What, EXACTLY, is a Christian?

[Zzyzx]

.
What, EXACTLY, is a Christian?

Is it someone who:

1. Professes belief in Jesus?
2. Follows the teachings of Jesus a little? A lot? Completely?
3. Is baptized?
4. Goes to church?
5. Identifies with one of the 40,000 Christian denominations?
6. Lives a “Christian life�?
7. Acts like a Christian?
8. Believes Bible stories are true?
9. Keeps the commandments?
10. Confesses their sins, asks forgiveness, repents?
11. Is accepted by other Christians?
12. Believes that Jesus was resurrected physically? Spiritually?
13. Believes there is an afterlife and that their soul can go to heaven?
14. Claims to be (identifies as) Christian?

Apologist debaters and other Christians seem to have difficulty agreeing on what constitutes or is required for a person to qualify as a Christian.

Which of the above (or other items) are included in the definition of “Christian� and are required for membership?

Conversely, what conditions EXCLUDE a person from being a Christian?

[bluethread]

Not being a Christian myself I find that I am unqualified to disqualify anyone else. And so I am forced to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian at their word. Oddly enough I invariably find during my discussions that there are apparently very few "true" Christians in the world at all, other than the very person I am talking to at that moment and those who believe exactly as he/she does.

I do not claim to be a Christian either, though many atheists want me to defend what those who claim to be Christians profess. That said, it is like being an atheist. What exactly is an atheist? We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists. Therefore, the argue that it is wrong to speculate on that. I generally address the specific views presented by the specific individual. That is what I suggest one do when one talks to someone who claims to be a Christian.

To the bold, can you list these 'many' differing types of atheists for us please?
I'll start you off with 'weak' and 'strong', you take it from there.

No, I am not in the habit of labeling individuals. Generally, if I do refer to a group of people, it is the concept inherent in the designation or the behavior of the group. If one wishes to talk about a position or view, I will permit them to provide the definition, unless they are talking about how someone else uses the term. Clarity is a two way street. If one does not understand a term, it is not a dodge to present the intent of the user of the term. So, in short, divide atheism, or Christianity, into as many types as one wishes, just recognize that there may needs be a clarification of terms in the discussion.

[Elijah John]

Not being a Christian myself I find that I am unqualified to disqualify anyone else. And so I am forced to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian at their word. Oddly enough I invariably find during my discussions that there are apparently very few "true" Christians in the world at all, other than the very person I am talking to at that moment and those who believe exactly as he/she does.

I do not claim to be a Christian either, though many atheists want me to defend what those who claim to be Christians profess. That said, it is like being an atheist. What exactly is an atheist? We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists. Therefore, the argue that it is wrong to speculate on that. I generally address the specific views presented by the specific individual. That is what I suggest one do when one talks to someone who claims to be a Christian.

What would one call someone who is Torah observant, and also believes Yahshua is Divine?

Good question. Every pigeon hole I have come across presumes other things not inherent in that designation. Personally, I consider myself a Torah submissive follower of Yeshua. I put it this way, because I am willing to be open regarding what HaTorah and Yeshua actually require. That said, regardless of ones views, I think the best approach is to address the specific points presented by the specific individual, regardless of how the person is categorized by himself or others.

I think it's worth noting that Yahshua was also Torah observant, and taught others to be Torah observant as well...at least in Spirit, if not in letter. Would you agree?

And there is evidence that Yahshya's earliest followers may considered him the Messiah, but they did not consider him to be God. Certainly at least not equal to the Father.

Even Paul seems hesitant to make the leap that Yahshua is "God" Himself...though he flirts with the idea with his incredibly high Christology.

By this definition, early followers of "the Way" would not be considered Christians by post-council orthodox (small "o') Christians. At very best, they would be considered "proto-Trintiarians" and at worst, heretics.

Ironic.

One wonders if Yahshua himself would be disqualified, with his preaching of strict Torah Monotheism, and not Trinitarianism.

[Clownboat]

Not being a Christian myself I find that I am unqualified to disqualify anyone else. And so I am forced to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian at their word. Oddly enough I invariably find during my discussions that there are apparently very few "true" Christians in the world at all, other than the very person I am talking to at that moment and those who believe exactly as he/she does.

I do not claim to be a Christian either, though many atheists want me to defend what those who claim to be Christians profess. That said, it is like being an atheist. What exactly is an atheist? We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists. Therefore, the argue that it is wrong to speculate on that. I generally address the specific views presented by the specific individual. That is what I suggest one do when one talks to someone who claims to be a Christian.

To the bold, can you list these 'many' differing types of atheists for us please?
I'll start you off with 'weak' and 'strong', you take it from there.

No, I am not in the habit of labeling individuals. Generally, if I do refer to a group of people, it is the concept inherent in the designation or the behavior of the group. If one wishes to talk about a position or view, I will permit them to provide the definition, unless they are talking about how someone else uses the term. Clarity is a two way street. If one does not understand a term, it is not a dodge to present the intent of the user of the term. So, in short, divide atheism, or Christianity, into as many types as one wishes, just recognize that there may needs be a clarification of terms in the discussion.

So you are retracting that "there are many and varied types of atheists".
If not, I would like to be educated on the matter. Thanks.

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]

Actually that is a very descriptive and informative response. Although I could argue that sociologists, anthropologists, geopoliticians, etc. look at the issue at hand superficially and ignore many important points, I would like to point out that although there is this bias in part of apologists (specifically for Christianity), they are playing the devil's advocate consistently and ultimately help formulate an objective response to this question, what is a Christian. One very popular definition that helps distinguish a Christian from one that follows some Christian principles but is ultimately a cult (like cult vs denomination) is given by CS Lewis, which is to say Mere Christianity.

Mere Christianity looks at what are the foundational truths to the Christian faith that would identify someone as the follower of Christ or not (not superficial qualities or practices). Actually the Creeds of Nicaea help outline those important qualities and although a Catholic and a Protestant may differ on important points, non the less their salvation is not impeded or affected (even though salvation through works or salvation through faith is the topic they debate extensively, they both still believe that works are still required in the sense that Protestants argue that faith will help you do works and Catholics say that works help you with the faith, basically the end result is still achieved. Before someone jumps the gun and accuses me that protestants told them that catholics will burn in hell or that catholics told me that protestants will burn in hell, its true that many individuals claim this, but what I am arguing is that those in the academic sphere that understand Mere Christian principles will come to the conclusion that salvation is not affected.

This is an important topic to discuss as many skeptics and believers alike often assume things about this that may or may not be true, I'll post an interesting link that discusses the issue on why there are so many denominations within Christianity, which I found to be enlightenment and goes further on the topic.

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/S ... el-Qureshi

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Although the topic of Yeshua/Christ being Messiah or not is still a hot topic for debate between Jews, Christians, Messianic Jews, Jehova Witnesses and even Muslims alike (hell even atheists ) I wouldn't really want to type up for my reasons but rather point to interesting resources that covers this topic in more detail.

Although these resources are Christian oriented, I feel that they help present the positive case very great and it is even debated between two scholars/ authorities in the field and I would love to share these great resources.

Positive case from Christianity/Messianic Judaism


Debate of these points between two people who have fully immersed their life in this topic


I found these resources to be more informative than the usual James Brown debating Counter Jewish Missionaries.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Not being a Christian myself I find that I am unqualified to disqualify anyone else. And so I am forced to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian at their word. Oddly enough I invariably find during my discussions that there are apparently very few "true" Christians in the world at all, other than the very person I am talking to at that moment and those who believe exactly as he/she does.

I do not claim to be a Christian either, though many atheists want me to defend what those who claim to be Christians profess. That said, it is like being an atheist. What exactly is an atheist? We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists. Therefore, the argue that it is wrong to speculate on that. I generally address the specific views presented by the specific individual. That is what I suggest one do when one talks to someone who claims to be a Christian.

There is only one type of atheist, and that is anyone who is without any theological beliefs. I consider believing in the existence of spirits and the supernatural a type of theology as well. Within the group that holds no beliefs at all there may be some who are more adamant and vocal in their disbelief than others, but they are all atheists. If we were to break them down into inclinations, there are really only those who are happily inclined to argue with you all day on the subject, and those who inclination is simply that they could not care less.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Not being a Christian myself I find that I am unqualified to disqualify anyone else. And so I am forced to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian at their word. Oddly enough I invariably find during my discussions that there are apparently very few "true" Christians in the world at all, other than the very person I am talking to at that moment and those who believe exactly as he/she does.

I do not claim to be a Christian either, though many atheists want me to defend what those who claim to be Christians profess. That said, it is like being an atheist. What exactly is an atheist? We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists. Therefore, the argue that it is wrong to speculate on that. I generally address the specific views presented by the specific individual. That is what I suggest one do when one talks to someone who claims to be a Christian.

What would one call someone who is Torah observant, and also believes Yahshua is Divine?

Good question. Every pigeon hole I have come across presumes other things not inherent in that designation. Personally, I consider myself a Torah submissive follower of Yeshua. I put it this way, because I am willing to be open regarding what HaTorah and Yeshua actually require. That said, regardless of ones views, I think the best approach is to address the specific points presented by the specific individual, regardless of how the person is categorized by himself or others.

I think it's worth noting that Yahshua was also Torah observant, and taught others to be Torah observant as well...at least in Spirit, if not in letter. Would you agree?

And there is evidence that Yahshya's earliest followers may considered him the Messiah, but they did not consider him to be God. Certainly at least not equal to the Father.

Even Paul seems hesitant to make the leap that Yahshua is "God" Himself...though he flirts with the idea with his incredibly high Christology.

By this definition, early followers of "the Way" would not be considered Christians by post-council orthodox (small "o') Christians. At very best, they would be considered "proto-Trintiarians" and at worst, heretics.

Ironic.

One wonders if Yahshua himself would be disqualified, with his preaching of strict Torah Monotheism, and not Trinitarianism.

But did Jesus (Yeshua) actually consider himself divine? It's clear that his followers made that case in the years following his death. But since we have nothing written in Jesus' own hand, there is no way for us to know what his personal belief on that subject actually was.

Matt.13:
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

This is a good point. Jesus knew himself and his human background better than any of his neighbors did. Did he really consider himself divine? Even in my peak moments of narcissism I have never considered myself to be anything approaching divine. I know my own weaknesses and errors better than anyone. Did Jesus/Yeshua really consider himself to be divine? We can never know!

[catnip]

Not being a Christian myself I find that I am unqualified to disqualify anyone else. And so I am forced to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian at their word. Oddly enough I invariably find during my discussions that there are apparently very few "true" Christians in the world at all, other than the very person I am talking to at that moment and those who believe exactly as he/she does.

I do not claim to be a Christian either, though many atheists want me to defend what those who claim to be Christians profess. That said, it is like being an atheist. What exactly is an atheist? We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists. Therefore, the argue that it is wrong to speculate on that. I generally address the specific views presented by the specific individual. That is what I suggest one do when one talks to someone who claims to be a Christian.

What would one call someone who is Torah observant, and also believes Yahshua is Divine?

Good question. Every pigeon hole I have come across presumes other things not inherent in that designation. Personally, I consider myself a Torah submissive follower of Yeshua. I put it this way, because I am willing to be open regarding what HaTorah and Yeshua actually require. That said, regardless of ones views, I think the best approach is to address the specific points presented by the specific individual, regardless of how the person is categorized by himself or others.

I think it's worth noting that Yahshua was also Torah observant, and taught others to be Torah observant as well...at least in Spirit, if not in letter. Would you agree?

And there is evidence that Yahshya's earliest followers may considered him the Messiah, but they did not consider him to be God. Certainly at least not equal to the Father.

Even Paul seems hesitant to make the leap that Yahshua is "God" Himself...though he flirts with the idea with his incredibly high Christology.

By this definition, early followers of "the Way" would not be considered Christians by post-council orthodox (small "o') Christians. At very best, they would be considered "proto-Trintiarians" and at worst, heretics.

Ironic.

One wonders if Yahshua himself would be disqualified, with his preaching of strict Torah Monotheism, and not Trinitarianism.

But did Jesus (Yeshua) actually consider himself divine? It's clear that his followers made that case in the years following his death. But since we have nothing written in Jesus' own hand, there is no way for us to know what his personal belief on that subject actually was.

Matt.13:
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

This is a good point. Jesus knew himself and his human background better than any of his neighbors did. Did he really consider himself divine? Even in my peak moments of narcissism I have never considered myself to be anything approaching divine. I know my own weaknesses and errors better than anyone. Did Jesus/Yeshua really consider himself to be divine? We can never know!

I see no indication that he was thumping his own chest. In fact, quite the contrary--he remained humble.

We do know that his original followers did not consider him to be divine because they were Jews and did not think that a man could be God. They were convinced that he was the Messiah--the Anointed One--waited for. Trinitarian doctrine came along much later as people had come to believe Jesus was a deity and had to sort out just how he was a deity so the doctrine came along as a refutation and definition to sort the heretics from the true believers of the day.

The problem is that leaves the original followers of Jesus as heretics. (whistles innocently)

[bluethread]

I do not claim to be a Christian either, though many atheists want me to defend what those who claim to be Christians profess. That said, it is like being an atheist. What exactly is an atheist? We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists. Therefore, the argue that it is wrong to speculate on that. I generally address the specific views presented by the specific individual. That is what I suggest one do when one talks to someone who claims to be a Christian.

To the bold, can you list these 'many' differing types of atheists for us please?
I'll start you off with 'weak' and 'strong', you take it from there.

No, I am not in the habit of labeling individuals. Generally, if I do refer to a group of people, it is the concept inherent in the designation or the behavior of the group. If one wishes to talk about a position or view, I will permit them to provide the definition, unless they are talking about how someone else uses the term. Clarity is a two way street. If one does not understand a term, it is not a dodge to present the intent of the user of the term. So, in short, divide atheism, or Christianity, into as many types as one wishes, just recognize that there may needs be a clarification of terms in the discussion.[/quote]

So you are retracting that "there are many and varied types of atheists".
If not, I would like to be educated on the matter. Thanks.[/quote]

I am not going to retract ."We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists.", which is what I said. You will have to talk to those who object to atheists being lumped together as a group to get that kind of education. Personally, I do not care how many types of atheist there are, or how they are divided up. I tend to focus on assertions, not labels, and I think that is what everyone should do.

[Clownboat]

I do not claim to be a Christian either, though many atheists want me to defend what those who claim to be Christians profess. That said, it is like being an atheist. What exactly is an atheist? We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists. Therefore, the argue that it is wrong to speculate on that. I generally address the specific views presented by the specific individual. That is what I suggest one do when one talks to someone who claims to be a Christian.

To the bold, can you list these 'many' differing types of atheists for us please?
I'll start you off with 'weak' and 'strong', you take it from there.

No, I am not in the habit of labeling individuals. Generally, if I do refer to a group of people, it is the concept inherent in the designation or the behavior of the group. If one wishes to talk about a position or view, I will permit them to provide the definition, unless they are talking about how someone else uses the term. Clarity is a two way street. If one does not understand a term, it is not a dodge to present the intent of the user of the term. So, in short, divide atheism, or Christianity, into as many types as one wishes, just recognize that there may needs be a clarification of terms in the discussion.

So you are retracting that "there are many and varied types of atheists".
If not, I would like to be educated on the matter. Thanks.

I am not going to retract ."We have been informed, in no uncertain terms, there are many and varied types of atheists.", which is what I said. You will have to talk to those who object to atheists being lumped together as a group to get that kind of education. Personally, I do not care how many types of atheist there are, or how they are divided up. I tend to focus on assertions, not labels, and I think that is what everyone should do.

I guess I'm left with not knowing about these other types of atheists that you claim exist but cannot or will not reference.

Perhaps you are referring to claims like:
- There are atheists that like to swim.
- There are atheists that like to dance.
- There are atheists that like to debate gods.
- There are atheists that like to not debate gods.
- There are atheists that have good eye site.
- There are atheists that don't have good eye site.

This makes sense I guess, but honestly, I thought you were talking about 'weak atheists', 'strong atheists', ______ atheists, ______ atheists and ______ atheists.

These types of atheists intrigued me to learn about. The first list (likes dancing etc...) is not so interesting.
Perhaps the 'many types of atheists' claim was just hyperbole to try to level the playing field since there are near 40,000 denominations of Christianity?