Defining the Christian

[JoeyKnothead]

Seems there's at least two ways to consider Jesus.

1- As a god incarnate, full of miracles and all that.

2- As a man with a message that is relatively good and therefore worthy of worship just for coming up with such a good message.

For debate:

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

[cnorman18]

Seems there's at least two ways to consider Jesus.

1- As a god incarnate, full of miracles and all that.

2- As a man with a message that is relatively good and therefore worthy of worship just for coming up with such a good message.

For debate:

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

For fundamentalists, the answers would be "yes," and "no," but from my experiences in seminary and since, I am sure that for some liberal Christians the answers can be "no" and "yes." I knew professors of Christian theology, very devout in their own way, who maintained that the "historical Jesus," if there was one, was of no importance, and that the "Christ of faith" was the proper focus of the Church. That approach is more common among Christian academics, at least, than one might think possible.

[justhere]

Have you heard the old CS Lewis quote about this? Here it is paraphrased

Option 1- He is documented in the Bible as doing miracles, so he either had good or bad intentions. If he was deceiving people and trying to lead them astray, then he was like an evil wizard, or something.

OR he was psycho- has great 'ideas' but claimed he was God and there was no way to get to God the Father except through him.

OR he had 'good intentions', was very wise, and could do miracles, and was God in he form of Man.

So yea, I think to be a 'real' Christian you have to worship Jesus as God, because scripture doesn't leave any other options.

Of course anyone CAN choose to worship Jesus as a good man, but it doesn't align with scripture. Sorry- you have to jump-in and be a crazy.

[McCulloch]

Have you heard the old CS Lewis quote about this? Here it is paraphrased

Option 1- He is documented in the Bible as doing miracles, so he either had good or bad intentions. If he was deceiving people and trying to lead them astray, then he was like an evil wizard, or something.

OR he was psycho- has great 'ideas' but claimed he was God and there was no way to get to God the Father except through him.

OR he had 'good intentions', was very wise, and could do miracles, and was God in he form of Man.

So yea, I think to be a 'real' Christian you have to worship Jesus as God, because scripture doesn't leave any other options.

Of course anyone CAN choose to worship Jesus as a good man, but it doesn't align with scripture. Sorry- you have to jump-in and be a crazy.

This is not the right debate to show why the old Lewis trilemma is wrong. But underlying your discussion is the assumption that the Christian Bible is true. Could it be that is how you define a Christian, someone who accepts the Christian Bible as being true?

[JoeyKnothead]

This is not the right debate to show why the old Lewis trilemma is wrong. But underlying your discussion is the assumption that the Christian Bible is true. Could it be that is how you define a Christian, someone who accepts the Christian Bible as being true?

I think I am kinda asking whether one accepts the Bible as "true in all regards", or whether it should be considered "true in its intent", or some such phrasing. (Obviously for this subforum one'd need some biblical backing)

Is there any specific Christian doctrine that says one must believe the Bible, as Falwell says, "to be the inerrant word of God", which I take to mean literally true on all counts, or is there legitimate debate among Christians about this take?

[cnorman18]

This is not the right debate to show why the old Lewis trilemma is wrong. But underlying your discussion is the assumption that the Christian Bible is true. Could it be that is how you define a Christian, someone who accepts the Christian Bible as being true?

I think I am kinda asking whether one accepts the Bible as "true in all regards", or whether it should be considered "true in its intent", or some such phrasing. (Obviously for this subforum one'd need some biblical backing)

Is there any specific Christian doctrine that says one must believe the Bible, as Falwell says, "to be the inerrant word of God", which I take to mean literally true on all counts, or is there legitimate debate among Christians about this take?

Absolutely. Rudolf Bultmann is required reading in most liberal seminaries, and has been since at least the 1960s. If you don't know, Bultmann's book, Kerygma and Myth, is about "demythologizing" the New Testament; that is, deleting the miracle stories and the literal Resurrection, and concentrating on the Kerygma - that is, the Gospel message of reconciliation and redemption with God. The Documentary Hypothesis, which holds that the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) was assembled from at least four human sources, also rather argues against acceptance of the Bible as the "inerrant word of God." Since the scholars who engage in these studies and produce these works are invariably Christians - after all, they don't much matter to anyone else - I'd say the debate is wide open and has been for decades. I was involved in intense arguments among other ministerial students before many of the members of this forum were born.

Among fundamentalists, now, there is little debate and little awareness (other than furious denial) of this kind of Biblical research and theological writing. But fundamentalists, as I have often observed, do not constitute all Christians.

[JoeyKnothead]

...Rudolf Bultmann is required reading in most liberal seminaries, and has been since at least the 1960s...

That's just the information I seek. I'm trying to understand how such a rift in thinking may occur. I totally see why one would want the Bible to be more literal, but I've not seen many arguments against this take.

I'll be reading the Bultmann lecture here to gain more insight.

[Jrosemary]

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

This is going to sound like a cop-out, but as far as I'm concerned, a Christian is anyone who says she is.

As an outsider, it's not up to me to judge which specific beliefs make (or don't make) someone a Christian. If pressed, I'd say that anyone who has Jesus at the centre of his religious life is a Christian, but many Christians would say that's an inadequate definition.

In truth, it's awfully hard to determine who is and who isn't part of a particular religious group--just look at the headaches Judaism has when it comes to patralineal descent. (If your father is Jewish but not your mother can you be Jewish without a formal conversion? Some branches of Judaism say yes; others say no.)

Maybe we should be less general: it's probably easier to determine who is an Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic, or Lutheran or Methodist rather than who is a Christian. Individual churches presumably have specific criteria. I know you can find individual Episcopalians who hold the view you expressed in point 2. The Episcopal Church, as far as I know, hasn't disowned them. So they'd still be Episcopalians, and since the Episcopal Church is a branch of Christianity, presumably they're Christians.

Of course, that can just lead to a more conservative church disowning liberal Episcopalians . . .

[McCulloch]

This is going to sound like a cop-out, but as far as I'm concerned, a Christian is anyone who says she is. [..]I'd say that anyone who has Jesus at the centre of his religious life is a Christian, but many Christians would say that's an inadequate definition.

Some Christians might disagree with you, but the Christian New Testament actually defines the word Christian.

[...] the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

A Christian is merely a disciple of Jesus Christ, just as a Marxist is a disciple of Karl Marx; a Keynesian is a disciple of John Maynard Keynes; a Georgist is a disciple of Gheorge I. Brătianu; a Jacobite is a follower and supporter of James II of England; a Maoist is a disciple of Mao Zedong; the Amish are disciples of Jacob Amman; the Bahá'í are disciples of Bahá'u'lláh; a Calvinist is a disciple of John Calvin; a Franciscan is a disciple of Francis of Assisi; a Hutterite is a disciple of Jakob Hutter; an Ismaili is a disciple of Ismail bin Jafar; a Lutheran is a disciple of Martin Luther; a Mennonite is a disciple of Menno Simons; a Thomist is a disciple of Thomas Aquinas; a Freudian is a disciple of Sigmund Freud; a Masochist is a disciple of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch; a Sadist is a disciple of Donatien-Alphonse-François de Sade.

Maybe we should be less general: it's probably easier to determine who is an Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic, or Lutheran or Methodist rather than who is a Christian. Individual churches presumably have specific criteria. I know you can find individual Episcopalians who hold the view you expressed in point 2. The Episcopal Church, as far as I know, hasn't disowned them. So they'd still be Episcopalians, and since the Episcopal Church is a branch of Christianity, presumably they're Christians.

This gets into difficult territory. Are all Anglicans Christians? I suppose that it matters from which point-of-view you are looking. From an anthropological position, yes, they are not Islamic or Buddhist. From a theological position, the answer would depend on your theology.

Of course, that can just lead to a more conservative church disowning liberal Episcopalians . . .

Every church seems to have to draw the line somewhere between those who disagree but can be considered merely erring brethren and those who disagree to the point where they must be considered heretical.

[Goat]

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

This is going to sound like a cop-out, but as far as I'm concerned, a Christian is anyone who says she is.

As an outsider, it's not up to me to judge which specific beliefs make (or don't make) someone a Christian. If pressed, I'd say that anyone who has Jesus at the centre of his religious life is a Christian, but many Christians would say that's an inadequate definition.

In truth, it's awfully hard to determine who is and who isn't part of a particular religious group--just look at the headaches Judaism has when it comes to patralineal descent. (If your father is Jewish but not your mother can you be Jewish without a formal conversion? Some branches of Judaism say yes; others say no.)

Maybe we should be less general: it's probably easier to determine who is an Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic, or Lutheran or Methodist rather than who is a Christian. Individual churches presumably have specific criteria. I know you can find individual Episcopalians who hold the view you expressed in point 2. The Episcopal Church, as far as I know, hasn't disowned them. So they'd still be Episcopalians, and since the Episcopal Church is a branch of Christianity, presumably they're Christians.

Of course, that can just lead to a more conservative church disowning liberal Episcopalians . . .

I am not sure if I totally agree. While I am sympathetic to the concept of 'as an outisider , I'll accept anyone', I also see from the Jewish perspective the concept of 'messanic Judaism', where I have outsiders telling me that 'see, Jews can accept Yeshua as the messiah and still be Jews'