How do those on here define "being a Christian" ?

[Mark C]

So, lemme try this again.

How do those on here define "being a Christian" ?

MY answer:

A 'Christian' - with a Capital C - obeys the Whore Church (universal and you-know-what) with a Capital C) in all of its pronouncements, Scriptural or not. From sunday to xmas to Ishtar/Ashteroth/Easter to pork to licensed there-can-be-only one, 'marriage.' (but two dudes is OK now, they say.)

If you don't, they can (and did) call you 'anathema', maybe a 'judaizer,' and burned more'n a few...

On what basis do men "pick and choose"? Just Who is the Real Master? How do we KNOW?

I will continue to note EXACTLY what He did...you cannot serve two masters...we have a choice ('choose life!)...you are not "saved" by obedience to Him, but you are certainly blessed, and, as Paul asked, "what is our rightful service?"

Yahushua gave us the answer, and it's FAR simpler than the "Whore Church" would have us believe:

"If you love Me, keep My commands." Which? All of 'em that He Wrote for us and said He didn't change.

If you want to "pick and choose," fine. But "as for me and my house," we will serve Yahuah, "and Him alone."

And, as always, I am happy to explain what that means, and back it up with His Written Word. "Your mileage may vary."

 

[Mark C]

So, lemme try this again.

How do those on here define "being a Christian" ?

A 'Christian' - with a Capital C - obeys the Whore Church (universal and you-know-what) with a Capital C) in all of its pronouncements, Scriptural or not. From sunday to pork to licensed there-can-be-only one, 'marriage.' (but two dudes is OK now, they say.)

If you don't, they can (and did) call you 'anathema', maybe a 'judaizer,' and burned more'n a few...

On what basis do men "pick and choose"? Just Who is the Real Master?


PS> Just so it's very clear -- the Whore Church (Aholah) is particularly adept at "subtracting from" His Instruction; the Whore Synagogue (Aholobah) excels at "adding to." Both violate Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, and the Final Command in the Book, at the end of Revelation.

 

[Bartato]

Mark,
I'm wondering how you understand or interpret "died to the law" in Romans 7.
I'm seriously asking, legitimately curious, and not trying to be quarrelsome.

"Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[" (Romans 7:4-6 ESV)

I'm sure you have thought about it, and I realize you believe it to mean something very different than what the mainstream church thinks.

Please don't just rant about how the "whore church" is wrong. Please tell me what you think it does mean. Thank you

 

[Mark C]

I'm wondering how you understand or interpret "died to the law" in Romans 7.

Understood, and appreciated. What is the Greek word there (in all of it) translated as "law"?

It is "nomos," and the ambiguity is caused by conflation. It it, in fact, very similar (but not identical) to the problem aggravated by rendering the Hebrew word "torah" as the English word 'law'.

Let me try it this way, this time. Both Greek and Latin are languages where the word for 'law' is understood to be something made by men.

That is very different from, and not to be confused with, instruction given by YHVH, and taught by Him in the flesh, as the very "Word Made Flesh." His instruction (the Hebrew word 'torah,' correctly rendered) includes but is not limited to things like statutes, judgments, and commandments. That instruction includes stories, from the rebellion of Adam and Eve/Chava, to the patriarchs, their wives, the resulting tribes, and lessons from the lives of people like Saul and David, to 'precedents' (such as the 'good and faithful' but un-named servant who came in Abraham's name to find a wife for his son), to parables, as Yahushua famously taught.

His 'torah,' or Instruction, in other words, includes, but is NOT limited to "law".

We are 'under bondage' to the "laws" of mere men. (Even 'church fathers,' or 'popes.') But His commandments "are not burdensome," and are "not too hard," for us - as is said over and over again, throughout Scripture.

His instruction - not one yod or tiddle of it, He said so! - has NOT been done away with. But cruel bondage to the "traditions of the elders," the additions - leaven - (talmud) of the Pharisees, and the nomos of men, has been.



PS> This will come up next. Do not confuse the "handwritings of the INDICTMENT against us," (Col. 2:14) for deliberate rebellion against Him (which does carry a death penalty) with His "torah" or instruction, itself. Once we have been forgiven, and know better - don't put Him to death for us again.

 

[NBTX11]

One who has called upon and put faith in Christ for eternal salvation.

Romans 10

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

 

[Bartato]

Understood, and appreciated. What is the Greek word there (in all of it) translated as "law"?

It is "nomos," and the ambiguity is caused by conflation. It it, in fact, very similar (but not identical) to the problem aggravated by rendering the Hebrew word "torah" as the English word 'law'.

Let me try it this way, this time. Both Greek and Latin are languages where the word for 'law' is understood to be something made by men.

That is very different from, and not to be confused with, instruction given by YHVH, and taught by Him in the flesh, as the very "Word Made Flesh." His instruction (the Hebrew word 'torah,' correctly rendered) includes but is not limited to things like statutes, judgments, and commandments. That instruction includes stories, from the rebellion of Adam and Eve/Chava, to the patriarchs, their wives, the resulting tribes, and lessons from the lives of people like Saul and David, to 'precedents' (such as the 'good and faithful' but un-named servant who came in Abraham's name to find a wife for his son), to parables, as Yahushua famously taught.

His 'torah,' or Instruction, in other words, includes, but is NOT limited to "law".

We are 'under bondage' to the "laws" of mere men. (Even 'church fathers,' or 'popes.') But His commandments "are not burdensome," and are "not too hard," for us - as is said over and over again, throughout Scripture.

His instruction - not one yod or tiddle of it, He said so! - has NOT been done away with. But cruel bondage to the "traditions of the elders," the additions - leaven - (talmud) of the Pharisees, and the nomos of men, has been.



PS> This will come up next. Do not confuse the "handwritings of the INDICTMENT against us," (Col. 2:14) for deliberate rebellion against Him (which does carry a death penalty) with His "torah" or instruction, itself. Once we have been forgiven, and know better - don't put Him to death for us again.

Thank you. That's helpful.

 

[Mark C]

Thank you. That's helpful.

Once that distinction starts to make sense, go re-read Matthew chapter 23 (Mark 7 makes the very same point, highlighted by v 13.)

Then go take another look at any place where Paul's letters include the Greek word 'nomos'. You will see that it makes an entirely different point. But one which is UTTERLY consistent with every other teaching in the Book.

 

[OttoM]

In other words: nothing about you needs to change in order to take part in the inheritance of those who love Him. His atonement has zero to do with "keeping" anything. You don't have to "become a Christian", erase your tatoos, divorce your extra wives, or give up drinking and join a church. And yes, you may observe the Torah if you so desire. It's all immaterial. You might be a pious Jew or a filthy gentile. Just believe.

Romans 6:18
18 Now you are free from your slavery to sin, and you have become slaves to righteous living.

James 2:16
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

That faith changes a person’s heart. It’s not your own doing - so no man can boast - I did this! No - it comes from the Most High.

The things I thought were righteous - the traditions and laws of men - I no longer see them as righteous but sin. The things I thought were sin or un-righteous - I see them as Holy, Righteous, and Good.

And we show our faith and love in him by keeping his commandments. Even if 99% of Christianity teaches it’s okay to do the things he hates - if you refuse to do it - and follow the Messiah’s instructions - you’re demonstrating faith and love.

 

[Mark C]

13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Note here that Paul is quoting Joel 2:32, precisely. And note that in both places, the translators have made a "subtraction."

"And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the Name of the LORD
Shall be saved."

Any concordance or tool (BLB,Esword, etc) that shows the Hebrew original will confirm that the word (all caps) 'LORD' there has been rendered IN PLACE of His Name YHVH ('yod-hey-vav-heh')

You decide for yourself whether it matters or not. But consider what it actually says.

 

[Bartato]

Once that distinction starts to make sense, go re-read Matthew chapter 23 (Mark 7 makes the very same point, highlighted by v 13.)

Then go take another look at any place where Paul's letters include the Greek word 'nomos'. You will see that it makes an entirely different point. But one which is UTTERLY consistent with every other teaching in the Book.

Thank you. I'll start looking into it.

I do have a question about this general concept.

If the "law" referred to in Romans 7 is talking about the traditions of the elders and laws of men, rather than the commandments given by the Creator, how were we ever united to, or bound by them?

Not really being from God, it seems like they never truly had any real authority over us.

Verse one (of Romans 7) talks about the "law" being binding on a person, and then talks about how the "law" of marriage binds a woman as long as her husband lives. We know that this "law" of marriage isn't just a tradition of elders, or a human institution. Marriage is a a divine law given by our Creator.

That makes it seem like Paul is not merely talking about human tradition, but somehow also the commands of YAHWEH.

 

[NBTX11]

Note here that Paul is quoting Joel 2:32, precisely. And note that in both places, the translators have made a "subtraction."

"And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the Name of the LORD
Shall be saved."

Any concordance or tool (BLB,Esword, etc) that shows the Hebrew original will confirm that the word (all caps) 'LORD' there has been rendered IN PLACE of His Name YHVH ('yod-hey-vav-heh')

You decide for yourself whether it matters or not. But consider what it actually says.

Mark, thank you for the information.

 

[Mark C]

If the "law" referred to in Romans 7 is talking about the traditions of the elders and laws of men, rather than the commandments given by the Creator, how were we ever united to, or bound by them?

Not really being from God, it seems like they never truly had any real authority over us.

Brilliant. And true.

But men have, and continue, to choose bondage. Just look at how many times they said so, in Exodus alone.

Don't fear those who can only kill the body...


PS> It's why the Founders, in the Declaration, talked about the "consent of the governed," and chose to withdraw their consent. It's why He, repeatedly, but notably in Rev. 18:4, says, "come out of her, My people." And why those whom He has "made free, are free indeed."

 

[Mark C]

Verse one (of Romans 7) talks about the "law" being binding on a person, and then talks about how the "law" of marriage binds a woman as long as her husband lives. We know that this "law" of marriage isn't just a tradition of elders, or a human institution. Marriage is a a divine law given by our Creator.

That makes it seem like Paul is not merely talking about human tradition, but somehow also the commands of YAHWEH.

Correct. And that is why "conflation" is such an issue, and can be so confusing. It challenges discernment, and "rightfully dividing the Word." It can also be a trap of the 'adversary'.

And, to take the example of marriage -- note that that, too, has been conflated. Are we obeying the "law of men," with their licenses, limitations, bondage of 'monogamy only' - or worse; or His instruction about it? It's called "choice of law" in American Jurisprudence. If we are not careful, we CAN be BOUND by "another master!"

 

[FollowingHim]

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.

I think the original poster knows how he believes God's followers should live, and is not asking this. Rather, taking into account both the title and the post itself, I think he actually seeking to draw a distinction between "Christians" and "disciples of Messiah", and find a narrow definition of Christian that does not include all believers. @Mark C has outlined this viewpoint quite clearly.

Personally, I can see the reasons why Mark holds this view. It is however, in my opinion, more an emotive reaction to the hypocrisy of our present-day church culture than a scriptural definition of the word "Christian". That word in scripture is applied to genuine followers of God, not people who have fallen away from true faith, so to apply it only to people who are NOT following God correctly in the opinion of the speaker, and to choose not to apply it to those who are (again in the opinion of the speaker) is to reverse its scriptural meaning entirely - and then to tar everyone in history who has used this name by the same brush, which means most of God's followers for the past 2000 years.

I think it is far more accurate to define "Christian" as scripture does - as a name for disciples of Christ (literally, "little Christ" as the name means - people who are seeking to follow and emulate him).

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.

The Bible tells us that His name is Ἰησοῦς. Obviously, this is derived from a Hebrew name - generally accepted to be Yeshua (Joshua) - and it is tempting to try and use that name instead, as more accurate. But as @Mark C outlines above, maybe that's not the case. Maybe the name was originally Yahushua. And I've seen other versions also. This inconsistency shows that this translation back to Hebrew is, to a degree, speculative. The scriptures we have that actually discuss him, being written in Greek, give his name as Ἰησοῦς. And, because Greek was the dominant language of the day in which he lived, he would have had many conversations in Greek and many people would have called him this Greek name directly when speaking Greek to Him. So we can be confident that He was actually called Ἰησοῦς during his lifetime - whether or not it's the precise way his mother pronounced his name.

Ἰησοῦς, pronounced Yaysous, was transliterated into all other languages, pronounced essentially the same (slight variation in the vowels between dialects). In English it was written as Iesus. This became "Jesus" with the introduction of the letter J for leading Is in words as a typographical convention, and it is unknown when the pronunciation changed (likely some time after the spelling changed). The modern English pronunciation is undeniably wrong.

But the only name we know for certain is correct, is Ἰησοῦς. All other translations, either down into English or back up into Hebrew, are less certain. Though I am certain He does not get hung up on this, and answers to any of them!

 

[Bartato]

Correct. And that is why "conflation" is such an issue, and can be so confusing. It challenges discernment, and "rightfully dividing the Word." It can also be a trap of the 'adversary'.

And, to take the example of marriage -- note that that, too, has been conflated. Are we obeying the "law of men," with their licenses, limitations, bondage of 'monogamy only' - or worse; or His instruction about it? It's called "choice of law" in American Jurisprudence. If we are not careful, we CAN be BOUND by "another master!"

Yet we know that something real changes when the husband dies. The wife really is released from the actual bond of marriage.

Likewise, when Christ died, we died to something real, that really had previously bound us.

 

[OttoM]

Yet we know that something real changes when the husband dies. The wife really is released from the actual bond of marriage.

Likewise, when Christ died, we died to something real, that really had previously bound us.

Paul starts Romans 7 with a message -- "I'm writing to those that know the law." So for that segment the person should have a good understanding of what the law says about marriage, divorce, and how the Creator described himself being married to two kingdoms - his two wives - but one kingdom was given a certificate for divorce.

The Messiah came for the Lost Sheep of Israel. The Northern Kingdom of Israel. They were the ones that received a certificate of divorce, and exiled. Judah - the Southern Kingdom - was not given a certificate of divorce.

What does the Creator's own Law say about such a circumstance? It says - if a Husband issues his wife a certificate of divorce - and if she goes and marries another man - the first husband that divorced her can not take her back. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

The Creator references this law through the prophet Jeremiah in terms of his relationship with Northern Israel:

Jeremiah 3:1
“If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you (Northern Kingdom of Israel) have lived as a prostitute with many lovers — would you now return to me?” declares YAHUAH."

6 Like a wife who commits adultery, Israel has worshiped other gods on every hill and under every green tree.

8 .... I divorced faithless Israel because of her adultery.

So it wasn't possible for the Northern Kingdom of Israel to return back. She defiled herself with other gods. That's where the Messiah comes in - when he died for his people - and was resurrected - those lost sheep can now return back.

When He was pierced for our transgressions and took our punishment of death - that marriage law also died with Him - so that's why through His Resurrection - the Northern Kingdom of Israel can now return back to their Father in Heaven. That's the (marriage) law we died to that Paul is referring to in Romans 7. Divorced Israel said this in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 3:5
Surely you won’t be angry forever’ Surely you can forget about it!’

That is the Gospel. It's a love story. The Messiah was the Most High in the flesh. He came for his people that were lost, and he's still gathering them even today. We should study what our ancestors did wrong that provoked him to issuing them a certificate of divorce - so we can avoid those mistakes. It's all written in the Scriptures - which are profitable for correction, rebuke, and teaching in righteousnesses.

Even with the parable about the lost son - whom eventually returned back to his Father - that also can be compared to his lost sheep of Israel (us).

 

[frederick]

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.

[followed by a prime example of that 'twisting'!]

But the real point is precisely the one Paul (Shaul) made in II Corinthians 11:4.

Παῦλος - Pavlos - reflecting phonetic pronunciation.

 

[NickF]

Παῦλος - Pavlos - reflecting phonetic pronunciation.

My son was called Tito in Ecuador when we went down/up there a while back. I’m so glad to learn how to say Pavlos’ name properly now! This way everyone will understand who I’m writing about!

 

[Mark C]

The Bible tells us that His name is Ἰησοῦς. Obviously, this is derived from a Hebrew name - generally accepted to be Yeshua (Joshua) - and it is tempting to try and use that name instead, as more accurate...

Agreed.

But as @Mark C outlines above, maybe that's not the case. Maybe the name was originally Yahushua. And I've seen other versions also. This inconsistency shows that this translation back to Hebrew is, to a degree, speculative. The scriptures we have that actually discuss him, being written in Greek, give his name as Ἰησοῦς. And, because Greek was the dominant language of the day in which he lived, he would have had many conversations in Greek and many people would have called him this Greek name directly when speaking Greek to Him. So we can be confident that He was actually called Ἰησοῦς during his lifetime - whether or not it's the precise way his mother pronounced his name.

OK. But I've been called "Marcos" in Spanish-speaking countries, and other worse things, too (even here. )

The point I was really making is that we ARE told, in Scripture, that His Name literally means, "Salvation of Yah," or "Yah's Salvation," in the original Hebrew. Because we are told (specifically, in that part of Matthew) that this was why He came. (Later, He adds, "but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.)

...Ἰησοῦς, pronounced Yaysous, was transliterated into all other languages, pronounced essentially the same (slight variation in the vowels between dialects). In English it was written as Iesus. This became "Jesus" with the introduction of the letter J for leading Is in words as a typographical convention, and it is unknown when the pronunciation changed (likely some time after the spelling changed). The modern English pronunciation is undeniably wrong.

Correct.

But this is where the correction is necessary:

But the only name we know for certain is correct, is Ἰησοῦς. All other translations, either down into English or back up into Hebrew, are less certain. Though I am certain He does not get hung up on this, and answers to any of them!

We know for certain that His Name was used (it's easy to find - look for the places where we see it, starting most obviously with Exodus 14:13.) Yes, in some cases there will be variants based on grammar (second person, singular or plural, etc). He is, literally, ALL through His Word, as the literal promised 'Salvation' of YHVH.

This is a discussion I have had MANY times with believing Jews who waited eagerly for 'Messiah,' but were (to put it mildly!) 'put off' and generally infuriated with 'xtians' telling them "there's only ONE NAME under heaven and earth" by which you MUST be saved, and it's "JESUS," and "if you don't know that name - you're going to Hell."

I contend (adamantly, even) that to tell them they have been fed a lie, and "another jesus," is not only NOT "judaizing," but an outreach that has touched many who have been VERY 'offended.'

And thank you for reminding me via this discussion of that element. (Yes, there is an 'emotional component,' but it is an "acquired understanding," from those who have been taught to reject HaMashiach that IS Written in the Book they already know.) His Name, however, explicitly reflects His Mission, and is without question given to us MANY times in his "torah, prophets, and writings," aka TNKH, or 'old testament.'

The still-larger point, I contend, as you correctly observed, is what Shaul (his given name; "Paulos" was an assumed 'nom de plume,' if you will...Kefa likewise got re-named completely in Greek, then Latin, and English) put this way:

"...work out your OWN 'Salvation' (guess what word that was in his thinking?) with fear and trembling." (Phil. 2:12) Note how the context has to do with that 'name' - whatever it is - that people argue about and say MUST be 'jesus' for that reason. Even if it could NOT have been precisely that. And it starts out with "let this mind be in you," which was also in Him. It was, without question, a 'Hebraic' rather than a Hellenistic mindset.

...because what is VITAL is not 'vowel pointers,' or pronunciation, but what that Name tells us about His mission, and whether we understand His character (which is inseparable from His Word.) Yahushua, Himself, in His very first public address, put it this way, in what I often call the 'scariest verse in the Bible.' (Matthew 7:21-23)

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

And then comes the verse that is both a warning, and certainly (as He warned!) inspires division...

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

We are wasting a lot of our time on a debate that I thought we were not going to allow. We are expending our energy fighting one another, when we have so much we need to get donem and so little time to do it.