What makes someone a Christan?

[Stile]

When did I say that?



Put "Bible" in place of "Book of Mormon" and it is just as accurate. The Bible as we know it was compiled several centuries after Christ, even the earliest books came several decades later.

I think this explains the confusion. The second part of my post #93 was directed at Death Machine, who seems to be unaware of the Book of Mormon. I have no doubt you've read it, Eran.

It's odd to me that Mormons are so quick to denigrate the Bible.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It's odd to me that Mormons are so quick to denigrate the Bible.

It would be odd to me, too, if I had ever seen such a thing happen, even once. What you call "denigrating the Bible", I call "not being a fundamentalist".

 

[Stile]

It would be odd to me, too, if I had ever seen such a thing happen, even once. What you call "denigrating the Bible", I call "not being a fundamentalist".

Really! In my past conversations (which I really enjoyed) with Mormons (who are really nice people), everytime I had a question about their doctrine or the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, they would usually respond by "not being a fundamentalist", arguing that the bible had errors, wasn't translated properly, or was missing books.

Here I say the Book of Mormon was unknown to the first christians, and the response is the Bible was unknown and didn't exist for centuries. But old testament scripture did exist, and the rest was being written at the time and was certainly being discussed in the churches.

When you said earlier that Protestants and Catholics believe many things that aren't biblical, it doesn't help your cause. You only reveal the danger of not having a set Bible-based view of Jesus. Gnostics believed Jesus was just a thought experiment. Do they fit into anyone's definition of Christian? Extra-biblical stories of Jesus that have no firm reason for belief lead away from knowing the actual Jesus. I believe the real Jesus is knowable. You have to draw the line somewhere and I'm drawing it around the Bible, writings of people who actually knew Jesus, until some other book exists that wasn't literally drawn out of a hat and has evidence of authenticity.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Your interpretation of the Bible is the fundamentalist one (and I don't mean "fundamentalist" by the modern pejorative definition of the word, but the original one that people used to describe themselves) but there are many others. And whether a particular view is right or wrong doesn't have an impact, in my opinion, on whether the golder is or isn't Christian.

 

[Elta]

I would say that someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth:

atoned or saved us from our sins
resurrected from the dead
has a relationship to God that is different from the rest of humanity

is a Christian. Other beliefs are irrelevant. Actions are irrelevant in determining whether one is a Christian, although they do determine whether one is a good Christian. I would have trouble accepting as Christian someone who identifies as Christian but doesn't believe the above - there are lots of beliefs out there that place special emphasis on Jesus of Nazareth (including Islam and some schools of thought in Hinduism) but that are not by my view Christian.

I was basically trying to see if someone had to believe in the divinity of Jesus etc. I mean I like christ. I do my best to be christ like, but I don't call my self a christan.

Your answer is the way was taught as a kid anyway

 

[Bill3000]

Catholics arn't "biblical" either - they depend on tradition as well as biblical sources, and Trinitarian Protestants still depend on the tradition in order to stay orthodox on their Christology. The Nicene Creed is important, but it's not derived from the bible, but of various arguments made - the idea that everything must be in the bible is a novelty. Fundamentalism is a novelty.

 

[Elta]

Catholics arn't "biblical" either - they depend on tradition as well as biblical sources, and Trinitarian Protestants still depend on the tradition in order to stay orthodox on their Christology. The Nicene Creed is important, but it's not derived from the bible, but of various arguments made - the idea that everything must be in the bible is a novelty. Fundamentalism is a novelty.

I am aware of the big meeting to decide what does and doesn't go into the meeting, yes. I assume not all sects read all of the same books in the bible if any. Though I am pretty sure all sects have something the call the bible.

 

[Camikaze]

Aren't you Christian as long as you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and was resurrected?

I would say that someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth:

atoned or saved us from our sins
resurrected from the dead
has a relationship to God that is different from the rest of humanity

is a Christian.

Many Christians believe that resurrection is merely a metaphor for various things, such as everlasting life, or that it was made up by the writers of the gospels to fit the story (in a well intentioned way, as a tool to help the less educated understand the greatness of Jesus).

I think having a difference in theology is OK, as long as it is based on the Bible.

Many Christians do not take the Bible as all true, particularly the Old Testament, so having beliefs based on these sections that are not regarded as correct is the same as having beliefs based on non-biblical accounts.

Someone who beliefs in both the Old and the New Testaments, their prophets, the trinity and a requirement to accept Jesus Christ as the savior and redeemer of the world. Those are the basics and from there all bets are off.

The Old Testament was passed down through generations as an oral tradition, and therefore I find it very hard to believe that it is the word of God, especially when a lot of it blatantly contradicts the New Testament (not the other way around, as the New Testament was compiled in a much shorter time frame). Personally, the Old Testament hasn't been used at my church for years. Hence I don't think that it is necessary to believe it to be a Christian.

The Christian bible is a collection of texts that were at some point chosen to fit a specific doctrine.

Exactly. For instance, many 'non-canonical gospels' existed that aren't part of the Bible.

You have to draw the line somewhere and I'm drawing it around the Bible, writings of people who actually knew Jesus, until some other book exists that wasn't literally drawn out of a hat and has evidence of authenticity.

No-one who wrote the Old Testament knew Jesus.

There is debate over whether the apostle, Matthew, wrote the Gospel of Matthew, or whether it was just a collection of stories passed down orally to an author in the late first century AD. Luke the Evangelist, widely accepted as the writer of the Gospel of Luke, never met Jesus, and was an apostle of Paul. Paul himself never met Jesus, but has seven books in the New Testament. Also, as mentioned above, some other gospels not included existed. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas, written by Thomas, one of Jesus' twelve apostles. As you can see, the New Testament is not a collection of works by those who knew Jesus, and does not include works that may be more fitting of your description.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Many Christians believe that resurrection is merely a metaphor for various things, such as everlasting life, or that it was made up by the writers of the gospels to fit the story (in a well intentioned way, as a tool to help the less educated understand the greatness of Jesus).

Should they still be called Christians? I mean, I of all people don't want to exclude anyone, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and I don't think it should just be self-definition.

 

[Masquerouge]

Should they still be called Christians? I mean, I of all people don't want to exclude anyone, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and I don't think it should just be self-definition.

When the line has to be drawn, purple people are definitely out.

(cf Mitch Hedberg)

 

[Camikaze]

Should they still be called Christians? I mean, I of all people don't want to exclude anyone, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and I don't think it should just be self-definition.

I think they should. You could argue that a Christian is someone who believes things regarding Jesus' life and teachings (social justice, equality etc.), not his death.

It must be remembered that a vital aspect of Christianity is to question your beliefs in order to gain more insight into something, and therefore become a better person. In this regard, those that question the traditional belief that Jesus was sent to Earth to die for our sins (what does that really mean anyway?) should definitely be considered Christians.

 

[warpus]

It must be remembered that a vital aspect of Christianity is to question your beliefs in order to gain more insight into something

Since when??

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

One can believe Jesus' entire teachings about loving one's neighbor, but Christianity is about more than that, or is usually seen as such.

 

[Berzerker]

What counts as your definition of a Christan?

Please give us your definition in as little words as possible.

I was watching some guy get accosted by two JW and two LDS members outside of the video store today when I saw them start to argue with each other over what the definition of a Christan. I was wondering if the Christan people here would even agree.

Hehe, I had a great Aunt (?) who taught elementary school and she decided to lead the day with a prayer (she wasn't a fundie either) and after class a little girl informed her she messed up the prayer so she quickly gave up the idea.

A Christian is someone who ~abides by the teachings of Jesus. Some say you must confess him as your savior, some think deeds are how one shows their Christianity while others say faith in Jesus is all it takes (and the good deeds will naturally follow). Thomas Jefferson described himself as a "primitive" Christian - he edited the NT and got rid of magic, miracles, etc, in the effort to focus on what he thought mattered, certain fundamental truths contained in the gospels.

I figure its this, treat others the way you would have others treat you

thats pretty simple...

 

[Berzerker]

I don't go to church because church is somewhat ridiculous. people seem ot have the hardest time with that one.

Really... Why place a man made roof between you and the Creator?

 

[warpus]

I figure its this, treat others the way you would have others treat you

thats pretty simple...

Yeah, but that's not a very good definition of who a Christian is, since there's a large group of people who fall under your definition who aren't Christian.. and another sizeable group of people who are Christian and don't..

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Really... Why place a man made roof between you and the Creator?

. . . because it rains sometimes?

 

[Camikaze]

Since when??

Since Luther, I think. Or, more to the point, since people started thinking for themselves, instead of being force-fed religion.

One can believe Jesus' entire teachings about loving one's neighbor, but Christianity is about more than that, or is usually seen as such.

Yes, it is usually seen as such. But the basis of Christianity doesn't lie in commandments, or the fact that some guy died and then flew up into the sky, but in the teachings of that said guy, or basically, the betterment of humanity. For without those teachings, that guy wouldn't be anything but another victim of crucifixion.

 

[Elta]

. . . because it rains sometimes?

God won't let it rain on this inside of a church. Don't be foolish.

 

[Masquerouge]

Yes, it is usually seen as such. But the basis of Christianity doesn't lie in commandments, or the fact that some guy died and then flew up into the sky, but in the teachings of that said guy, or basically, the betterment of humanity. For without those teachings, that guy wouldn't be anything but another victim of crucifixion.

I was under the impression that the whole "Jesus dying for our sins" part was pretty crucial to Christianity.