." We all here know that does NOT mean what the Whore Church now claims. But still, whatever it means, don't do it. "Don't steal," (unless you steal elections first.)
Are you "under bondage" by not being "free" in that 'liberty' by being prohibited from doing a bit of coveting? By paying for a prostitute? (even with honest money?) Lying about a neighbor? Why not steal from him, or slay him?
Just what part of "not one yod or tiddle" of His Word has been done away with was He lying about?
Where does some "tradition of man," or new rule from a guy in a funny hat, get off being able to declare what He changed and what He didn't?
Then what is wrong with my loving Him, because it is my 'rightful service,' since He redeemed me, and I am His bondservant, with doing what He says? (Luke 6:46)
And resting in Him, and not working on the day He says, and says to do so "forever."
