What Is Christianity?

[sojourner4Christ]

Paul does not correct Agrippa when he refers to becoming a 'Christian':

28 Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian." 29 And Paul said, "I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains." (Acts 26:28-29 NASB)

Why would. Paul ”correct Agrippa”? There’s no warrant for it, as Agrippa was an unbeliever, Agrippa was of. the world -- the very same place from which the word “Christian” originated. The worldly Agrippa is merely speaking in the worldly manner to which he is accustomed. Jesus was called names as well, yet he did not “correct” them. Both Paul and Jesus minced no words; they did not mix the holy with the world’s profane; they continued to declare the truth; they gave no life to the dead thing.

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...

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."

15 Make sure that none * of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; 16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name." (1 Peter 4:15-16 NASB)

Honestly, it seems you just don't want to do what Peter said. You are ashamed to suffer as a Christian (he said not to be ashamed) and you do not want to "glorify God in this name" (you want to glorify God in another name).

This .born again believer is not “ashamed,” your accusation notwithstanding. While I do understand why you said it (the accuser is the one who would appear "ashamed"), yours is a non sequitur, as it has no connection with the topic. Rather, this is about being wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, as we would sharpen our witness. As I said earlier, when was the last time you used "Jesus Christ" in your witness, to the exclusion of the world's label of "Christian"? We do indeed have the scriptural precedent.

(Edited and removed. Response to a deleted post. Obadiah)
.
.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I will have to admit, My Jury is still out on this one. Pretty sad, considering the revelation I have and what I know. I can't let religion creep in at any cost. So my Jury is still out.

Jesus was made sin, who did not know sin.
2Co_5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Well, all of mankind's sin was put on Him, He bore the punishment, the sickness, the sorrow we deserved here and now, and in the life to come.

No scripture says he spiritually died though. He went to hell because that is where everyone had to go anyway. Not because of sin, you had to go to Abraham's bosom. Jesus had no choice, in that matter dying as a man.

In my reasoning, You don't go to Hell, preach to the spirits captive there, kick the devils butt and take the keys of death and hell away being spiritually dead. A spiritually dead person can't do all that.

Col_1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Jesus was the "Firstborn" from the dead. Does not use the term "Born again" If he was the firstborn from the dead, then we are the 2nd, 33rd, and our number is in there somewhere. We don't taste death though. Just born again.

Rev_1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus was dead, and if we don't add a spiritual spin on this, then He was dead because they crucified him. He had to be alive and kicking to grab the keys of hell and death though spiritually.

Jesus said let the dead bury the dead. So we are considered dead, until born again. That would explain how we are the 3rd and so fourth firstborn.

Was Jesus ever Born again?

Well, He never sinned, and who would He get born again under? Scripture never says he was Born again.

I have to lean on the side that He did not die spiritually, despite being made sin. The spiritually dead don't preach, set captives free, and kick the devils butt all in 3 days.

blessings.

That my Brother is a beautiful case for the, absolute, truth.

Great post.

 

[Brother Mike]

His trip to hades was His soul preaching to the fallen angels and emptying paradise to bring all believers to heaven with Him, while His body was in the grave and His Spirit was with the Father in heaven.

Well, 3 hours of darkness or not. Despite being made sin, despite being forsaken of the father. ZERO scripture that He died in a spiritual sense.
We have to add that to scripture and adding to scripture is bad, bad, bad.

Now we might examine what it spiritually means to be forsaken by God the Father. To be separated. Does being separated from the giver of life, make something dead spiritually? Paul said they are in everlasting destruction, separated from the glory of God. Is that the cause of being spiritually dead? Or do you have to be dead just to get to such a place? It would appear before.

Add what you want, I don't make assumptions concerning the Word. Why I said my Jury is still out.

Also, pneuma is not aggelos, and not translated Angel. Angels are not heirs of salvation, but judged right away with no more thought. Not sure how that got mixed up for you. Would be no need for Jesus through the Holy Spirit (NOT SOUL) go preach to them.

Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
(Heb 1:14)

 

[Jesse Stone]

(Post removed, response to a deleted portion of a post. Obadiah.)

 

[th1b.taylor]

His substitutionary Spiritual death(His perfect humanity being separated from the Father when Sin was judged) was the three hours of darkness on the cross.
Mark 15:33~~New American Standard Bible
When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour.

His trip to hades was His soul preaching to the fallen angels and emptying paradise to bring all believers to heaven with Him, while His body was in the grave and His Spirit was with the Father in heaven.

Luke 23:46~~New American Standard Bible
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He breathed His last.

Eph 4~~…8Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."9(Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?10He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.

I, mistakenly, believed you were on the right track. You are still practicing the mechanics of the Heretic when you extract scripture from it's, God, given context. I thought you had understood with the example of Psalm 22.

Mark 15:33 illustrates God's power over everything we know and understand and in the flow of the context we are given an example of God's closeness to mankind and His grief over our suffering but, in no way does it illustrate Jesus' Spiritual Death, the death He could not have suffered because He is the Second Person of the God Head. Mike was more wise than I for holding back. Your statement on this verse has nothing to do with, some mythical, Spiritual Death of God, either.

Luke 23:46 is a,very, nice note of the relationship Jesus has and Jesus wanted for us to have and to seek after but it has naught to do with, some, Spiritual Death of God. You have removed it from it's context, violating Hermeneutics and Common Sense.

And finally Eph 4:8 thru 10, out of context, of course, but having to do with Spiritual Death? I will need much, much, more sales mumbo jumbo before I can, ever, consider this, somehow having to do with the spiritual Death of a member of the Triune God.

I'm sorry but you are, in no manor, making your case by dragging scripture into an imaginary premise.

 

[Free]

Religion = piety. We’ve already shown with scripture that Jesus never started a religion via John 7:16. (So who did?)

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with piety but religion is more than just piety; Christianity is a religion and there is nothing wrong with that. Secondly, the verse you gave does absolutely nothing to either prove or disprove that "Jesus never started a religion."

I never said it was “wrong.”

You very strongly imply that it is.

That’s your opinion. Do you have any scripture (re: forum rules) or other facts to support your claim?

Firstly, your asking of me for support in itself supports the fact that you think there is something wrong with the word 'Christian,' despite your attempt to deny that. Secondly, there is no support needed for my assertion. Thirdly, if you read what you posted, you would see support there. Read the very last sentence from your quote of Watson's Bible Dictionary; it completely undoes your whole argument.

Did you not read my post in its entirety? Rather I’ve shown you both scriptural and historical records. Do you have any scripture (re: forum rules) or other facts to support your denial?

There is no Scriptural support for your assertion, so there is no Scriptural support that can be given to prove it wrong. And you gave only one historical record, and it doesn't support your argument. What you have mostly given are other men's opinions, so I will give one as well:

Acts 11:26
Were called Christians (χρηματίσαι Χριστιανούς)
The former of these two words, rendered were called, meant, originally, to transact business, to have dealings with; thence, in the course of business, to give audience to, to answer, from which comes its use to denote the responses of an oracle; a divine advice or warning. See Act_10:22; and compare Mat_2:12; Heb_11:7. Later, it acquires the meaning to bear a name; to be called, with the implication of a name used in the ordinary transactions and intercourse of men; the name under which one passes. This process of transition appears in the practice of naming men according to their occupations, as, in English, "John the Smith," "Philip the Armorer;" a practice which is the origin of many familiar family names, such as Butler, Carpenter, Smith, Cooper. Compare in New Testament Alexander the coppersmith (2Ti_4:14); Matthew the publican (Mat_10:3); Luke the physician (Col_4:14); Erastus the chamberlain (Rom_16:23); Rahab the harlot (Heb_11:31). In the same line is the use of the word calling, to denote one's business. The meaning of the word in this passage is illustrated by Rom_7:3.

The disciples were called. They did not assume the name themselves. It occurs in only three passages in the New Testament: here; Act_26:28; and 1Pe_4:16; and only in the last-named passage is used by a Christian of a Christian. The name was evidently not given by the Jews of Antioch, to whom Christ was the interpretation of Messiah, and who wouldn't have bestowed that name on those whom they despised as apostates. The Jews designated the Christians as Nazarenes (Act_24:5), a term of contempt, because it was a proverb that nothing good could come out of Nazareth (Joh_1:47), The name was probably not assumed by the disciples themselves; for they were in the habit of styling each other believers, disciples, saints, brethren, those of the way. It, doubtless, was bestowed by the Gentiles. Some suppose that it was applied as a term of ridicule, and cite the witty and sarcastic character of the people of Antioch, and their notoriety for inventing names of derision; but this is doubtful. The name may have been given simply as a distinctive title, naturally chosen from the recognized and avowed devotion of the disciples to Christ as their leader. The Antiochenes mistook the nature of the name, not understanding its use among the disciples as an official title - the Anointed - butusing it as a personal name, which they converted into a party name.

If the provided scripture ref’s and historical ref’s are not a “real basis” for you, then what would be?

Nothing you gave actually supports what you have said. The most we can say is that Gentiles were likely the first to call the followers of Christ, "Christians". We cannot say with any certainty that it was meant derogatorily, apart from making certain assumptions, but even if it was, it is of no consequence.

It doesn't say they called each other. that name. On the contrary; who called them "Christians"? Called "Christians" by whom? (Hint: see post #43).

This is irrelevant. Shall we go through the entirety of Scripture and figure out which words were first used by non-Christians and count them as to be discarded as well?

Again, there is nothing wrong with the word "Christian" or its use.

 

[gr8grace3]

I, mistakenly, believed you were on the right track. You are still practicing the mechanics of the Heretic when you extract scripture from it's, God, given context. I thought you had understood with the example of Psalm 22.

Mark 15:33 illustrates God's power over everything we know and understand and in the flow of the context we are given an example of God's closeness to mankind and His grief over our suffering but, in no way does it illustrate Jesus' Spiritual Death, the death He could not have suffered because He is the Second Person of the God Head. Mike was more wise than I for holding back. Your statement on this verse has nothing to do with, some mythical, Spiritual Death of God, either.

Luke 23:46 is a,very, nice note of the relationship Jesus has and Jesus wanted for us to have and to seek after but it has naught to do with, some, Spiritual Death of God. You have removed it from it's context, violating Hermeneutics and Common Sense.

And finally Eph 4:8 thru 10, out of context, of course, but having to do with Spiritual Death? I will need much, much, more sales mumbo jumbo before I can, ever, consider this, somehow having to do with the spiritual Death of a member of the Triune God.

I'm sorry but you are, in no manor, making your case by dragging scripture into an imaginary premise.

This is not new teaching. Its just being forgotten about in this "physical" world. From Ronald W. Leigh, Ph.D............

Death is essentially a separation. A person's body is dead when his spirit is separated from it (James 2:26), or, using the language adopted by both Paul and Peter, when he moves out of his "tent" (2 Corinthians 5:1-4; 2 Peter 1:13). Similarly, a person's spirit is dead when his spirit is separated from God (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

In our day to day discussions about the physical death and the spiritual death of Christ, we often roll these two events into one. It is often assumed that Christ's spiritual death occurred during the time of his physical death, either occupying that complete time, or perhaps occupying a portion of that time.

Consider the fact that Jesus said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is a quotation from Psalm 22:1, part of a psalm of David in which he desperately cries out to the Lord. The psalm contains some remarkable parallels to Jesus' crucifixion, including the scorn (verse 6), mockery (verse 7), tauntings (verse 8), and casting lots for clothing (verse 18). In speaking about being forsaken by God, Jesus was expressing his identification with fallen man. And that identification was never more complete than when he carried man's sin and was separated from the Father. Earlier in his earthly life he had identified completely with man by becoming a man. Now he is identifying completely with fallen man by taking on man's sin and suffering the sinner's penalty!

It is significant for our present discussion that, in the two passages which record this remarkable statement of Jesus (Matthew 27:45-46; Mark 15:33-34), the statement is closely associated with the report of the darkness. This darkness is described as a miraculous event in which "the sun stopped shining" (Luke 23:45). It is not described as a storm. Nor can it be an eclipse, for Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover (John 19:14-16), which always occurred on the 14th day of the month Nisan. The Jewish religious calendar was a lunar calendar and its first month, Nisan, began at the time of a new moon. Thus, at the middle of the month the moon was full (that is, on the opposite side of the earth from the sun) making a solar eclipse impossible. This linkage between Jesus' indication that he was forsaken by the Father and the supernatural darkness suggests that the actual spiritual death of Jesus occurred during this period of darkness, which lasted "from the sixth hour until the ninth hour," that is, from noon until 3:00 pm, the three hours immediately preceding his physical death.

On his website, Will Pounds cites Carroll's comments regarding the timing of Christ's spiritual death.

B. H. Carroll said, “Just before that darkness passed away, closing the ninth hour, Christ died the spiritual death. Right on the very edge of that deeper darkness came another voice. His words were, ‘I thirst.’ This shows His soul was under going the pangs of hell, just as the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments and said, ‘I pray the Father Abraham send Lazarus that he might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’” Jesus Christ was enduring the torment of hell for a lost world! (www.abideinchrist.com/messages/mat2745.html)

Pounds also quotes Warren Wiersbe's comment about the darkness.

It was during the time of darkness that Jesus had been made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). He had been forsaken by the Father! That darkness was a symbol of the judgment that He endured when He was “made a curse” for us (Gal. 3:13). (www.abideinchrist.com/messages/mat27v46.html)

Hindson concurs:

God's wrath was poured upon His Son during this time of darkness. At the ninth hour (3:00 P.M.) Jesus cried: ... My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Here we have the high cost of the atonement to Christ, who was accursed of God for us as our sin-bearer ... and suffered the agony of spiritual death for us. (Liberty Commentary on the New Testament, Liberty Press, 1978, comments on Matthew 27:45-46)

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with piety but religion is more than just piety; Christianity is a religion and there is nothing wrong with that. Secondly, the verse you gave does absolutely nothing to either prove or disprove that "Jesus never started a religion."

Religion and piety have nothing to do with the reality of Jesus Christ and his bloodwork. The verse I gave proves that Jesus did not start anything, let alone a "religion, as he could do only the will of the Father. Perhaps you'd like to show us with scripture where the Father, then, started a "religion" and/or a Piety Club?

Firstly, your asking of me for support in itself supports the fact that you think there is something wrong with the word 'Christian,' despite your attempt to deny that.

We’re talking about strengthening our witness, not whether a word is “wrong” or not. (Edited, ToS 2.4, unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah)

Secondly, there is no support needed for my assertion.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness. Obadiah)

Thirdly, if you read what you posted, you would see support there. Read the very last sentence from your quote of Watson's Bible Dictionary; it completely undoes your whole argument.

Here’s that last sentence you referred to:

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."

...as you likewise have "generally accepted it" today? IOW, it’s irrelevant; that sentence does nothing to detract from my “argument” and adds nothing to your opinion.

Acts 11:26... [opinion/commentary]

Beautiful! The info there goes even further in proving my point.

Let’s look closer. My comments are in red text:

Were called Christians (χρηματίσαι Χριστιανούς)
The former of these two words, rendered were called, meant, originally, to transact business, to have dealings with; thence, in the course of business, to give audience to, to answer, This is how the world makes its attachment to us, i.e. when we step into commerce, we give up our vested standing in Christ and “transact business” with the world, making filthy lucre of the man of God. from which comes its use to denote the responses of an oracle; a divine advice or warning. It certainly IS a “divine warning”! Read all nine appearances of it in scripture for yourself here--> http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5537&t=KJV

See Act_10:22; and compare Mat_2:12; Heb_11:7. Later, it acquires the meaning to bear a name; to be called, with the implication of a name used in the ordinary transactions and intercourse of men; the name under which one passes. Indeed! i.e. the name is a “pass” for those engaged in “transactions and intercourse” i.e commerce. The giving of names is an act of dominion; which, therefore, parents do to their children. This is why Almighty God promises to give his children new names (Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 2:17;3:12). According to the custom of slaves, masters impose new names upon their slaves, as a sign of servitude. This change of names is a mark of their dominion and authority over them. According to the custom of conquerors, they changed the names of the great men they took captives in war, in token of their supremacy. If somebody (i.e., kings, governments, masters, etc.) wants to acquire jurisdiction over you, the first thing they must do is re-name you; to mark you as their property. That’s the first thing that king Nebuchadnezzar did with Daniel and the three young men he brought into his kingdom. He re-named them, so that he would be able to have, or acquire, jurisdiction over them (Daniel 1:7). But all he had was jurisdiction over the name that he created. Had the young men not answered to that name, then there would be no substance behind the form that he created. Only when you answer to a name do you give life to it, otherwise it’s a dead thing. This process of transition appears in the practice of naming men according to their occupations, as, in English, "John the Smith," "Philip the Armorer;" a practice which is the origin of many familiar family names, such as Butler, Carpenter, Smith, Cooper. Compare in New Testament Alexander the coppersmith (2Ti_4:14); Matthew the publican (Mat_10:3); Luke the physician (Col_4:14); Erastus the chamberlain (Rom_16:23); Rahab the harlot (Heb_11:31). Yep. In the same line is the use of the word calling, to denote one's business. Again, “business,” over which Caesar has full jurisdiction. The meaning of the word in this passage is illustrated by Rom_7:3.

The disciples were called. They did not assume the name themselves. Of course. A true man of God would not accept a name from one of the world. To do so would place the disciple under another’s authority. It occurs in only three passages in the New Testament: here; Act_26:28; and 1Pe_4:16; and only in the last-named passage is used by a Christian of a Christian. This comment is an assumption, not a fact i.e. the commentator assumes that the user would call himself "Christian;" the commentator should know better. The name was evidently not given by the Jews of Antioch, to whom Christ was the interpretation of Messiah, and who wouldn't have bestowed that name on those whom they despised as apostates. The Jews designated the Christians as Nazarenes (Act_24:5), a term of contempt, because it was a proverb that nothing good could come out of Nazareth (Joh_1:47), The name was probably not assumed by the disciples themselves; for they were in the habit of styling each other believers, disciples, saints, brethren, those of the way. Now that was a good “habit,” because it is the truth as per scripture, whereas “Christian,” as we have learned, was not. It, doubtless, was bestowed by the Gentiles. Some suppose that it was applied as a term of ridicule, and cite the witty and sarcastic character of the people of Antioch, and their notoriety for inventing names of derision; but this is doubtful. The name may have been given simply as a distinctive 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! naturally chosen from the recognized and avowed devotion of the disciples to Christ as their leader. “chosen”? Chosen for them by whom is the $64,000 question... The Antiochenes mistook the nature of the name, not understanding its use among the disciples as an official title - the Anointed - but using it as a personal name, which they converted into a party name. Yep, from “official” to “personal” to “party”, the name/naming and the authority integral with it is the agenda.

This is irrelevant. Shall we go through the entirety of Scripture and figure out which words were first used by non-Christians and count them as to be discarded as well?

There’s nothing to “figure out,” as it’s all quite clear, thanks in no small part to the confirming commentary you posted.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the word "Christian" or its use.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness and personal attack. Obadiah)

 

[th1b.taylor]

This is not new teaching. Its just being forgotten about in this "physical" world. From Ronald W. Leigh, Ph.D............

Death is essentially a separation. A person's body is dead when his spirit is separated from it (James 2:26), or, using the language adopted by both Paul and Peter, when he moves out of his "tent" (2 Corinthians 5:1-4; 2 Peter 1:13). Similarly, a person's spirit is dead when his spirit is separated from God (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

2Thes. 1:9 who will pay the penalty: eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, [WEB]
I read this in and out of it's Chapter Context and as kind as I have tried to be, you have crossed over into Heresy, the very thing I feared you might. It is also most notable that you did not even make an attempt to tie the wording into you Heretical Teaching but just slung it out there and it appears, hoping or believing none would look.

In our day to day discussions about the physical death and the spiritual death of Christ, we often roll these two events into one. It is I often assumed that Christ's spiritual death occurred during the time of his physical death, either occupying that complete time, or perhaps occupying a portion of that time.

There you go with the off the cuff remarks that have no origin in reality. I am part of the Collective We, mentioned as Our in the text highlighted by me and it has never been normal in my daily life to present such heresy as truth, worthy of discussion. In all of my efforts on the Web, in the Church, in the Texas Penal System and all my works on the streets and at work, I have never heard such a dangerous thought taught, discussed nor preached.

You dreamed this up, at best and that is being kind, and you inject it here as if it establishes your point... it doesn't.

Consider the fact that Jesus said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is a quotation from Psalm 22:1, part of a psalm of David in which he desperately cries out to the Lord. The psalm contains some remarkable parallels to Jesus' crucifixion, including the scorn (verse 6), mockery (verse 7), tauntings (verse 8), and casting lots for clothing (verse 18). In speaking about being forsaken by God, Jesus was expressing his identification with fallen man. And that identification was never more complete than when he carried man's sin and was separated from the Father.

Here you go again teaching the 22nd Psalm out of it's context, in fact, ignoring it's context. This is not a psalm that takes ten days for some to read it. It is not the shortest Psalm but it is short enough that the end almost kisses the beginning and must be read that way and will only, ever, be understood that way.

The mistake creeps in here when men lie and say that the Bible has about 40 authors. The Bible has one author, God, and he inspired 40 men or in today's words, He dictated it to about 40 men who became His, personal, scribes/secretaries. When my mind was sharper I knew all three address' I'm about to speak on. But three times in scripture, the first in Leviticus or Numbers, the last at the tail end of the Revelation of the Christ and the third one should be easily found with any copy of the Thompson's Chain Reference but it is between the two I've mentioned and God warns every man, that means man or woman, to never add to nor to ever remove a single word from the Word of God, or that man will suffer the very worst of curses from the hand of the Father.

You tread here, on very dangerous ground.

Earlier in his earthly life he had identified completely with man by becoming a man. Now he is identifying completely with fallen man by taking on man's sin and suffering the sinner's penalty!

Did Christ become as Bill Taylor, the drunken, pot smoking Country and Western Singer of low note and worth? NO,NO,NO! Christ took my sin on Him to become sin for me that He, The Holy God, could pay the penalty He required as payment for all the drugs, liquor, sex, lies, thefts and other stuff I did. He suffered miserably under that load but He was never like me! Kill me to pay for your sins and you get one useless carcass you must bury or burn and a long term in the pen... if your lucky. Christ was not nor will He ever e like me.

And here you are, presenting your words and thoughts as equal or superior to the Word of God, heresy.

It is significant for our present discussion that, in the two passages which record this remarkable statement of Jesus (Matthew 27:45-46; Mark 15:33-34), the statement is closely associated with the report of the darkness. This darkness is described as a miraculous event in which "the sun stopped shining" (Luke 23:45). It is not described as a storm. Nor can it be an eclipse, for Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover (John 19:14-16), which always occurred on the 14th day of the month Nisan. The Jewish religious calendar was a lunar calendar and its first month, Nisan, began at the time of a new moon. Thus, at the middle of the month the moon was full (that is, on the opposite side of the earth from the sun) making a solar eclipse impossible. This linkage between Jesus' indication that he was forsaken by the Father and the supernatural darkness suggests that the actual spiritual death of Jesus occurred during this period of darkness, which lasted "from the sixth hour until the ninth hour," that is, from noon until 3:00 pm, the three hours immediately preceding his physical death.

I must admit, you are driven! However, step back, loose all preconception and reread the portion. This is all pure speculation roasted until done of a duel fired scriptural bar-be-que pit. Heresy from the heart of Satan, sold with two scriptures added to lend it credibility while having, exactly, nothing to do with the myth of God's Spiritual Death.

For any youngsters that might stumble over this discussion, Spiritual Death is eternal separation from God. Jesus was and Jesus is God and He is now in Heaven with Father God, He is not separated from the Father at all.

On his website, Will Pounds cites Carroll's comments regarding the timing of Christ's spiritual death.

B. H. Carroll said, “Just before that darkness passed away, closing the ninth hour, Christ died the spiritual death. Right on the very edge of that deeper darkness came another voice. His words were, ‘I thirst.’ This shows His soul was under going the pangs of hell, just as the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments and said, ‘I pray the Father Abraham send Lazarus that he might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’” Jesus Christ was enduring the torment of hell for a lost world! (www.abideinchrist.com/messages/mat2745.html)

Pounds also quotes Warren Wiersbe's comment about the darkness.

It was during the time of darkness that Jesus had been made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). He had been forsaken by the Father! That darkness was a symbol of the judgment that He endured when He was “made a curse” for us (Gal. 3:13). (www.abideinchrist.com/messages/mat27v46.html)

Hindson concurs:

God's wrath was poured upon His Son during this time of darkness. At the ninth hour (3:00 P.M.) Jesus cried: ... My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Here we have the high cost of the atonement to Christ, who was accursed of God for us as our sin-bearer ... and suffered the agony of spiritual death for us. (Liberty Commentary on the New Testament, Liberty Press, 1978, comments on Matthew 27:45-46)

Heresy. None of these quotes you treasure establish with anything other than conjscture that Jesus/God died the spiritual death and to prove He is not separated, eternally, from Father God. Mark 16:19 proves Jesus did not die the Spiritual, Eternal, Death because, right now, He is seated at the right hand of Father God.

 

[Free]

Religion and piety have nothing to do with the reality of Jesus Christ and his bloodwork. The verse I gave proves that Jesus did not start anything, let alone a "religion, as he could do only the will of the Father. Perhaps you'd like to show us with scripture where the Father, then, started a "religion" and/or a Piety Club?


We’re talking about strengthening our witness, not whether a word is “wrong” or not. (Edited, ToS 2.4, unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah)


(Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness. Obadiah)


Here’s that last sentence you referred to:


...as you likewise have "generally accepted it" today? IOW, it’s irrelevant; that sentence does nothing to detract from my “argument” and adds nothing to your opinion.


Beautiful! The info there goes even further in proving my point.

Let’s look closer. My comments are in red text:

Were called Christians (χρηματίσαι Χριστιανούς)
The former of these two words, rendered were called, meant, originally, to transact business, to have dealings with; thence, in the course of business, to give audience to, to answer, This is how the world makes its attachment to us, i.e. when we step into commerce, we give up our vested standing in Christ and “transact business” with the world, making filthy lucre of the man of God. from which comes its use to denote the responses of an oracle; a divine advice or warning. It certainly IS a “divine warning”! Read all nine appearances of it in scripture for yourself here--> http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5537&t=KJV

See Act_10:22; and compare Mat_2:12; Heb_11:7. Later, it acquires the meaning to bear a name; to be called, with the implication of a name used in the ordinary transactions and intercourse of men; the name under which one passes. Indeed! i.e. the name is a “pass” for those engaged in “transactions and intercourse” i.e commerce. The giving of names is an act of dominion; which, therefore, parents do to their children. This is why Almighty God promises to give his children new names (Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 2:17;3:12). According to the custom of slaves, masters impose new names upon their slaves, as a sign of servitude. This change of names is a mark of their dominion and authority over them. According to the custom of conquerors, they changed the names of the great men they took captives in war, in token of their supremacy. If somebody (i.e., kings, governments, masters, etc.) wants to acquire jurisdiction over you, the first thing they must do is re-name you; to mark you as their property. That’s the first thing that king Nebuchadnezzar did with Daniel and the three young men he brought into his kingdom. He re-named them, so that he would be able to have, or acquire, jurisdiction over them (Daniel 1:7). But all he had was jurisdiction over the name that he created. Had the young men not answered to that name, then there would be no substance behind the form that he created. Only when you answer to a name do you give life to it, otherwise it’s a dead thing. This process of transition appears in the practice of naming men according to their occupations, as, in English, "John the Smith," "Philip the Armorer;" a practice which is the origin of many familiar family names, such as Butler, Carpenter, Smith, Cooper. Compare in New Testament Alexander the coppersmith (2Ti_4:14); Matthew the publican (Mat_10:3); Luke the physician (Col_4:14); Erastus the chamberlain (Rom_16:23); Rahab the harlot (Heb_11:31). Yep. In the same line is the use of the word calling, to denote one's business. Again, “business,” over which Caesar has full jurisdiction. The meaning of the word in this passage is illustrated by Rom_7:3.

The disciples were called. They did not assume the name themselves. Of course. A true man of God would not accept a name from one of the world. To do so would place the disciple under another’s authority. It occurs in only three passages in the New Testament: here; Act_26:28; and 1Pe_4:16; and only in the last-named passage is used by a Christian of a Christian. This comment is an assumption, not a fact i.e. the commentator assumes that the user would call himself "Christian;" the commentator should know better. The name was evidently not given by the Jews of Antioch, to whom Christ was the interpretation of Messiah, and who wouldn't have bestowed that name on those whom they despised as apostates. The Jews designated the Christians as Nazarenes (Act_24:5), a term of contempt, because it was a proverb that nothing good could come out of Nazareth (Joh_1:47), The name was probably not assumed by the disciples themselves; for they were in the habit of styling each other believers, disciples, saints, brethren, those of the way. Now that was a good “habit,” because it is the truth as per scripture, whereas “Christian,” as we have learned, was not. It, doubtless, was bestowed by the Gentiles. Some suppose that it was applied as a term of ridicule, and cite the witty and sarcastic character of the people of Antioch, and their notoriety for inventing names of derision; but this is doubtful. The name may have been given simply as a distinctive 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! naturally chosen from the recognized and avowed devotion of the disciples to Christ as their leader. “chosen”? Chosen for them by whom is the $64,000 question... The Antiochenes mistook the nature of the name, not understanding its use among the disciples as an official title - the Anointed - but using it as a personal name, which they converted into a party name. Yep, from “official” to “personal” to “party”, the name/naming and the authority integral with it is the agenda.


There’s nothing to “figure out,” as it’s all quite clear, thanks in no small part to the confirming commentary you posted.


(Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness and personal attack. Obadiah)

There are only a few points needed to sum up:

1. The Gentiles were the first to call followers of Christ, "Christians."
2. The most we can say about that is that it was a title. With no certainty can we say it was a derogatory term.
3. Both points above are irrelevant to whether or not we should be using the term today to refer to followers of Christ.
4. The Bible says nothing about followers of Christ using the title, "Christian."
5. Your own support clearly states that the early Christians "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."
6. You stated, "A true man of God would not accept a name from one of the world." We can then conclude that you believe the early Christians weren't true people of God.

This whole side discussion is rather pointless. Even if I were to grant you that the word "Christian" was not accepted by early Christians--but I can't because of the proof you have given--words often change meaning over time.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

2. The most we can say about that is that it was a title.

And you don't see any conflict with a man/woman of God assuming a "title"???

...--words often change meaning over time.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Heb 13:8)

For I am the LORD, I change not... (Mal. 3:6)

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

 

[Free]

And you don't see any conflict with a man/woman of God assuming a "title"???

Of course not. There is no reason not to, biblical or otherwise. It would seem that I am in agreement with the early Christians.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Heb 13:8)

For I am the LORD, I change not... (Mal. 3:6)

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

None of this addresses the fact that many words change meaning over time. God doesn't change; meanings of words can and do.

 

[childeye]

Be careful and as Paul instructed, be like a Berean and check everything with the Word of God. G8G pulled Psa. 22 apart to get to this thought and scripture must never be treated that way. A very important rule of Hermeneutics and I call it the first rule is no single scripture, selection of scripture nor any collection of scripture can ever begin to be, properly, understood without the light of all other scripture shining on it.

Couple this with the common sense that used to be taught in school of never pull anything out of it's context and you will have a very solid and biblical method of understanding and please, never grow arrogant like most and believe "you" can interpret scripture. There is not a single human being in this world that can interpret what God has said without the indwelling of and submission to the Holy Spirit.

When Jesus quoted the first verse of the Psalm He invoked all of it and applied it, in itś entirety, to His physical self. I don't recall the book but when I studied the ancient customs of the First Century Period, I learned that invoking and applying a Psalm to one's life by quoting the first verse was not at all uncommon. And when we read th Psalm in itś entirety we see that when Jesus was in the grave, preaching and emptying Paradise (Matthew 27:50-53) the Father was watching and caring for him. Unlike Adam, a created man (Gen. chaps 1&2) Jesus, God in the Flesh of man, did not spiritually die. For Him to have died Spiritually He could not have been God because God is Eternal and we must never forget that.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I think all of your points are well made and I receive your sound advice. Yes scripture is not open to private interpretation, and I am always relying upon the holy Spirit to show me what He wants me to know, when He wants me to know it. Only He reveals and supplies is able to bring conviction without question. That does not mean someone else may know something I don't yet know. I simply am receiving Grace8 as I would want to be received, with humility and mutual respect.

There is often semantic confusion, and so I am not always certain I have understood what someone is saying or where they are coming from. For all I know Grace8 is simply saying that Jesus became sin so that we could become the righteousness of God. I am aware that God's Spirit is Eternal and He cannot die. In fact He is Life. Our languages however are sometimes inadequate in expressing Godly sentiments accurately, so I tend to first think that I may just be misunderstanding someone before I conclude they are wrong. And as I have already said, others might see things that I have yet to find out. Humility is the safe place, unless I am convinced I need to be bold.

Blessings to you and yours.

 

[gr8grace3]

2Thes. 1:9 who will pay the penalty: eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, [WEB]
I read this in and out of it's Chapter Context and as kind as I have tried to be, you have crossed over into Heresy, the very thing I feared you might. It is also most notable that you did not even make an attempt to tie the wording into you Heretical Teaching but just slung it out there and it appears, hoping or believing none would look.


There you go with the off the cuff remarks that have no origin in reality. I am part of the Collective We, mentioned as Our in the text highlighted by me and it has never been normal in my daily life to present such heresy as truth, worthy of discussion. In all of my efforts on the Web, in the Church, in the Texas Penal System and all my works on the streets and at work, I have never heard such a dangerous thought taught, discussed nor preached.

You dreamed this up, at best and that is being kind, and you inject it here as if it establishes your point... it doesn't.


Here you go again teaching the 22nd Psalm out of it's context, in fact, ignoring it's context. This is not a psalm that takes ten days for some to read it. It is not the shortest Psalm but it is short enough that the end almost kisses the beginning and must be read that way and will only, ever, be understood that way.

The mistake creeps in here when men lie and say that the Bible has about 40 authors. The Bible has one author, God, and he inspired 40 men or in today's words, He dictated it to about 40 men who became His, personal, scribes/secretaries. When my mind was sharper I knew all three address' I'm about to speak on. But three times in scripture, the first in Leviticus or Numbers, the last at the tail end of the Revelation of the Christ and the third one should be easily found with any copy of the Thompson's Chain Reference but it is between the two I've mentioned and God warns every man, that means man or woman, to never add to nor to ever remove a single word from the Word of God, or that man will suffer the very worst of curses from the hand of the Father.

You tread here, on very dangerous ground.


Did Christ become as Bill Taylor, the drunken, pot smoking Country and Western Singer of low note and worth? NO,NO,NO! Christ took my sin on Him to become sin for me that He, The Holy God, could pay the penalty He required as payment for all the drugs, liquor, sex, lies, thefts and other stuff I did. He suffered miserably under that load but He was never like me! Kill me to pay for your sins and you get one useless carcass you must bury or burn and a long term in the pen... if your lucky. Christ was not nor will He ever e like me.

And here you are, presenting your words and thoughts as equal or superior to the Word of God, heresy.


I must admit, you are driven! However, step back, loose all preconception and reread the portion. This is all pure speculation roasted until done of a duel fired scriptural bar-be-que pit. Heresy from the heart of Satan, sold with two scriptures added to lend it credibility while having, exactly, nothing to do with the myth of God's Spiritual Death.

For any youngsters that might stumble over this discussion, Spiritual Death is eternal separation from God. Jesus was and Jesus is God and He is now in Heaven with Father God, He is not separated from the Father at all.


Heresy. None of these quotes you treasure establish with anything other than conjscture that Jesus/God died the spiritual death and to prove He is not separated, eternally, from Father God. Mark 16:19 proves Jesus did not die the Spiritual, Eternal, Death because, right now, He is seated at the right hand of Father God.

Thanks Bill.

2 things that get overlooked.....
1. Jesus was 100% humanity and 100% deity in one person. Spiritual death happened in His humanity, not His deity. Physical death and spiritual death happened in His humanity, not His deity. You can't kill God. You can't separate deity. He dies a substitutionary spiritual death in our place as sins were judged. As bad as His physical death was, it was being separated from the Father(IN HIS PERFECT HUMANITY, not His deity) that paid the price for sins.

Would you rather be separated from the Father or die physically?

2. It was a substitutionary spiritual death of His HUMANITY. It lasted three hours on the cross and Jesus was back in the presence of the Father. That is where we can't say anything about, "Oh, he didnt do enough. why isn't he eternally separated from the father?" He was not eternally separated because He was perfect and He was a SUBSTITUTION for our spiritual death.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

This whole side discussion is rather pointless. Even if I were to grant you that the word "Christian" was not accepted by early Christians...

The issue is not whether the word “Christian” was accepted by early Christians. The issues are 1) whether our witness is more powerful when we witness using the words of truth i.e. Jesus Christ (the way, the truth, the life), or when we use the world’s label/title of “Christian;” and 2) what are the consequences of using one over the other.

--words often change meaning 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 the code.

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

As I replied earlier with scripture, 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: "Srange, 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 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.

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.

I have posted info that shows "Christian" is a title. You’ve admitted that “Christian” is a title. And speaking of law dictionaries, I took a look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary again, 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."

...continued...
.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

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!

So, the OP holds direct bearing on this “Christian” title issue and its person-ages (i.e. “Christianity.”) The purpose of these different legal person-alities is to humanize you. 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.

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.
.

 

[Obadiah]

Ok. that's about enough of the off topic discussion of the meaning of various words and changes to them over time. The subject of this thread is "What is Christianity" and by reading the OP it is obvious he is not asking for a discussion of the origin of the word or opinions on whether we should use the word today or not. We all know what someone means when they say the word "Christianity" so lets get back to the topic of describing (WITH SCRIPTURE) what Christianity is to us.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Thanks Bill.

2 things that get overlooked.....
1. Jesus was 100% humanity and 100% deity in one person. Spiritual death happened in His humanity, not His deity. Physical death and spiritual death happened in His humanity, not His deity. You can't kill God. You can't separate deity. He dies a substitutionary spiritual death in our place as sins were judged. As bad as His physical death was, it was being separated from the Father(IN HIS PERFECT HUMANITY, not His deity) that paid the price for sins.

Would you rather be separated from the Father or die physically?

I'm sorry, God became flesh and remained God, the second chair, as it were, and God has never been in the Lake of Fire nor shall He ever be. This could, very well, be your sticking point and the dividing line between heresy and truth. Just as I always advise I never seek to interpret scripture but just to understand and you have offered zero scripture to set your point as truth and I contend there is no truth here. And as for being separated from the Father, I spent the first forty-five years in that condition but in no manor do I compare to God.
Edit: Sorry Obidiah, I have offended also and will not discuss this any more except it be in a new string for that purpose.
You continue trying to parcel in many packages that which is one piece, it cannot be done.

2. It was a substitutionary spiritual death of His HUMANITY. It lasted three hours on the cross and Jesus was back in the presence of the Father. That is where we can't say anything about, "Oh, he didnt do enough. why isn't he eternally separated from the father?" He was not eternally separated because He was perfect and He was a SUBSTITUTION for our spiritual death.

He was my substitution on the Whipping Post and on the Cross that was mine but the Spiritual death after the sin of Adam was relegated to the Abyss and it is never ending. Your premise, coupled with this truth place Jesus in Hell awaiting the Judgment for a sentence of Eternal Damnation. You, honestly, need to do the extensive, study from the Nave's on Hell and Eternal punishment. Those studies will clear the issue for you better than I ever will.

 

[Malachi]

I wonder how far off we are from each other as to what we believe Christianity is.

The essence of Christianity is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1:29). Christian means "Christ One".

What you have mentioned is the Gospel, which is closely tied with this. And the word "killed" may be somewhat out of place. Christ willingly and voluntarily became the Lamb of God and offered Himself as a sacrifice unto God. And God the Father saw the Lamb slain FROM BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD (1 Pet 1:20). That is an amazing thought, i.e. that the Lamb was slain before the first man was created. Everything was already foreknown to God.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Two or three people have now mentioned that they don't like the word killed being used in the OP.
We like to say "he died for us".
It seems easier for us because we all die.
But he was killed.
Nobody can change that.