A definition

[ScioVeritas]

The word " Christian" is thrown around a lot and I'm wondering how people here define it?

Specifically, the question for debate is : what makes someone a Christian? Also where/what does your definition come from?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 89 by Zzyzx]
I'm with Tammy religiously, spiritually,
I guess you would say. I got baptized with the Holy Spirit March 25, 1977 in the
Charismatic Renewal in the Roman Catholic Church. Those were some of the happiest years of my life. (And also, as I now recall, and I may be wrong about the cause being its conflict with my NT nature, some of the saddest periods of my life when I set out to over-do, I guess, trying to be really loving and spiritual all the time when I am really just an ornery male, and fell into depression back before I knew there were anti-depressive meds that could have helped me.)
At the same time (?) I'm with Z in his critical acumen here. Parsed, he is right, but that doesn't mean that Pentecostal Christianity is not where Christianity should be nor that Paul's culturally-benighted pastoral theology is not the best way of practicing Christianity.

[tam]

What, exactly, are "gifts of the Spirit" and how can they be distinguished from someone's personal characteristics?

Gifts of the Spirit include but may not be limited to: wisdom, prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, distinguishing between spirits, knowledge, performing miracles, etc.

This is a topic worthy of a separate thread

You may be right!

Those who were anointed at Pentecost were all given the gift of speaking in tongues upon their anointing.

There are tales which make that claim. Is there a means to independently verify that the tales are true?

Yes. By a) receiving or witnessing such gifts being given; or b) by confirmation from the Spirit (Christ) who tells you that such tales are true. (providing you have come to know that He speaks truth)

If a believer and a non-believer act similarly did both receive "gifts of the Spirit" or just the believer?

Gifts of the Spirit come from the spirit upon anointing as far as I understand, and are given in order to build up the Body of Christ, so I am not sure how many non-believers would be able to receive a gift of the spirit.

That being said - if a believer is given the gift of love with their anointing... and a non-believer also manifests love - then the non-believer might simply have love upon their hearts and so act accordingly, naturally.

If Non-Believers can express love naturally, why do Believers need a "gift" in order to do so? Were they deficient in love to begin with and need help?

If Non-Believers can express love naturally, why do Believers need a "gift" in order to do so? Were they deficient in love to begin with and need help?

Perhaps they were deficient and needed help, yes.
Perhaps they needed more (than what they had naturally) for the particular work assigned to them in order to bear witness to Christ and build up His Body.

What a person IS or IS NOT is not my concern. My task is to do the work that Christ has given me, and keep an eye upon myself. But what a person teaches (falsely) in the name of Christ may well be my concern, so as to bear witness to the truth - out of love for Christ and also out of love for anyone seeking Him... including perhaps the one who has spoken falsely, not maliciously, but in ignorance.

How do you (generic term) KNOW who teaches falsely "in the name of Christ?"

By testing the claims/teaching against Christ and what He taught/teaches. If someone who claims to be in Christ is stating or teaching something that is in conflict with Him… then they are teaching falsely in His name.

Teachings of the 40,000 or so denominations within Christianity differ greatly from one another. Which are true and which are false – and who is entitled, empowered, or authorized to make that decision?

They do differ from one another, yes. From what I have understood from Christ, and from my limited experience with the teachings in some of those sects, they have some truth (and so attract those seeking Truth), and they also all have some lies (falsehoods – even if taught in ignorance, rather than intentional). Hence, one should not follow any of them if one is seeking to follow Christ, and Truth (in the context of the Christian faith)

One should simply follow Him. We should all be testing the claims that others make that we are accepting, and ensuring that we are indeed, following and listening to Christ. Again, if one is interesting in following Christ to begin with.

The MOST that anyone can legitimately say about the teachings of others is "they differ from mine that I believe are correct. Of course, each person can say that about any other – and there is no authority established to rule or judge. It does not settle the matter to refer to the Bible because each side can justify their position using the Bible.

Christ is the authority, or should be, in the context of the Christian faith. So if He says or confirms something – or even if something He is written to have said shows that what others are teaching is in conflict with Him – the truth would be in what Christ said. At least, for one who claims to follow/belong to Him.

Yes, it is possible for someone who is a Christian to recognize someone else who is not - and at some point they might be called upon to speak to that truth, even if just for themselves to know to be wary of such a person, and to know that they do not need to fear or listen to them. But also to show that the false things done in the name of Christ do not reflect upon Him.

Again, this is nothing more than a matter of opinion – no matter how fervently believed.

I must disagree for the reasons stated. From the outside, not knowing Christ, I can understand your position here.

No judgment from me on that at all.

For instance, I would not be afraid to call out someone a false christian who said that Christ teaches or told them to burn people at the stake (as I stated earlier as an extreme example). Such people were not following Christ.

The God to which Jesus swore allegiance (or was supposedly part of) is said to have condoned or encouraged all sorts of atrocities (horrible actions including smashing babies into rocks and killing unborn as well as entire populations – not to mention stories about worldwide genocide by flood).

How is that not equal to or worse than burning at the stake?

Since you are using the bible here I am going to also, and I hope that you will find that acceptable. Because according to that book, and to Christ, whom God said to listen to: God (the Father of Christ) is as Christ shows Him to be.

“If you have seen me, you have seen my Father.�

“If you know me, you know my Father also.�

Instead of viewing God through the lens of the OT (or religion, or nature, or even the bible on its own)… one must look at Christ to see and know His Father.

[

quote="tam"]
Judging between true and false- discerning - is also not the same as condemning, or passing sentence upon someone. You can call a thief a thief without sitting in judgment of him.

Does the Bible statement say "Judge not . . ." or does it say "Condemn not"?

Does it say judge not when it means condemn not? If that is the case, it does not say what it means or mean what it says (for whatever reason) and cannot be trusted.

[/quote]

Well, one could look up the various meanings of the word ‘judge’. Or whichever greek/Hebrew word is translated into ‘judge’.

But also, in the context of what is written, Christ said:

“I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false…�

Why would Christ say judge not… and then praise those who find some apostles to be false – if judge not meant that you could not test some to find out if their and their claims are true or false?

It would seem to matter if one is interested in pursuing truth rather than belief.

True... but I still don't understand how one could define Christian without at least looking at the source from whom the word comes from. (Christ)

Beliefs regarding Christ seem to very greatly within Christianity.

Yes, hence one should look at Christ to know Him… rather than at Christianity.

[

quote="tam"]

How does one know what Jesus actually may have said?

One could ask Him.

That's what Mother Teresa did for fifty years – and received no answer according to her letters.

If one asks and gets no answer . . . .

[/quote]

Perhaps they are not actually calling upon Him. But only think that they are.

Perhaps they do not hear Him because what He says is not in line with what their religion teaches, and so they dismiss His voice to the point where they do not even hear Him.

Like a kid who ignores their parents voice when it doesn’t suit them.

[

quote="tam"]
One could also reason based upon witnesses to Him, but asking Him would be best.

If one cannot ask Him (due perhaps to a lack of faith in Him ... or non-belief in His existence), then the only sources available to them are second-hand, yes.

Do Believers actually receive information directly from Jesus that tells them what words he spoke 2000 years ago?

[/quote]

Yes. If one is His sheep, one hears His voice.

He actually speak to everyone, but not everyone hears Him (or recognizes that He IS speaking to them, perhaps because those they listen to do not know this, themselves)

I can give you verses that testify to this, examples of those who have heard His voice, and my own testimony that He lives and speaks.

But if you reject His existence and reject any witness to Him, then what is there to talk about unless/until you receive some personal evidence? This is not a rhetorical or sarcastic question. I am seeking to understand your position here.

I do NOT "reject his existence". Instead, I regard Jesus as just as likely to exist as any of the thousands of other proposed gods. Any of them MAY exist – awaiting sound verifiable evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision.

Understood. Thank you for clarifying.

Words attributed to him were recorded by unidentified people (according to Christian scholars and theologians) decades or generations after they were supposedly spoken. The gospel names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were assigned by churchmen centuries after they were written – and true authorship is unknown or disputed. None of the writers can be shown to have witnessed any of the events or conversations about which they wrote. Their sources of information are unknown.

I don't consider the conclusions of christian scholars or theologian to be conclusive or inerrant, but yes, even from what is written in those gospels, these first recordings were not written until some time after Christ died.

What sources do you regard as more conclusive (or inerrant?) regarding scriptures than Christian scholars and theologians?

Christ.

Since gospels were written decades or generations after Jesus is said to have died and since none of the gospel writers can be shown to have personally known him or to have witnessed anything he said or did, HOW can their stories be regarded as truthful and accurate?

They "didn't know what they were talking about" (personally) – so they must have relied on information from others, or from legends, or from folklore, or from oral tradition.

Just because scholars and theologians (or whomever) cannot show that the gospel writers personally knew Christ, does not mean that the gospel writers did not know Christ. The one who testified in the Book of John was one of the apostles, and says so. To reject that, one must conclude that he (or the author) was deliberately lying. I am not sure anyone has been able to show that either? It is just supposition based on what (little) physical evidence there is.

The book of Luke, on the other hand, states itself that it is based on interviewing others to write an orderly account of what happened – not that the author was witness to all of those things himself. So this gospel is more like an investigative report written for a specific person: Theopholus.

hus, it is a case of "take their word for it" without being able to verify truth and accuracy.

Well, even if one does not accept that Christ lives and teaches still... there are occasions where multiple witnesses to the same event add validity to their testimony.

Multiple connected sources do not add validity. "Three KKK members say he didn't do it" or "Ten bankers say this is a great investment" or "Ten preachers say Goddidit" – for example.

Okay, I see what you are saying. It would mean that multiple people here are lying, and that they were willing to die for something that they knew was a lie though. Not impossible, but seems unlikely to me.

I do not blindly accept what is written just because it is written either, mind you, so I can certainly understand why someone else would not.

Understand and agree.

Well all right then ; )

Okay, then "anointing is temporary and conditional upon one continuing to "accept Christ." Right?

Hmm. I don't think I can phrase it like that. One can choose to turn away from Christ, yes, rejecting him and the anointing given them. But it would be more, "anointing is permanent unless one rejects Christ and so also their anointing."

Just to be difficult, can someone decide that they no longer believe that Jesus was supernatural, but still maintain some belief in God – and do not "reject their anointing" – and still remain "anointed?"

I do not think that it is possible for someone to be anointed, reject Christ, but continue in their anointing (because this anointing is what makes one a Christian).

[

quote="tam"]

It appears as though the closest anyone can come to "looking at Christ" is to read what OTHERS say about him – and perhaps have personal emotional / mental "experiences" based on belief of what others say.

Unless one knows Him (personally), then it would seem so, yes.

When someone claims to "know Jesus personally" are they to be taken at their word?

[/quote]

That they know Him? I’m not sure why someone else would care if another makes that claim or not, at least not as long as the person making that claim does not starting acting/speaking in a way that shows otherwise. But no one has to take anyone at their word for anything. That claim might simply about love for Christ, about not being ashamed of Him… and have nothing to do with others.

Can a person "know Jesus" WITHOUT having FIRST read / heard others describing his works and his statements? Consider a person born and raised in an environment totally devoid of mention of Jesus and devoid of literature about him. Are they likely to come to "know him?" If so, how?

[/quote]

Without a testimony of some sort – oral or written – you mean? I think it is possible… but I do not know how often something like that happens. I don’t like to make blanket statements about what has or could happen with others. For the most part, one might have to learn something about Him – even if just that He exists – in order to know to come to Him, so as to learn from Him.



Hope that helps, and thank you for the respectful and civil discussion!

Peace to you,
your servant, and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Goat]

Yet, let's take a look what 'Anointed one means in the context of the 1st century Jewish person living in Jerusalem. In the Jewish culture, there were two people that could be considered 'anointed'. One was the high priest in the Temple. Every year, the high priest was anointed by oil to confirm his tenure as High Priest for another year. The second 'anointed' one was the King.

Agreed.

Christ is described as being both king AND (high) priest. A king-priest. Like Melchizedek.

Except, of course, the Jews did not have a 'king -priest,', and Jesus never was anointed in the temple. That sort of kills the whole 'anointed' thingy from the Jewish perspective.

[tam]

Israel did not have a king-priest, true. They had God as their King, but they asked to have a man as King over them, just as the other nations had.


However, earlier, Abraham (still as of yet known as Abram) - from whom came Isaac, and then Jacob, and then the sons of Israel, was blessed by a king-priest, one who was a priest of God Most High.

Melchizedek.

Melchizedek was not anointed in the temple built by Solomon, or in the temple later rebuilt by the Jews, but he was still a priest of God Most High, and a king, and he blessed Abram. He even brought out bread and wine to share with Abram. Melchizedek represents Christ.



Peace to you again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[/u]

[tam]

I must clarify something that I stated in our exchange, Zzyzx. I said:

If someone who claims to be in Christ is stating or teaching something that is in conflict with Him… then they are teaching falsely in His name.

If someone is stating or teaching something that is in conflict with Him... using His name to provide authority for what they are stating (especially if they state that their teaching is FROM him) - then they would be teaching something falsely in His name.

Saying 'someone who claims to be in Christ' probably does not explain that I meant someone teaching/speaking in His name. And it is important to be accurate.


I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy