Abandon Ship!

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine
You fail to see the difference between abandonment and realization.

No I don't. You abandoned Christianity instead of sticking up for it. There are those of us who realize that there are many who are not living up to the name of Christian. But we are at least sticking up for the name that Peter, perhaps the closest Disciple of Jesus', said we are to praise God that we bear.

If I had said it differently, making it a distinction between true Christianity and false Christianity as you do, you would have jumped on that bandwagon.

I would have...as long as what you defended really was true Christianity. But abandoning the name 'Christian' in clear defiance of one of Jesus' Apostles is not a good sign that you represent true Christianity.

Providing I agreed with you as to the nature of true Christianity. You said, “There are still those of us who do represent it accurately”. Implying that you represent true Christianity. That remains to be seen.

What have I shared here that makes you think I'm not a true Christian? You already know at least two things that you have revealed about yourself in this forum that make me wonder if you are. Not for purposes of judging you personally, but in regard to my God given right to decide who I will trust as a brother and who I will not.

I did not decide on a new definition of Christianity.

I think you made it clear that 'Christianity' in the church today does not represent true Christianity, and that is why you have decided to not identify yourself with the name 'Christianity' (or the church for that matter). You have gone so far as to not even consider the valid definition of true Christianity but have decided to define it altogether as false. Prove me wrong and start calling yourself 'true Christian', and start declaring your rebellion against everything that's wrong in the church today that way.

Christianity “the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.” (Oxford Dictionary) “A monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior; The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia)”. (WordWeb)

That seems to about cover it. I agree with the definitions of both dictionaries. You’re the one who would redefine Christianity to suit your own meaning, as one who is “accurately representing” Christianity. Christianity is far more comprehensive than your narrow definition of just those who agree with you as to who’s accurately representing Christianity. Roman Catholics claim to be the True Church. And by so doing they are saying that they are the ones who are accurately representing Christianity. You’re doing the same thing as the Catholics. And the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Mormons, and any other Christian denomination that thinks it’s accurately representing Christianity.

This is very narrow thinking. A true Christian is one who lives as a true Christian, not one who holds certain beliefs. Maybe this is the root cause of your misguided rebellion against the church. True Christianity is not a denomination. It is the people of God committed to living as Christ lived, not a group of people who have accurate doctrine about God and Christ (though they probably have that). What sense does it make to abandon Christianity and refuse to call the real thing that just because there is a counterfeit?

1Peter 4:15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that verse in its context? Peter was contrasting two different reasons to suffer. The contrast is between suffering for evil doing and suffering for following a name associated with Jesus of Nazareth.

Why can't you see this? Do you think for a minute Christians were persecuted in the first century because people thought they were wonderful people? So it is today. People, both believers and unbelievers, bring reproach on the name of Christ and we all suffer for it. But you have chosen to not identify with the name because of the righteous suffering of bearing with the failings of the weak, in direct contradiction of Peter who said rather to suffer righteously and "praise God that you bear that name". Do you get it? Other people hurt you. Someone else did wrong and you suffered for it. Yet, you have chosen not to suffer righteously and "praise God that you bear the name".

I agree with Peter. If one suffers as a Christian, that’s no reason to be ashamed. Not because of what Christianity is or isn’t, but because of what non-Christians think Christianity is. Not because of what being a Christian is or isn’t, but because of what non-Christians think being a Christian is. And believe you me, neither you nor I could ever live up to their ideal.

Educate them, don't abandon the name. Educate them with your life. Save the doctrine statements and positions (ie, former christian). I think that's where your root problem lies. Christianity is not a doctrine, it's a way of life. This is the Apostle Peter's counsel to you:

12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1 Peter 2:12 NIV1984)

I’m harming the cause of Christ because I claim that Christianity is a man-made religion and denominational in character? Or is it Christianity that’s harming the cause of Christ because it can’t change its nature?

You are to have the changed nature. That is what true Christianity is. It's not a denomination or a statement of doctrinal beliefs about God. True Christianity is NOT man made. False Christianity is what is man made. You have written off ALL Christianity instead of deciding to live and defend and suffer for the real name of Christianity. Why change the name of the real thing just because there is a counterfeit in the world? A counterfeit that brings you suffering...suffering that the Apostle Peter says you are to endure patiently and righteously (suffering for something you didn't do--assuming that's true).

What harms the cause of Christ the most is ignorance. For whatever reason that ignorance exists. It’s THE truth that sets us free, not your truth, nor my truth.

Correct... Truth shown to the world as it is lived out in our lives...not in our doctrinal statements that say we refuse to be identified with, and suffer as, a Christian.

"12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." (1 Peter 2:12 NIV1984)

By saying that, you obviously don’t think that I’m helping people understand what the true defining beliefs and lifestyle of the 'Christian'

How can you be if you won't even be called by the name of Christian? I'm telling you (again), when you proclaim yourself a 'former christian' you are removing yourself from being identified with Christ. Trust me on this. Look how many people have to wonder right here in this forum why you no longer believe when they see your forum name.

We all know that to not be a Christian means one has abandoned the faith, despite that you insist it doesn't mean that. It's impossible to defend true Christianity, doctrinally, but choose to not be called by the name of Christian. What you should be doing is calling yourself a 'true' Christian. I challenge you to change your forum name. But I know you won't because it's clear to me you simply do not believe in calling even the real thing 'Christianity'. You say it was once a legitimate name for the one who accurately followed Christ, but now you won't call even yourself, who follows Christ accurately, a Christian? There is something very, very telling in that. And everyone sees it! They do not associate you with Christ when they see your forum name.

Based on what? What I claim Christianity to be? Or what you, as one who represents true Christianity, claims Christianity to be? My emphasis has always been that Christians, “real Christians” as you would define them, should express the supernatural they believe in, rather than the natural that they are expressing now. And on the bible being understood supernaturally, rather than naturally through a practice of biblical interpretation. And on walking by the Spirit, rather than being made perfect by the flesh. I suppose to you these don’t count because of your antipathy toward the idea that Christianity perhaps isn’t all you think it is.

I have to ask again...why abandon the name of the real thing just because some (even many) misrepresent Christianity. The Apostle Peter says to suffer persecution for that name. Abuse that is obviously rationalized by the perceived wrong-doing of those who call themselves Christian, whether they are true or not. The Bibles' counsel is to take it on the chin and "praise God that you bear that name (Christian)" not desert it and call it something else so you won't suffer for the name.


Abandon a misguided or corrupt church or denomination. Don't abandon the name we have been told to "praise God that we bear that name".


I'm going to bed. I'll read the rest of you post tomorrow...

 

[ivorhughjarse]

Those who have left the whole religious thing only leave after much prayerful consideration. It is not church hopping because those who leave the structure of church as it is performed today don't see church as the members inside do. Those who leave look to Jesus for their spiritual growth cannot go back to any pretense of religiousness. They struggle with the whole badge engineering thing..we are brothers (i include sisters in this comment) given different gifts by The Holy Spirit and if we gather it is to encourage each other and to see what The Lord wants of us, not where he wants us. We would never debate if neck ties and hats need to be worn when gathering or any of the pointless rules that structure based churches need to either separate themselves from the next denomination or imitate their larger same denomination church

 

[Vince]

Acts 27:17 So when the ship was caught, and could not head into the wind, we let her drive... and fearing lest they should run aground on the Syrtis Sands, they struck sail and so were driven.

The word "pneuma" is the most common word used for the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. It has the same root as some of the words translated "wind," and is translated "wind" one time. Puling down their sails symbolized that they were no longer being led by the Spirit. They were being driven by the sea, and God tells us that the wicked are like the troubled sea.

Sometimes a good organization falls under the control of the wicked. Sometimes wealthy donors demand leadership in exchange for their money, and so the organization is no longer Spirit-driven, but wicked-driven.

Surprisingly, various verses in this story indicate that Paul helped the sailors. Christians sometimes feel that they can't leave a church because a Sunday School class depends on them, and they might be right. And, truth to be told, at this point of the story, Paul really could not abandon ship. But when the time came, he did.

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

May your way in your faith be all you wish it to be.

FC

 

[ivorhughjarse]

Jethro Bodine I too will not call myself Christian and I genuinely believe that it was a word from God. The reason is not in relation to what the name Christian has become as most people presume. It is that it was not the right name from the very start. What others choose to call us is one thing and we can do nothing about that situation so if someone calls me Christian I am never offended...We can however choose what we do call ourselves. The giving up of the name badge came about well before i left conventional church. Modern church is not far removed from the way that Rome organised its affairs with its hierarchical system a system copied by the Catholic Church and watered down to almost every denomination. If you are content with this then it's not time to leave yet and it may never be..we are all different parts of the body. Your walk may be in conventional church the whole of your life, mine is not!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine I too will not call myself Christian and I genuinely believe that it was a word from God. The reason is not in relation to what the name Christian has become as most people presume. It is that it was not the right name from the very start.

Why would Peter, arguably the closest disciple to Jesus, give the following exhortation if 'Christian' was never correct from the start?

"...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name." (1 Peter 4:16 NIV1984)

 

[Elijah674]

Being Rev, 18:4 PARTAKERS by being yoked in membership will be FATAL if one will not leave. And the abomination of the earth ones leaves little left out. And support it with Gods tithe is nothing less than known robbery. And the Lord tells us which will suffer in hell the longest before they become ashes.

Luke 12
[47] And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
[48] But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: ..'

Me again:

Isa. 5
[1] Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
[2] And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
[3] And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, [[[judge, I pray you, ***betwixt me]] and [[my vineyard]]. (again read John 12:42-43 for the Rev. 17:1-5's free/Choice!)

[4] What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

OK: When Christ was executed by His own, (PUT OUT!) are you saying that HIS OWN stayed with the [NOW] santic sinking ship???? Come on folks, get SPIRITUALLY REAL!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Me again:

Isa. 5
[1] Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
[2] And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
[3] And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, [[[judge, I pray you, ***betwixt me]] and [[my vineyard]]. (again read John 12:42-43 for the Rev. 17:1-5's free/Choice!)

[4] What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

OK: When Christ was executed by His own, (PUT OUT!) are you saying that HIS OWN stayed with the [NOW] santic sinking ship???? Come on folks, get SPIRITUALLY REAL!

You're not making it clear what 'sinking ship' you're sure we all must abandon.

We've been talking about having the courage to abandon the fellowship one finds themselves in now and go to another within the church.

 

[ivorhughjarse]

Why would Peter, arguably the closest disciple to Jesus, give the following exhortation if 'Christian' was never correct from the start?

"...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name." (1 Peter 4:16 NIV1984)

The matter may seem simply language and Greek but is it not as there is more to the term Christian. The Original Disciples of Yeshua/Jesus never called themselves Christians. The Followers in Yeshua in Jerusalem called themselves Ebionites-Nazirenes, and such. But never Christian. The reason why was because the name "Christian" was used many centuries before Yeshua's existence on this earth. The name "Christian" was a title given to initiates of a mystery religion that was based on the Christos. I'll even quote this for proof, This quote below is from Emperor Adrian to Servianus, written in 134 A.D,

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis, call themselves Bishops of Christ".

This was clearly known by the ancient followers in Jerusalem that the name "Christian" was pagan in its origin and people called themselves Christian before Jesus. However this does not diminish what "Christian" means if one is calling themselves a Christian. It means "to-be-Christ-like" and because this is the definition I have no problem with whatever anyone call themselves or in term what anyone calls me. But I have the same choice to not call myself by this Greek word when relating to sharing with the Hebrew, God the Son

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The matter may seem simply language and Greek but is it not as there is more to the term Christian. The Original Disciples of Yeshua/Jesus never called themselves Christians.

The APOSTLE PETER exhorts us to not be ashamed that we bear the name Christian.

We all suffer unfairly when another person who calls themselves 'Christian' does something to bring reproach on the name. PETER tells us to not be ashamed of the name, but rather suffer righteously for the sake of the name, and praise God that we bear that name.

You have chosen to be ashamed of the name. You certainly have the freedom to not do what an original Apostle of the Lord said to do, but it's abundantly clear what we are supposed to do in regard to the name.

Abandon a church. Abandon a ministry. But abandon the name of 'Christian'? Never. The clear words of Peter trump anyone's individual revelation about the matter. This is not a disputable matter. It's plainly spelled out for us in the recorded words of an original Apostle of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Vince]

Acts 27:30 And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, when they had let down the skiff into the sea, under pretense of putting out anchors from the prow,
31 Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved."
32 Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the skiff and let it fall off.

When the people who know what's going on are getting out, it's time to get out. A major problem in troubled organizations is that they "protect their people from the truth." Scandals and failures are covered up and smoothed over, often by people who think they are doing the right thing. Later, when disaster strikes, the leaders bear more of the blame for not warning their underlings about what was really happening.

When Godly college professors are suddenly gone, when faithful families suddenly start attending elsewhere, when successful workers suddenly stop showing up, it's time to get out.

 

[Sparkey]

There was a farmer who early in Spring planted. He was an anxious and fearful sort and by the time Summer came, he wondered what could come of all his good work. There was nothing edible here. Some weeds had grown up and matured, but that was about it. Was that sufficient reason for the crop itself to "abandon ship" and seek to relocate themselves back into the wild?

There is only One body, one baptism, one faith and one mediator - the man, Christ Jesus, the messiah. I don't know how to "get there" without Him.

It will be in that day," says the LORD, "That you will call me 'my husband,' And no longer call me 'my master.' For I will take away the names of the Ba`alim out of her mouth, And they will no more be mentioned by their name. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the animals of the field, And with the birds of the sky, And with the creeping things of the ground. I will break the bow, the sword, and the battle out of the land, And will make them lie down safely. I will betroth you to me forever. Yes, I will betroth you to me in righteousness, in justice, in lovingkindness, and in compassion. I will even betroth you to me in faithfulness; And you shall know the LORD.

It makes no sense for any to remove themselves prior to the fulfilment of the promise that we will be betrothed forever in righteousness, in justice, in lovingkindness, in compassion and even betrothed (us to Him) in faithfulness. That is still the promise that God (who can not lie) has uttered.

 

[Vince]

I appreciate your thoughtful post, Sparrowhawk. We aren't to abandon Christianity, but sometimes we have to leave a church, college, or other ministry. I used to moderate the "Battered Sheep" forum. I often pointed out to those who had rejected church completely that they should have abandoned the church that was wrecking them up before it was too late and gone elsewhere.

 

[cyberjosh]

Those who are questioning the biblical use of the term 'Christian' need to watch this video I think, and be reminded of what christos means in Greek (and the Semitic roots of its connotation):

[video=youtube;hYDEFEOZV78]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYDEFEOZV78&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

Jethro is right in his assessment of what Peter said about it.

 

[cyberjosh]

The matter may seem simply language and Greek but is it not as there is more to the term Christian. The Original Disciples of Yeshua/Jesus never called themselves Christians. The Followers in Yeshua in Jerusalem called themselves Ebionites-Nazirenes, and such. But never Christian. The reason why was because the name "Christian" was used many centuries before Yeshua's existence on this earth. The name "Christian" was a title given to initiates of a mystery religion that was based on the Christos. I'll even quote this for proof, This quote below is from Emperor Adrian to Servianus, written in 134 A.D,

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis, call themselves Bishops of Christ".

This was clearly known by the ancient followers in Jerusalem that the name "Christian" was pagan in its origin and people called themselves Christian before Jesus. However this does not diminish what "Christian" means if one is calling themselves a Christian. It means "to-be-Christ-like" and because this is the definition I have no problem with whatever anyone call themselves or in term what anyone calls me. But I have the same choice to not call myself by this Greek word when relating to sharing with the Hebrew, God the Son

I would have to research that quote a little more but it sounds like that may have been either misinformation about Christians (there was a lot of that floating around in the 1st & 2nd centuries - almost all of it written by those hostile to them) or it may be a Gnostic-like group that also took up worshiping Serapis (maybe as one of the aeons). According to the video above the Greeks never had applied chrio or christos to a person before (it was only used of inanimate objects), and that the usage of christos as applied to a person is clearly modeled on and carried over from the Semitic usage of masah and meshiach in the Old Testament which was used of persons, and which had developed a distinctive usage from Jewish Scriptures. So Christians were named after this very distinctly titled man, Jesus, with the title "Christos" or "The anointed one". So the name Christian would bear the meaning "those like the anointed one" which cannot be just generically applied as can be seen from the immediate context of whom it clearly referred to, Jesus (though the video noted previously priests or even furniture could be anointed), yet surely the name was used from the perspective of recognizing Jesus as THE true anointed ONE from God who was promised in Isaiah and the prophets. 'Christian' is a unique title which I think sets us apart. Calling one's self a Christ-follower or follower of Jesus is no different in my opinion.

 

[cyberjosh]

Christianity “the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.” (Oxford Dictionary) “A monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior; The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia)”. (WordWeb)

That seems to about cover it. I agree with the definitions of both dictionaries. You’re the one who would redefine Christianity to suit your own meaning, as one who is “accurately representing” Christianity.

You are relying on a modern English dictionary to tell you the meaning of a first century Greek word that is used in inspired Scripture? I don't care what the modern perception of 'Christian' is, I care how it was used originally. Equally I don't care what people think the ekklesia is today (some would say a location that has pews in it), but rather I care what Scripture said about what it is, when it was written 2,000 years ago. Time shouldn't change the truths of scripture, although our perceptions may be molded by our upbringing and the time we were born into.

That much I at least ask for a plea of reasonableness on.

~Josh

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Why would Peter, arguably the closest disciple to Jesus, give the following exhortation if 'Christian' was never correct from the start?

"...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name." (1 Peter 4:16 NIV1984)

There’s a difference between the Byzantine and Alexandrian compilations. That phrase at the end? The Byzantine compilation has a Greek word that means “part or portionâ€, the Alexandrian compilation has a word that means “nameâ€. The meaning is different. The KJV, NKJV, and the Young’s literal translation, that all use the Byzantine compilation, reads respectively,

16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.
16 and if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; and let him glorify God in this respect

The readings of the NIV, NASB, and ESV, that all use the Alexandrian compilation, reads respectively,

16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.
16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

I favor the Byzantine compilation. I’m not a KJV onlyist, but I have reasons to favor the Byzantine compilation over the Alexandrian compilation. So that verse doesn’t say to me what it says to you.

The literal meaning of that phrase at the end in the Alexandrian compilation is better translated by the NASB and ESV. They translated the phrase literally. The NIV, in this case, is too much of an interpretive translation. They interpret a simple Greek preposition that means “in†as “that you bearâ€. That’s another reason that verse doesn’t say to me what it says to you.

I know something of the Greek and tend to read the NT in the Greek, in the Greek of the Byzantine compilation. But even reading the Greek in the Alexandrian compilation, I don’t come up with the meaning that the NIV puts on the phrase in question. I understand the Greek literally as it says. And the NIV isn’t what it says.

The idea presented, whether one reads it in the Byzantine or in the Alexandrian compilation, is that one is to suffer under the name Christian if they give it to you. There’s nothing wrong with suffering under the name Christian. But that still doesn’t mean one has to call oneself a Christian just because unbelievers have called you that. Or because it has become a Traditionally acceptable name in a man-made religion.

You can continue to equate being a Christian with being in Christ. I do not. You can equate being a part of Christianity with being a part of the Body of Christ. I do not. You can continue to consider Christianity “the Churchâ€. I do not. You can continue to believe that the NIV is the correct translation of the phrase in question. I do not.

You can judge me a traitor if that is your wish. I do not judge myself to be one. No matter how many times you say I am a Christian, I will still not consider myself one, nor do I think I should consider myself one on your say so.

You may think you’re among the remnant that are the true Christians and representative of true Christianity. I do not. No more than I think so of the Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons who think the same thing. And since I’m not a Christian at all, you have no ground to accuse me of thinking like you do on the matter. I have never once said that Christians should come out from the religion I deem human at best. Christians can overcome where they are if they will only realize what it is they are overcoming. They generally do not, and neither do you.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Abandon a church. Abandon a ministry. But abandon the name of 'Christian'?Never. The clear words of Peter trump anyone's individual revelation about the matter. This is not a disputable matter. It's plainly spelled out for us in the recorded words of an original Apostle of the Lord Jesus.

To you it’s an indisputable matter. Yet you find yourself free to abandon a church or ministry. In that you go against Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of God. In all the things that was said against the seven “churches†of Revelation (churches they are to you), Jesus never once tells them to leave a “churchâ€. Rather, he tells them to overcome within the “church†in which they find themselves. And the words of Jesus Christ trumps the words of a self-proclaimed follower of “real Christianity†any day, wouldn’t you say?

Another thing I don’t favor are “ministriesâ€. Not in the sense they are used today in Christianity. There are ministries in the sense of the Spiritual “gifts†as described by Paul, and as an Apostle Paul had one. But that’s a far cry from what are called ministries today. Ministries in Christianity have come down to being individual visions within the setting of Christianity. It’s bad enough that Christianity is denominational in character. But to further divide with personal ministries? Ministries that grow to become more denominations in practicality? Ministries that eventually have their own hierarchies and doctrinal standards?

And I’m NOT referring to a ministry of service within a “churchâ€. Like someone who arranges the flowers in the sanctuary or teaches the new believers the doctrines acceptable to a “churchâ€. That would be more in line with the idea of ministry as used in the NT.

The importance of the name

Let me try to clarify. In the view I present, the proper relationship is with the living. With the living God and the resurrected Jesus Christ through the living Holy Spirit, and with those living on the earth who are in Christ. There is no relationship with a historical institution that calls itself (has the name of) Christianity. Nor with a denominational Church institutions of whatever name. Christianity and denominational Churches have no life of their own. The only life within institutions are the lives of those within. That life can be the life in Christ or it can be the life of the human soul or the human flesh. It changes nothing about the nature and character of Christianity itself. Because the origin of Christianity is human, not Divine.

If the source of Christianity is Divine, the Roman Catholic Church would have the better argument in regard to being the true expression of Christianity than any Protestant Church or independent Christian that has been influenced by Protestantism. In other words, if the source of Christianity is Divine, you and I should stop being what we are and become Roman Catholics with no more talk of abandoning ship. We’ll be in the true Ship.

For the one who is in Christ, there is only one important name. It’s not Jehovah because that name wasn’t used by any NT writers. And why wasn’t it used? Only because of the Jewish Tradition of not uttering the Sacred Name? Or was there another reason?

Philippians 2:
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(NIV)

So much for the Jehovah’s Witnesses being the true representative of that name. So much for the religion Christianity itself being the true representative of that name. So much for any denomination of Christianity being the true representative of that name. So much for any individual “Church†being the true representative of that name. So much for one who calls himself a Christian being the true representative of that name. The only ones who represents that name is Jesus Christ himself. And those who are in Christ benefit from being in the one who’s name is above all other names.

If you want to call yourself by a name, why don’t you call yourself a Jesusian? That’s the name above every name. That’s the name of the person in whom is eternal life. Why call yourself by a name that could refer to anyone that believes himself to be anointed or the anointed one or following same?

Christian isn’t even a name. It’s a title that refers to someone who has, or considers himself to have, a special anointing from God. Anyone can use the title. But only the one who is in Christ knows the one to whom the title Christ really belongs to. And anyone who wishes to refer to himself by a title is free to use the term Christian. But in the view I present, such a one loses more than he gains if he doesn’t understand the term or puts more meaning into the term than is necessary.

Mark 13:
21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it.
22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect— if that were possible.
23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
(NIV)

Matthew adds,

Matthew 24:
26 "So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 "Immediately after the distress of those days"’the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
(NIV)

Know whom it is you have believed. Follow him. Don’t follow Christianity. It’s just a man-made historical institution. Don’t follow one of the denominations within. Follow the living one who is supposed to be your Lord and your Saviour. Then it matters not where you are. Which “Church†you find yourself affiliated with. You can overcome where you are. Hear what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia, and walk by that Spirit where you are. Knowing this, that if a Spirit tells you to hop over to another Church simply because it’s more in line with your own understanding of things; you’re either hearing a false spirit or yourself.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

CyberJosh

Jethro is right in his assessment of what Peter said about it.
So Christians were named after this very distinctly titled man, Jesus, with the title "Christos" or "The anointed one". So the name Christian would bear the meaning "those like the anointed one" which cannot be just generically applied as can be seen from the immediate context of whom it clearly referred to, Jesus (though the video noted previously priests or even furniture could be anointed), yet surely the name was used from the perspective of recognizing Jesus as THE true anointed ONE from God who was promised in Isaiah and the prophets. 'Christian' is a unique title which I think sets us apart. Calling one's self a Christ-follower or follower of Jesus is no different in my opinion.

Well, I’m not surprised that a Christian would think that way. I just happen to disagree as a former Christian. As a non-Christian what you say wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans to me. But as a former Christian, it concerns me greatly.

You are relying on a modern English dictionary to tell you the meaning of a first century Greek word that is used in inspired Scripture? I don't care what the modern perception of 'Christian' is, I care how it was used originally.

I’m surprised at such a closed minded view from you. The terms Christian and Christianity mean what they mean. Try to accept that.

Equally I don't care what people think the ekklesia is today (some would say a location that has pews in it), but rather I care what Scripture said about what it is, when it was written 2,000 years ago. Time shouldn't change the truths of scripture, although our perceptions may be molded by our upbringing and the time we were born into.

Then you should care what the NT writers said about it. And the difference between what they said about the ekklesia vs. what modern Churches of Christianity are today.

That much I at least ask for a plea of reasonableness on.

And I would ask the same of you.


Nevertheless, I found the YouTube post quite informative. And it only served to make me more certain of the view that I present. I’m only surprised he didn’t take what he said to its logical conclusion. That those who are in Christ are anointed ones. By virtue of being in Christ and by virtue of the Spirit within that is their seal.

FC

 

[Elijah674]

There was a farmer who early in Spring planted. He was an anxious and fearful sort and by the time Summer came, he wondered what could come of all his good work. There was nothing edible here. Some weeds had grown up and matured, but that was about it. Was that sufficient reason for the crop itself to "abandon ship" and seek to relocate themselves back into the wild?

There is only One body, one baptism, one faith and one mediator - the man, Christ Jesus, the messiah. I don't know how to "get there" without Him.

It makes no sense for any to remove themselves prior to the fulfilment of the promise that we will be betrothed forever in righteousness, in justice, in lovingkindness, in compassion and even betrothed (us to Him) in faithfulness. That is still the promise that God (who can not lie) has uttered.

All the promises of God pertaining to Salvation are CONDITIONAL from day one on! See Acts 5:32 for the STARTING POINT.

And it was satan that QUOTED Christ's WORD back to Him almost Word for Word in Matt. 4:6, which came from Psalms 91:11-12. And what was wrong with the PROMISE?? It 'LACKED THE ETERNAL CONDITION!'

--Elijah