What is a Christian?

[Anbesol]

Gods greatest gift to mankind was free will. without it certainly we would not have partaken of the apple and yet to deny that will is to deny our humanity. To attempt to impose your will on others is also to deny their humanity.

Yes, which is why I choose to debate this point with Javier. His orthodoxy insinuates an ethnocentric behavior and society, I would stand to defend the people he so carelessly condemns. I am not imposing my will onto Javier, I am simply arguing the point, by using objective textual critiques, science, and a sound philosophical core. I am not perfect and I do not know it all by the very least, but if I see him abusing a piece of scripture to bat someone over the head with it, to court them into his tradition, I am compelled to confront this social outrage. I would more than welcome his debating my points, if he can defend my conjectures against his points, I welcome him to do so.

[christiansoldier]

Interesting posts, anbesol.

I take it, then, that you regard Jesus as a mere historical figure, rather than God in the flesh?

Note the (?)...I wouldn't want you to think I'm trying to speak for you.

I'm curious... do you recognize this statement? (No fair using google )

Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

[Didache]

A small appeal here, if you don't mind - and this is directed to the thread, not to any individual contributing to it.

This thread started on the premise of people sharing what they felt defined a "Christian". However, as so often seems to happen, it is in danger of degenerating into an "I am right and you are wrong" argument, which is neither helpful nor in the spirit of Christ. It will only generate more heat than light.

The fact is that the Christian church, worldwide, is an incredibly varied body. There will be those of a fundamentalist/conservative stamp. There will also be though of a liberal disposition. And there will be those in between. There will be those with a very bible based faith, and those who centre everything sacramentally. This is a fact - and it is one of Christianity's great strengths that it has room for people of such widely varied personalities and needs.

I am quite happy to share what I think about different things. But I am not happy to get into debates about it if the implication is that I am "in error/wrong/less-christian" than someone else.

Let's have a little humility here, and a little respect for others. None of us has the whole truth here.

Mike

[Anbesol]

Interesting post, anbesol.

I take it, then, that you regard Jesus as a mere historical figure, rather than God in the flesh?

Note the (?)...I wouldn't want you to think I'm trying to speak for you.

I'm curious... do you recognize this statement? (No fair using google )

Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

Yes, Thomas tradition, taken directly from the Thomas Gospel (verse 6? I think) after his disciples asked of him "How should we fast, [...] pray, [...] give alms".

I was introduced to Christ through the Thomas Gospel, and give the Thomas Gospel the same merit and credence that I give Mt Mk Lk and Jn, the differences are minor differences in methodological and sacramental approach, all embrace Jesus' ministry with incredible, vivid, and beautiful detail. Why are you asking, you regard it a heretical gospel?

As far as the 'god in the flesh' question, to me - that depends on how you understand the words "god" "in" "the" and "flesh".

[christiansoldier]

Yes, Thomas tradition, taken directly from the Thomas Gospel (verse 6? I think) after his disciples asked of him "How should we fast, [...] pray, [...] give alms".

I was introduced to Christ through the Thomas Gospel, and give the Thomas Gospel the same merit and credence that I give Mt Mk Lk and Jn, the differences are minor differences in methodological and sacramental approach, all embrace Jesus' ministry with incredible, vivid, and beautiful detail. Why are you asking, you regard it a heretical gospel?

Have you found any parallel treatment of fasting or charity or prayer in any other portion of scripture, OT or NT?

[christiansoldier]

A small appeal here, if you don't mind - and this is directed to the thread, not to any individual contributing to it.

This thread started on the premise of people sharing what they felt defined a "Christian". However, as so often seems to happen, it is in danger of degenerating into an "I am right and you are wrong" argument, which is neither helpful nor in the spirit of Christ. It will only generate more heat than light.

The fact is that the Christian church, worldwide, is an incredibly varied body. There will be those of a fundamentalist/conservative stamp. There will also be though of a liberal disposition. And there will be those in between. There will be those with a very bible based faith, and those who centre everything sacramentally. This is a fact - and it is one of Christianity's great strengths that it has room for people of such widely varied personalities and needs.

I am quite happy to share what I think about different things. But I am not happy to get into debates about it if the implication is that I am "in error/wrong/less-christian" than someone else.

Let's have a little humility here, and a little respect for others. None of us has the whole truth here.

Mike

Sentiments noted and agreed with, Mike.

I got the impression from one of Javier's recent posts that you are a minister, is that correct?

[Didache]

Yes I am .. in London.

Mike

[christiansoldier]

Yes I am .. in London.

Mike

Would it be improper of me to hold you (or any minister) to a higher standard of teaching God's Word than what I would normally expect from a layman?

[Didache]

Would it be improper of me to hold you (or any minister) to a higher standard of teaching God's Word than what I would normally expect from a layman?

I think you could reasonably expect a minister to be theologically well educated, at least those in mainstream denominations with decent training. If that is what you meant, then I would say yes.

Two things though:

(a) You need to be careful though if by that you mean "how close are they to the way I see it". Any given minister may be of a different churchmanship than your own and because he/she does not see things as you do does not render their ministry flawed. This is what I meant by recognising that the church is a little bigger than any one branch.

(b) I am not persuaded that I (or any minister) is accountable to anyone in this forum - I am accountable to my denomination and my congregation (and, of course, to God).

Mike

[Anbesol]

Have you found any parallel treatment of fasting or charity or prayer in any other portion of scripture, OT or NT?

No. I also recall that Christ defended a prostitute against Jews who wished to stone her, an action that flies in the face of old testament tradition. Even you certainly recognize the difference between Christ and OT philosophy, hence the distinction of 'Old' and 'New covenant'. I appreciate what you are getting at, could you be more direct at what it is you are implying, and perhaps I could respond to that if you are curious.

[christiansoldier]

I think you could reasonably expect a minister to be theologically well educated, at least those in mainstream denominations with decent training. If that is what you meant, then I would say yes.

Two things though:

(a) You need to be careful though if by that you mean "how close are they to the way I see it". Any given minister may be of a different churchmanship than your own and because he/she does not see things as you do does not render their ministry flawed. This is what I meant by recognising that the church is a little bigger than any one branch.

(b) I am not persuaded that I (or any minister) is accountable to anyone in this forum - I am accountable to my denomination and my congregation (and, of course, to God).

Mike

Understood.

There are, I think, regardless of denomination, certain basic tenants that all Christians would hold in common.

First and foremost - Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

[Anbesol]

it is in danger of degenerating into an "I am right and you are wrong" argument

Mike, I really genuinely appreciate your concern for the thread. I recognize that my response was direct and confrontational, but my intention was to debate the issues, and not exude any posturing or the sorts. My hope is that rather than that, we can debate the actual issues. I erased some of my unnecessary and harsh words. Please excuse my weakness, I was very offended by his comments. I know he did not directly intend offense towards me, but his condemnation of other traditions is something I consider highly offensive and I do take personally.

[christiansoldier]

No. I also recall that Christ defended a prostitute against Jews who wished to stone her, an action that flies in the face of old testament tradition. Even you certainly recognize the difference between Christ and OT philosophy, hence the distinction of 'Old' and 'New covenant'. I appreciate what you are getting at, could you be more direct at what it is you are implying, and perhaps I could respond to that if you are curious.

Yes, even I recognize that difference. :smile5:

Of course, the OT has not been rendered inconsequential, by any means.

The point is that Thomas' treatment of fasting, prayer and charity are in direct opposition to the Bible's teaching on the same subjects.

[Anbesol]

Understood.

There are, I think, regardless of denomination, certain basic tenants that all Christians would hold in common.

First and foremost - Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

Wouldn't it be 'To love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as your self.'

[Didache]

Understood.

There are, I think, regardless of denomination, certain basic tenants that all Christians would hold in common.

First and foremost - Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

For my own definition of the "basics" see post 7 in this thread (first page)

Mike

[Anbesol]

Yes, even I recognize that difference. :smile5:

Of course, the OT has not been rendered inconsequential, by any means.

The point is that Thomas' treatment of fasting, prayer and charity are in direct opposition to the Bible's teaching on the same subjects.

Thomas' Gospel was full of esoteric riddles, the differences are there, yes, but to call them a 'direct opposition' is a stretch.

[christiansoldier]

That language is a bit tricky - as 'god' is understood differently between denominations, as is the science and understanding of 'incarnation'. So, whilst in some respects, I would totally agree that Jesus was/is God incarnate - in many ways it is understood, I would disagree with such an idea as well. I would also call the first and foremost tenant would be to simply love. Or, in the language of scripture, 'To love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as your self.'

Now, may I ask you - Why would an assertion of belief take priority over the tenant I just stated?

Simply because the whole point of God taking on the form of man, being scourged half to death, nailed to a tree, taking the sins of all upon Himself, is not only the epitome of the love of which you speak, but, though you reject the premise vehemently, it is the core of the belief structure laid out in God's Word.

So, whilst in some respects, I would totally agree that Jesus was/is God incarnate - in many ways it is understood, I would disagree with such an idea as well.

That statement isn't making a whole lot of sense to me... but then again it is 3 AM, maybe I'm too tired to appreciate the finer points. :idea:

[christiansoldier]

Thomas' Gospel was full of esoteric riddles, the differences are there, yes, but to call them a 'direct opposition' is a stretch.

I'll get back to you on this one...

[Didache]

Thomas in interesting. While it is (obviously!) not one of the canonical gospels and also has an evident dose of gnosticism, it is clearly not in the same category as a lot of the other non-canonical gospels, most of which are more clearly gnostic and probably of much later date. I think most serious scholars recognise that Thomas, while not being "Quite" Christian, nevertheless has interest and may even preserve SOME genuine sayings not found in the canonical gospels.

What I find most interesting about it is its format as a "sayings" gospel, which to me supports the notion of "Q". For anyone reading this thread who does not know about this, the Q hypothesis argues that the canonical gospels were preceded by lists of "sayings" which were available to the gospel writers but which subsequently were lost. It was and is only a hypothesis, but one which gained some credibility when Thomas was discovered - not that Thomas WAS the sayings list referred to, but its existence showed that sayings lists may well have existed.

Mike

[christiansoldier]

Gosh - there is a challenge and a half!

But you ask, so I will attempt some kind of an answer although I admit that it is only partial and someone, I'm sure, will leap in and call me wrong. Worst still, it is impossible to give a clear answer without a certain amount of theological jargon. Still, here goes:

An "orthodox" Christian will be someone who believes in God and that He has revealed himself to the world supremely through Jesus of Nazareth: his incarnation, life, death, resurrection and continuing presence in the world through the Spirit. Jesus shared in the very nature of God, yet left the glory of divinity behind in order to share fully in all that it means to be human for the sake of love. An "orthodox" Christian will believe in this, and will see in it the means by which God reconciled the world to himself and will, in return, commit himself/herself to follow and love the Christ who so willingly gave himself so they might be part of the Kingdom.

A lot of this is summarised in the great ecumenical creeds of the Church (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian). I will not paste them all, but the Apostle's Creed is not a bad start:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic (ie universal) Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

That, together with the other ecumenical creeds, will define pretty well what an "orthodox" Christian believes (although of course some of the clauses might be understood differently by different people).

You ask about Mormons (and by extension Jehovah's Witnesses etc). It is better to call these "heterodox" in that they reject certain aspects of historical belief, particularly the Trinitarian nature of God and the divinity of Christ. While I would not go so far as to say they are "not Christian", they are certainly not "orthodox" ones, and I think they would admit that themselves.

As for the KKK etc, I think that part of the definition includes "following", ie being Christ-like themselves. In other words, being a Christian is not merely a matter of believing the right things, but also in allowing those beliefs to shape your own world view and behaviour. After all, even the devil believes the "right things"!

In the end though, it is not my place to judge whether someone is or is not a Christian - that judgement is left to the one who is far more qualified than I am. I suspect though that when we arrive at the pearly gates, the question will not be "Did you believe in the Athanasian Creed formulation of the Trinity?", but "Did you love me?"

Cheers
Mike

This is post #7, Mike.

I see you have listed what an 'orthodox' Christian would believe. On first reading when you originally posted, I wasn't clear on whether you were in agreement with the creed, or merely referencing it as a starting point in the discussion.

A direct answer might be the best approach, if you do not mind...

Jesus Christ is God incarnate?

[Didache]

Yes of course. I may belong to the moderate school, but I am an orthodox Christian in every respect. The Baptist Union of Great Britain would not have ordained me otherwise!

Mike

[Anbesol]

Mike - I too have been investigating the possible relationship between Thomas and the 'Q' document. Trying to wrap my head around it with the very little known information is quite a challenge though. It doesn't help that most of what we have to go by with Thomas was Coptic sourced, analyzing textual differences and similarities between Thomas and the Synoptic texts is thus even more incredibly difficult. If we found the Greek writing (or, if written originally in Aramaic, that translation), then we would have a lot more to look at in relating the texts. As of now, its an intensely compelling and legitimate, and a simultaneously very difficult hypothesis to look at. I'm used to hearing pastors/ministers vehemently dismissing Thomas as heresy, so I am glad you seemed to have looked at it all very thoughtfully.

I have heard that its highly likely the Vatican has more authentic originals of non-canonized texts locked up in its library, perhaps someone could persuade the Pope to disclose its version of Thomas to the public, or perhaps the Vatican doesn't even have such a thing. Not that releasing it could possibly serve the Catholic interest, guess I may as well ask Santa Clause for an Island off the coast of California.

[christiansoldier]

Yes of course. I may belong to the moderate school, but I am an orthodox Christian in every respect. The Baptist Union of Great Britain would not have ordained me otherwise!

Mike

Thanks for clarifying...I do not want to fall into assumptions, if I can help it.

While I would never presume to know how any individual ultimately will fare in terms of salvation, I think it is more than permissible to look at the teachings of other religions in terms of how they compare to the teachings of the Holy Bible.

Mormon doctrine, for example, teaches about Jesus Christ, but if one digs down just a bit it is evident that believing in the Christ they espouse is a far cry from the Christ the Bible describes. It is my fervent prayer that God looks only at the heart of the individual. Goodness, my own father passed away this passed April, an atheist, but a good and wonderful man.

I am hopeful that Christ reveals Himself before the final curtain falls and allows everyone to make a final decision...but, I also grieve because that is not scriptural.

I created a memorial to him and its made up of photos, so, I guess its appropriate to this forum as well (just don't critique the photo quality )

In Loving Memory

[Didache]

I created a memorial to him and its made up of photos, so, I guess its appropriate to this forum as well (just don't critique the photo quality )

That is a lovely tribute. My own father died quite a few years ago and even when he was alive we did not have a particularly good relationship. You are very fortunate to have such good and loving memories - not everyone is so blessed. I know that, once the grief of this time passes, those memories will be the source of many a smile. Thanks for sharing it with us.

In my job I do a lot of funerals (I reckon around 300 of them so far!). Quite a few are of faithful Christian people, many of whom were members of my congregations. However, not all were. Sometimes they were members of church families, and sometimes not. It certainly forces you to examine your theology of death when you are conducting funerals for such as these, especially when you meet the families and realise how truly good some of these people were. Sometimes they were a lot more "Christian" (at least in terms of lovingness) than some who bear the Name.

I cannot and will not ever believe that anything which is good and true and loving is ever really lost - how could it be when God himself is the source of love? I am perfectly aware of what the New Testament says (at least that one understanding of it), but do we not also claim that "what is impossible for man is not impossible for God"?

Be encouraged.

Mike

[jgredline]

Wow, lots to catch up on. I guess some people don't sleep
I am on my way to church now, so I will address some of these posts this afternoon.

Mike is right in that we need to go back and continue this quest to define what a Christian is, but I also think these side excursions are good...I know Enbesol seems to be getting offended and I am sure he sees me as the devil..This is fine as I know the Holy Bible offends...In fact, it is a book of war when it comes down to it. However, I do feel I am presenting my views in context according the the scriptures contained in the 66 books of the bible...The Gospel of Thomas and Q are all heretical along with all the other gnostic gospels...This has been established by the church and theologians for 2000 years.

enbesol, Understand this...I am not trying to convert you or anyone to what I believe...It is not my job to do such thing. Only God saves for it in his power...You are right in that God gave us the gift of free will....But understand, you are with out excuse...

1 Co 2:6-16
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

I believe and could be wrong here but it seems to me that there is no answer that I can give you that will ever be right..
I can say that 2+2=4 and in your eyes I will still be wrong...You can say the John 14:6 is wrong even after I presented you with the original layout...Thats fine. I knew you would not accept it and I did not spend the time I did on it for you, but for others who may be lurking and searching for the truth....