WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN?

[Nameless]

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?

[McCulloch]

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?

A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ.
The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26

[Nameless]

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?

A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ.
The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26

What does it mean, exactly, to be a "disciple of Jesus"? The implication is that it involves more than just a certain 'belief'...

As i see 'atheist' and 'former Xtian' in your self description, I wonder at your potential bias, but that aside, I await your elucidation.

[McCulloch]

What does it mean, exactly, to be a "disciple of Jesus"? The implication is that it involves more than just a certain 'belief'...

As i see 'atheist' and 'former Xtian' in your self description, I wonder at your potential bias, but that aside, I await your elucidation.

The word disciple is reasonably well understood. A disciple is a person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another. A Freudian is a disciple of Freud, a Marxist is a disciple of Marx (Carl not Groucho), etcetera.

[Nameless]

What does it mean, exactly, to be a "disciple of Jesus"? The implication is that it involves more than just a certain 'belief'...

As i see 'atheist' and 'former Xtian' in your self description, I wonder at your potential bias, but that aside, I await your elucidation.

The word disciple is reasonably well understood. A disciple is a person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another. A Freudian is a disciple of Freud, a Marxist is a disciple of Marx (Carl not Groucho), etcetera.

Ok, so someone that just studies the new testament would be considered a Xtian (a pupil), to you? Along with someone who 'believes' (an intellectual adherent?)? No one need alter their 'behavior' at all? I guess that an 'adherent' can also 'behave in accord'. Is that what you are saying?
Thank you for your input.

[McCulloch]

What does it mean, exactly, to be a "disciple of Jesus"? The implication is that it involves more than just a certain 'belief'.

The word disciple is reasonably well understood. A disciple is a person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another. A Freudian is a disciple of Freud, a Marxist is a disciple of Marx (Carl not Groucho), etcetera.

Ok, so someone that just studies the new testament would be considered a Xtian (a pupil), to you? Along with someone who 'believes' (an intellectual adherent?)? No one need alter their 'behavior' at all? I guess that an 'adherent' can also 'behave in accord'. Is that what you are saying?
Thank you for your input.

There is more to being a disciple than simply studying the teachings of a teacher. A disciple is someone who believes and may help to spread the doctrine of another. If you truly believe the teachings of the one to whom you are a disciple, it cannot help but change your behavior, your outlook and your reaction to things.

To carry further my example, a Marxist is not just someone who has studied Marx, but someone who strives to understand Marx, who believes what Marx taught, who lives as if what Marx taught was true. A Christian, in my understanding, is one who has studied Jesus Christ, who strives to understand the message of Jesus, who believes what he taught and who lives as if what Christ taught was true.

[Nameless]

There is more to being a disciple than simply studying the teachings of a teacher. A disciple is someone who believes and may help to spread the doctrine of another. If you truly believe the teachings of the one to whom you are a disciple, it cannot help but change your behavior, your outlook and your reaction to things...
A Christian, in my understanding, is one who has studied Jesus Christ, who strives to understand the message of Jesus, who believes what he taught and who lives as if what Christ taught was true.

Thank you for your expansion.
So, to sum it up, whoever violates or ignores any of the 'teachings of Jesus', as per the NT, as per your definition, are not Xtians, right? Is this what you are saying?

[McCulloch]

There is more to being a disciple than simply studying the teachings of a teacher. A disciple is someone who believes and may help to spread the doctrine of another. If you truly believe the teachings of the one to whom you are a disciple, it cannot help but change your behavior, your outlook and your reaction to things...
A Christian, in my understanding, is one who has studied Jesus Christ, who strives to understand the message of Jesus, who believes what he taught and who lives as if what Christ taught was true.

Thank you for your expansion.
So, to sum it up, whoever violates or ignores any of the 'teachings of Jesus', as per the NT, as per your definition, are not Xtians, right? Is this what you are saying?

I don't see that from what I have said. 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.

[Cathar1950]

There is more to being a disciple than simply studying the teachings of a teacher. A disciple is someone who believes and may help to spread the doctrine of another. If you truly believe the teachings of the one to whom you are a disciple, it cannot help but change your behavior, your outlook and your reaction to things...
A Christian, in my understanding, is one who has studied Jesus Christ, who strives to understand the message of Jesus, who believes what he taught and who lives as if what Christ taught was true.

Thank you for your expansion.
So, to sum it up, whoever violates or ignores any of the 'teachings of Jesus', as per the NT, as per your definition, are not Xtians, right? Is this what you are saying?

I don't see that from what I have said. 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.

I agree it is a good working definition.
But there is still the problem or problems with everything other and in-between.
Some ignored teaching of the fleshly Jesus and we don't know what he taught except by those that survived or left any traces.
For all we know he didn't teach anything and his teaching much like wisdom sayings, were added later in the evolution of one or more of the many diverse community experiments that seems to be springing up early, even before any writings.
Then there is the problems with teachings about Jesus that make him out to be anything and everything and like his teachings are the products of believer's self definitions. The Ebonite tendency seems to think he was raised to God's right hand and was human.
Was he the descendant of David or did later believers become convinced he must have been because he is king of the cosmos therefore the writings had to be about him and so he must have done it or it happened.
But I still think you have a good working definition of Christian that is open enough to include just about anything even remotely related to something about Jesus.

[McCulloch]

I agree it is a good working definition.

Thanks.

But there is still the problem or problems with everything other and in-between.
Some ignored teaching of the fleshly Jesus and we don't know what he taught except by those that survived or left any traces.

You notice that the definition does not address what Jesus taught. So, by definition, those who deny that Paul was inspired, for example, but strive to follow Jesus, are Christian.

But I still think you have a good working definition of Christian that is open enough to include just about anything even remotely related to something about Jesus.

It is a good enough definition to differentiate Christians from Muslims, Buddhists, non-theists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs and all the rest.