Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry

If John was not a Christian then he was not saved, i.e., a pagan. Either you are a Christian, a follower of Christ, or you are an unsaved pagan. There is no other choice. You said "A Christian is 'an anointed one.'" You are wrong. Christ means the "anointed one." He alone is the anointed one; there is none other. The word Christian simply means "follower of Christ." And John obviously was a follower of Christ. Indeed, he was a Christian. Christianity started with Christ!!!

Every Jew had to leave Jewish culture after they became a Christian. They had to leave all the Jewish feasts behind: the Passover, the feast of the Atonement, all the sacrifices, etc. They were no longer Jews. They were Christians. There were Christians in the Bible with Jewish backgrounds and Christians in the Bible with pagan backgrounds, and all the rest were unsaved--both Jews and Gentiles (pagans). Inasmuch as you cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time you cannot be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. You cannot serve two masters.

Driving a car is neither Jewish, Islamic, nor Christian. Your arguments are nonsensical. The type of food they ate had no bearing on their religion, except for the fact that God gave them even more liberty in the types of food that they were permitted to eat as seen in the vision that God gave Peter.

Are you saying that you are compelled to write that the Apostle John was simply Christianized and not a true Christian? He is the topic of this post isn't he?

 

I have to disagree with you on this. My wife was a Jew before she trusted Christ as Lord and Savior of her life. She is still a Jew to this day, but a born again Jew.

 

She may be a Jew by birth, by nationality. But is she a Jew religiously. Is her religion the Jewish religion? Does she keep all the feasts? the Passover? Atonement? Pentecost? Tabernacles? etc. Does she keep all of the Levitical law, ceremonnial law, dietary law, worship only on the Sabbath? etc., etc., Is she really a Jew??
Or if she is saved did she leave that religion of Judaism behind? You can't be both. You have to choose between one or the other. The Jews rejected Christ as their Messiah and clung to their Judaism instead.

 

She does not keep the Jewish ceremonies and laws, Brother. But, she is really a Jew nonetheless.

Her ethnicity did not change upon her conversion. Keeping all the rites and ceremonies did not make her a Jew, she was born a Jew. THe practice of such laws and keeping of the feasts did not add to her Jewishishness any more than if I started observing these laws and Feasts to a T would make me a Jew.

IOW, the ceremony was nothing but that... ceremony. It did not make here more of a Jew if she kept them.

 

The whole point of the Book of Ephesians is to teach that we are one in Christ. There is no more Jew; no more Greek; but that we are all one in Christ. He has broken down the middle wall of partition between us. To be blunt your post is somewhat racist (though I hate to use that term), and here is why:
Does that make me an Irish Christian?
My neighbor a German Christian?
Another neighbor a Chinese Christian?
Another neighbor an Indian Christian?
And another an aboriginal Christian, etc.,
So she is a Jewish Christian?

What you are doing is making it a matter of race. We are not speaking of nationality or race. We are speaking of religion. If she has not left the religion of the Jews then she is not saved. You cannot hold to both at the same time.

 

Where is the actual Bible quote for this???

Sounds like a "two gospel model" to me.

While you look for a text -- here is one that says you are mistaken.

Acts 21
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, ""You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;
21 and b]they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs[/b].

The charge leveled against Paul by CHRISTIAN Jews is that he is telling Jews (not simply Gentiles) to forsake Moses - to stop
"Being Jews" - to stop walking according to the customs/laws God gave to Moses. Notice that they do not accuse him of teaching THEM this error - NOR do they indicate that James or any of the other Apostles IN Jerusalem have taught them to "forsake Moses". This is key. Their only "concern" is "rumors" that Paul in ADDITION to his ministry to Gentiles has been telling those Jews who live OUT from Jerusalem AMONG the Gentiles - to "forsake Moses".

Many Christians today (who teach a 2-Gospel system) argue that these Christian Jews attacking Paul - are "Exactly RIGHT!". That Paul's ministry WAS to show that the laws given to Moses were abolished. That Christ nailed His LAW to the cross for ALL mankind. That nothing of the LAW given to Moses was applicable to ANYONE and this was the NEW Gospel available after the Cross. BOTH Jew and Gentile should consider it ABOLISHED, and those bad ol' Judaizers that did NOT consider it abolished were not really saved. IN this 2-Gospel system Grace and New Covenant Gospel replacing the Old Covenant method of Salvation in place for 4000 years prior to the cross. Christians argue that this is FOUNDATIONAL to the NT Gospel message and Paul has no choice but to fearlessly APPROVE of that kind of Gospel rather than deny it.

The wild claims go something like this

Now lets see if Paul agrees with that view of the Gospel.

Acts 21
22 ""What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 ""Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; [b]and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.[/b][/quote]

Notice the "recommendation" is to explicitly follow the Num 6:1-11 oath SHOWING in the eyes of all that Paul not only taught conformity to the OT text of scripture (God's Word) - but HE HIMSELF PRACTICED it. The saints in Jerusalem argued that this would be public VISIBLE PROOF that the charges made against Paul were false.


Paul confirms this a few times afterwards -- in fact every time he gets a chance.

Acts 23:4-9
Acts 24:14-18
Acts 25:8-11
Acts 26:20-23
Acts 28:17

 

Again, DHK, I have to disagree with you. Paul, even after his Damascus Road experience and conversion stated that he was a Jew twice... yet, he was saved.

Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

 

The wild claims go something like this

Now lets see if Paul agrees with that view of the Gospel.

Acts 21
22 ""What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 ""Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; [b]and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.[/b][/quote]

Notice the "recommendation" is to explicitly follow the Num 6:1-11 oath SHOWING in the eyes of all that Paul not only taught conformity to the OT text of scripture (God's Word) - but HE HIMSELF PRACTICED it. The saints in Jerusalem argued that this would be public VISIBLE PROOF that the charges made against Paul were false.


Paul confirms this a few times afterwards -- in fact every time he gets a chance.



Acts 23:4-9
6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"
7 As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
9 And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, "We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?"

This is amazing – Paul is so “Jewish” he claims “ I AM a Pharisee” and some of the non-Christian Pharisees consider Christianity to be so much a sect of Judaism that they can claim “WE find NOTHING wrong with this man”!!

Acts 24:14-18
13 "Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me.
14 "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;
15 having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.
16 "In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men.
17 "Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings;
18 in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar But there were some Jews from Asia--
19 who ought to have been present before you and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me.

Here Paul is not preaching “Two Gospels” rather HE claims to believe the scriptures – ALL of them and he also points out that Christianity is being considered a “sect” within Judaism – worshipping the same God – believing in and accepting the same scriptures!

Paul again makes reference to the OT purification ritual that he undertook to PROVE that he continued to follow the OT ceremonies.


Acts 25:8-11
Acts 25
8 </SPAN>while Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."

 

Acts 25:8-11
Acts 25
8 while Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."





--------------------------------------------

Many Christians today argue that the charges against Paul were TRUE to the last detail. IN their 2-Gospel Model New Covenant Gospel is the REPLACEMENT of the Mosaic law - it would be nothing short of heresy to publically engage in following the laws of Moses with the explicit PURPORSE of PROVING that NO SUCH replacement was being taught in the GOSPEL message just proclaimed and praised in Jerusalem by Paul's report.

Furthermore it would be hard to argue that Paul abandoned the Gospel for "fear" of threat/injury etc - since he CAME to Jerusalem ALREADY prepared to die for his faith - (see vs 13)

IF Christians today following a 2-Gospel model (in contradiction to Paul's teaching in Gal 1:6-11) were correct then the "Test" is to be found in Paul's response.

IF their Model is correct the consistent "confirming" response of Paul should have been something like this --

.

 

Far more devastating than " I am a Jew" --


Acts 23:4-9
6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"


Bottom line - you can't use Paul to prove that Jews should stop obeying the scriptures as we find them in the OT

But even more to the point - Paul is NOT arguing that Christianity is "a different religion"!

 

I am SFIC's wife. I am a born again, blood-washed Christian. I was born a Jew, was raised in Reform Judaism--the liberal branch of Judaism. My grandparents were Orthodox Jews from Russia. Reform Judaism is similar to liberal "professing" Christians. I was saved 33 years ago in a Presbyterian church in Loveland, Colorado. I was involved in the Messianic Jewish movement for about 8 years. Messianic Jews meet in their own Messianic congregations, don't consider themselves "Christians". They meet on Saturdays (Sabbath) for worship and most are Torah observant. Many Gentiles also attend these services and they stress that the"Jewishness" of the Gospel is more important than preaching the Gospel of Christ. As a matter of fact, we (Messianic Jews & Gentiles) are to use the name Yeshua Ha'mashiach instead of Jesus Christ.

I left the Messianic movement because of the legalism and the "works" salvation which was "pushed" on the Gentiles. It was Galatianism all over again. It is still going on in most Messianic congregations--and it is now being infiltrated by "another" gospel--the gospel of Hebrew Roots.

I call myself a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ/the Church. I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist. Messianic Jews do not like to hear the word "Christian" or "Church". Most believe that Sunday worship is pagan. Here is a great website which describes what is going on in the Messianic movement:

http://www.seekgod.ca/spreadingroots.htm

I cannot change my ethnicity--but as far as my religion, I do not practice Judaism...that is the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant has been done away with (that's what the entire book of Hebrews is about). As a matter of fact, my family was so liberal in their practice of Judaism, that I did not even know that I was Jewish until I was 8 years old. My grandparents came against the liberalism of their children and lowered the boom. Even after I found out that I was Jewish, we were like the 2 day a year Christian...the Christmas and Easter church goers. We were the 2 day a year Jews...the Rosh Hashanna and Passover synagogue goers!

I don't like the term "Jewish Christian"---a better term would be "I am a Christian who is ethnically Jewish". Saved Jews are sometimes called "completed/fulfilled" Jews, but that's a bad term also. I am a "new creature" in Christ Jesus.

I don't consider my husband's post racist at all. As long as we define our terms. My practice or non practice of the Jewish religion has nothing do with my Jewishness. I worked with a Jewish lady some years ago who professed to be a Buddhist! Many Jews (like my oldest son), profess to be atheists! Ethnicity has nothing to do with my faith in Christ. I didn't trust Christ 33 years ago because I was Jewish, I trusted Him because I realized I was a sinner in need of a Saviour. I floundered around in the Messianic Jewish movement for 8 years until Christ truly freed me!

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Jesus Christ is that Truth! Amen :godisgood: :jesus:

 

I know that you are SDA Bob, and therefore believe that one is required to keep the law, thus you come to this topic with your mind already made up with respect to the law and the gospel. As with all SDA's you believe in the legalism of the Jews. You have also made your case from the book of Acts but cannot back it up with a doctrinal book--one of Paul's epistles, for example. Acts is a book of history, a book of transition and change as far as the church was concerned. Even in the name of the book we get some idea of the purpose for which it was written: "The Acts of the Apostles." The title of the book is not written: "The doctrine of the Apostles."

 

Yes, I believe you are, and the way that you have expressed yourself is what I was trying to get across to SFIC.

 

DHK
If John was not a Christian then he was not saved, i.e., a pagan. Either you are a Christian, a follower of Christ, or you are an unsaved pagan. There is no other choice. You said "A Christian is 'an anointed one.'" You are wrong. Christ means the "anointed one." He alone is the anointed one; there is none other. The word Christian simply means "follower of Christ." And John obviously was a follower of Christ. Indeed, he was a Christian. Christianity started with Christ!!!

"Christian" is used to describe followers of Christ but literally means "little Christ". Since he is the annointed one as as you point out, we are little annointed ones. Surely you don't think he is the only annointed one for if you do you are sadly missing something.
I John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you"

Regarding the fact that John had not been annointed at the cross is clear:
Luke 24:49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

DHK
Driving a car is neither Jewish, Islamic, nor Christian. Your arguments are nonsensical. The type of food they ate had no bearing on their religion, except for the fact that God gave them even more liberty in the types of food that they were permitted to eat as seen in the vision that God gave Peter.

You must not remember the old Chevy ad from the 70's; sorry for assuming you would. I will post my quote from before so you can look at it again. My point was similar to what you said "The type of food they ate had no bearing on their religion". Sorry for the confusion.

Also, John probably never left Jewish culture after he became a believer. He would have left the old covenant behind for sure, but most likely still enjoyed the same foods, music, dress, etc. that made up his culture. Sadly, many Christians today have elevated Jewish culture to be spiritual. It is no more spiritual than "Hot Dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet". Their is no such thing as a "Christian" culture. Western, perhaps, but not Christian. Influenced by Christian teaching, perhaps, but not Christian.
DHK
Are you saying that you are compelled to write that the Apostle John was simply Christianized and not a true Christian? He is the topic of this post isn't he?

Here agian I am sorry for the confusion. I will re-post my words from before so you can look at them again. I clearly didn't say John had been "christianized" and will make it clear here by saying that he wasn't. To be "christianized" I mean doing things that people think are christian such as listening to certain types of music, wearing certain types of clothes, doing certain things on Sunday, etc. These things don't make a person a true Christian any more than eating hot dogs and apple pie or driving a Chevy would make a Russian an American.

Many people have been deceived into thinking they are Christians when they have merely been "christianized", ie. do christian things.
Hope that clears things up.

God bless

 

Where is the actual Bible quote for this???

Sounds like a "two gospel model" to me.

While you look for a text -- here is one that says you are mistaken.

Acts 21
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, ""You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;
21 and b]they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs[/b].

The charge leveled against Paul by CHRISTIAN Jews is that he is telling Jews (not simply Gentiles) to forsake Moses - to stop
"Being Jews" - to stop walking according to the customs/laws God gave to Moses. Notice that they do not accuse him of teaching THEM this error - NOR do they indicate that James or any of the other Apostles IN Jerusalem have taught them to "forsake Moses". This is key. Their only "concern" is "rumors" that Paul in ADDITION to his ministry to Gentiles has been telling those Jews who live OUT from Jerusalem AMONG the Gentiles - to "forsake Moses".

Many Christians today (who teach a 2-Gospel system) argue that these Christian Jews attacking Paul - are "Exactly RIGHT!". That Paul's ministry WAS to show that the laws given to Moses were abolished. That Christ nailed His LAW to the cross for ALL mankind. That nothing of the LAW given to Moses was applicable to ANYONE and this was the NEW Gospel available after the Cross. BOTH Jew and Gentile should consider it ABOLISHED, and those bad ol' Judaizers that did NOT consider it abolished were not really saved. IN this 2-Gospel system Grace and New Covenant Gospel replacing the Old Covenant method of Salvation in place for 4000 years prior to the cross. Christians argue that this is FOUNDATIONAL to the NT Gospel message and Paul has no choice but to fearlessly APPROVE of that kind of Gospel rather than deny it.

The wild claims go something like this

Where is the Bible quote for that POV? nowhere!

Now lets see if Paul agrees with that view of the Gospel.

Acts 21
22 ""What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 ""Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; [b]and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.[/b][/quote]

Notice the "recommendation" is to explicitly follow the Num 6:1-11 oath SHOWING in the eyes of all that Paul not only taught conformity to the OT text of scripture (God's Word) - but HE HIMSELF PRACTICED it. The saints in Jerusalem argued that this would be public VISIBLE PROOF that the charges made against Paul were false.


Paul confirms this a few times afterwards -- in fact every time he gets a chance.



In answer to the Question "Where is the Bible Quote" for the wild claim made about Jews having to stop being Jews...

Your solution of "trash SDAs and ignore the book of Acts" has never been considered a "compelling argument" for any POV that I can tell DHK - but I am pleased that this is the best you could do when asked for a Bible quote for the wild position you have taken here.

By contrast I accept Paul's Words to Timothy "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine and correction"

i am going to stick with the Bible on this one - but if you ever do come up with actual Bible arguments to present I will listen.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Note - once a person starts down the slice and dice road with scripture -- they don't just reject the evidence in the book of Acts. Soon the majority of scripture itself becomes "unnacceptable" for testing their wild doctrinal statements.

This is admittedly an extreme to which the "whatever is not repeated gets deleted" model can go -- and combined with the "ignore the book of acts for doctrinal correction" slice and dice it is truly instructive for the objective unbiased Bible student.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Both wrong -- but Trustit gets the most points:laugh:

The Christians never said "now we are Christians not Jews" In fact in Acts 15 BOTH Jewish AND Gentile Christians resort to the JEWISH christians in Jerusalem to settle their differences.

The correct history is that they were considered a SECT of Judaism. To the point that Paul was ASKED to speak in synagogues even AFTER following Christ and Paul CLAIMED to be a Pharisee AFTER accepting Christ.

Christ -- is greek for Messiah.. No CHANGE.

Christian was a derogatory name that meant "follower of the Messiah" Jesus Christ.

So at the foot of the Cross - John IS A JEW - John IS a Christian.

Ok wrong -- but you still get "some points" right.

Jewish culture today is not the same as scripture even in the OT. To the extent that tradition -- going beyond scripture is considered "holy" or authorotative -- you have error being practiced today.

But scripture "can not be broken".

Some people here may not consider the 39 books of the OT to BE valid scripture any more -- but that does not change the fact that scripture has 66 books not merely 27 and "Scripture can not be broken".

However - I am not sure how this dicussion is helping you in the mariolotry argument.

in Christ,

Bob

 

What caused the derailment of the topic is that I commented on Christ commiting His mother's care to John while on the Cross. I said something about Jewish Culture and of course, DHK made the absurd comment that John was no longer Jewish.

I guess since I'm Eastern Orthodox, I'm no longer American...:laugh:

ICXC NIKA
-

 

Ok -- and while I do find DHK's response innexplicable in the extreme -- how is your point about John being Jewish - helping with the topic of Mary?

So granted on the cross Christ speaks to John (who is Jewish, as is Christ and Mary) and gives His mother to John to care for her after the death of Christ. A good example for us in caring for our parents. That still seems like a long way from Mariolotry

in Christ,

Bob

 

And having passed the thirty page limit we will now close this thread. Please feel free to start another.