WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN?

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:07 pm

Is there any definition of 'a Xtian' that is accepted by all who call themselves Xtian?
What is your's?
Do they all converge somewhere?
Does 'Occam's Razor' leave any stubble at all?

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:30 am

So, ignoring, or 'skipping' most of what 'Jesus' taught (or 'studying' it) and actually living one bitty teaching is enough to make one a Xtian? Yeah, I'd say a real loose definition...
I thought if one wants to call himself a Xtian, that's all it took; that would certainly be good enough for me.
I didn't know it can be an 'other' defined thing.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:01 am

Nameless wrote:So, ignoring, or 'skipping' most of what 'Jesus' taught (or 'studying' it) and actually living one bitty teaching is enough to make one a Xtian? Yeah, I'd say a real loose definition...
I thought if one wants to call himself a Xtian, that's all it took; that would certainly be good enough for me.
I didn't know it can be an 'other' defined thing.

Perhaps you misread my definition.

McCulloch wrote:A Christian is one who having come to believe Jesus, strives to understand and follow his teachings, just as a Keynesian is one who has come to believe the ideas of John Maynard Keynes and strives to understand and follow those teachings. If someone has a disagreement with Keynes with regard to economic theory, then he is, by definition, no longer a Keynesian. If someone has a disagreement with Jesus with regard to religion and ethics, then he no longer is a Christian.

How is it that someone who ignores most of what Jesus taught and living only one bitty teaching fits this definition?

Perhaps at this point we should become clear on what kind of definition we are seeking. Take a look at it as an outsider. How would you, for example, define a Hindu or a Sikh? Or even for that matter, how would you define a member of a Christian denomination outside of your own, Orthodox, Anglican, Mormon or Lutheran? I have no more interest in defining a True Christianâ„¢ than you have of defining a True Sikh. My definition of Christian only needs to go as far as to differentiate Christians from other religious groups and from those without religion. Discipleship, as well as being a definition from the Bible itself, meets that need.

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:48 pm

A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.
But few Christians will get carried to heaven.

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:07 am

McCulloch wrote:A Christian is one who having come to believe Jesus, strives to understand and follow his teachings,

Every one of them? And 'strives'? How hard? I've seen all sorts of 'lip service' that the 'adherent' calls 'striving'...

If someone has a disagreement with Jesus with regard to religion and ethics, then he no longer is a Christian.

Any disagreement at all? Period?

Perhaps at this point we should become clear on what kind of definition we are seeking. Take a look at it as an outsider. How would you, for example, define a Hindu or a Sikh? Or even for that matter, how would you define a member of a Christian denomination outside of your own, Orthodox, Anglican, Mormon or Lutheran?

I don't find this as something for me to define. It seems to me to be a personal thing and if that is how someone self-defines, that suffices for me. Call yourself, honestly, a Zoroastrian, and how can I (barring egoically prideful judgement) disagree? It's like arguing with someone who is saying that they feel thirsty. That is for them to define, not me.

I have no more interest in defining a True Christianâ„¢ than you have of defining a True Sikh.

Then why are you playing in my sandbox? That was the OP, asking for a definition, and discussing the results. I thought there might be some food for thought... No one's making you play, no?

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:09 am

InTheFlesh wrote:A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.

Define "believes in", please?
Do you also 'believe in' Moses? Abraham? What do you call people who 'believe in' them? Xtian plus? Enhanced?

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:42 pm

Nameless wrote:
InTheFlesh wrote:A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.
Define "believes in", please?
Do you also 'believe in' Moses? Abraham? What do you call people who 'believe in' them? Xtian plus? Enhanced?

A true Christian is someone who believes
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

No, there is no such thing as Xtian plus!

Nameless · Post by **Nameless** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:51 am

InTheFlesh wrote:A true Christian is someone who believes
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Thank you. Is it supported in the new testament?
"You shall know them by..."?

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:13 pm

I don't understand your questions?

It's all over the New Testament about believing in the Son of God.
God believing people were not called Christians
until after "the Word was made flesh".
A person who believes in God, believes in Jesus.
Technically, Adam and Eve are Christians without the title.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:15 pm

InTheFlesh wrote:A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.
But few Christians will get carried to heaven.

InTheFlesh wrote:
Nameless wrote:
InTheFlesh wrote:A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.
Define "believes in", please?
Do you also 'believe in' Moses? Abraham? What do you call people who 'believe in' them? Xtian plus? Enhanced?
A true Christian is someone who believes
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

No, there is no such thing as Xtian plus!

InTheFlesh wrote:I don't understand your questions?
It's all over the New Testament about believing in the Son of God.
God believing people were not called Christians
until after "the Word was made flesh".
A person who believes in God, believes in Jesus.
Technically, Adam and Eve are Christians without the title.

It looks like you draw a tight circle around yourself as a Christian.
Your simple ritualized proclamations are both vague and disagreed upon.

You really donâ€™t explain what you mean by â€œbelieve inâ€� but you seem to claim not all that believe will make it to heaven as if heaven was the whole point and end to your belief. Next you tell us that â€œbelief inâ€� means a proposition that Jesus is the Son of God without explaining what you mean by â€œSon of Godâ€�.
There are many titles for Jesus sin early Christianity and varied meanings of â€œSon of Godâ€� but NT scholarship indicates it was not the first idea that popped into their heads as the idea developed and evolved and is still disagreement about the ideas.
But then again the stories, written much later, say even the demons or spirits believed Jesus was the â€œSon of Godâ€�. Were the demons Christians too?
Of course some early tendencies were to see the Faithfulness (pistis) of Jesus having saved them from sins or some notions of domination by other spirits. Your mentality has taken the tendency of the idea of faithfulness and ritualized a proposition.
The ideas maybe all over the NT but you seem to be reading more into it and it is only one of the themes used by the authors. It is the early Christians of the second through 4th centuries that projected their story onto the Hebrew writings as they reinterpreted them and by no rational starch of the imagination were the mythical characters of Adam and Eve Christians. Like the second century metaphor of Wisdom being manifested in Jesus youâ€™re rereading of the Hebrew writings is a projection. Technically, Adam and Eve were not Christians in any sense of the word.

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:19 pm

Cathar1950,

With no disrespect,
I could care less about what popped in to the minds of the NT scholars you refer to.
I follow the Word of God.

"Technically, Adam and Eve were not Christians in any sense of the word."

Technically, they are.
The blood of Christ is what saved them.