Does the word "Christian" mean today what it used

[Shermana]

What is the defining term of a "Christian" and who SHOULD be called a "Christian" as opposed to the broad brush used to define 2+ billion people with? If you wish, address any of the following:

Can/Must you be a Trinitarian?

Can you sin? Are you allowed to live however you wish as long as you claim to "believe in Jesus" or do you have a code of behavior you must live by? Is there punishment for breaking that behavior? What is it if so?

Must you accept the New Testament canon as it is?

Are Catholics?

Are Mormons?

Are "Jews for Jesus?"

7th day adventists?

Who rightfully gets the Title?

Is there a major importance to what particulars they believe other than claiming to "Believe in Jesus?" What does "Believing in Jesus" mean, does it mean believing in every single thing he said to do and following it?

What must you do and is there a code of behavior?

Are true Christians "true Scotsmen"? What do "True Christians" do that makes them unique from other people? What kinds of things would make one not a "True Christian" and what are the consequences of such?

When did the word first get used? Who were the first it applied to? (Hint: It was applied by other people to Nazarene Torah following Jews)

What did the original Christians believe as opposed to what is believed today?

Were all the Church Founders Christians? Did they all agree on a universal Orthodoxy and if so, when?

Were the Gnostics Christians?

The point is to define as close as possible a concrete definition of the word itself "Christian".

[gegraptai]

Have fun debating theology with unbelievers. I'm sure it will be a productive discussion.

Well, your side discussion is off topic. I doubt this discussion will continue between Shermana and the unbelievers.

It won't be continuing with me either, not in this subforum. Debating theology in a subforum where the Bible is not considered to be authoritative is pointless and fruitless.

[Shermana]

Where is thou shalt not fraud.

That's nice if you don't accept Extra-biblical HISTORY sources, are you implying they are lying and false? If that's the case, then throw out ALL history books. How do you know Jesus even existed? Do you just go by the Bible because someone said so?

Post in the Theology Section, this is Apologetics, this board includes historical sources. I don't care if you don't.

Since when did "fraud" become a verb?

Yes, I do accept historical sources, but I do not derive my theology from them. I was unaware that you had placed this in C&A instead of TD&D. My mistake. However, in light of your gross inability to back your theology with Scripture, I can understand your choice.

Have fun debating theology with unbelievers. I'm sure it will be a productive discussion.

Fine, DEfraud. Notice he also mentions do not steal. They are not the same. Therefore, by logical conclusion, he is not just referring to the famous "10" of the commandments.

"18Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is good"except God alone. 19You know the commandments: Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.d "

I like how you accuse me of gross inability to defend my position with scripture.

Your arguments against my position are

1) That I only use one verse, therefore it's thrown out merely because it's one verse. You said my verse is invalid because you claimed (and laughed when I asked for proof) that it was meant for non-believing Jews in the Tribulation as opposed to what th etext actually says. So you put an embellished "theological" spin on what the actual text says, in an effort to downplay as well what you consider "one verse", and also I mentioned Luke 16:17 and Mathew 5:17-20 but that means nothing to you obviously. So it's a matter of what you PERCEIVE TO BE "Gross inability to defend my position with scripture", but of course, You have a right to laugh and ignore and change the subject when asked for proof of your own claims about scripture regarding embellishments and interpretations of such. So your point is false, I did in fact back my position with scripture, you made a false claim about the verse itself which has NO textual support, and you base it purely on a Theological position as opposed to what the text actually says. I also asked you to prove with verse that they STOPPED following the Sabbath, but your own logic seems to not apply to yourself.

2) Obviously the early Christian communities according to the historians were all obeying the Sabbath except in Rome and Alexandria. So if you don't derive this as a proof, then you're up a creek.

3) Thou Shalt not Defraud is obviously mentioned in the same breath as the ones from the 10 commandments along with do not steal. Apparently you have not read this and made a grammar issue of my use of "fraud" instead of "defraud", oh my, fraud instead of defraud, I hope you're at least aware it was mentioned by Jesus. And he says "You know the commandments" and lists them, as if he ALREADY KNOWS THEM. Therefore, by listing "Do not defraud" which is NOT in the original 10, he's quite obviously referring to the REST of the Mosaic Law.

Does that make sense? Do not defraud is not part of the original 10. This means he is referencing the ENTIRE Law by giving examples. That's what he says. That's what the text says. Anything else is like your attempt to say that Jesus was preaching to Jews that didn't believe in him about running on the Sabbath.

[Shermana]

Have fun debating theology with unbelievers. I'm sure it will be a productive discussion.

Well, your side discussion is off topic. I doubt this discussion will continue between Shermana and the unbelievers.

It won't be continuing with me either, not in this subforum. Debating theology in a subforum where the Bible is not considered to be authoritative is pointless and fruitless.

You have it confused here. You think YOUR version of the Bible is what is authoritative and that historical sources which prove my case and against yours shouldn't be taken seriously. You want ONLY the Bible, and then you want only YOUR interpretation of it, for instance,if I say that its being literal when Jesus says he is telling his FOLLOWERS (you claim its people who don't believe in him) to not run on the Sabbath and then go LOL when I ask you to back this position that it's not his followers but people who don't believe in him, and you assume its self evident even though the TEXT DOES NOT SAY THIS. You reject historical evidence that 95% of the Christian world (pretty much everywhere except Rome and Alexandria) obeyed the Sabbath. I've proved this, unless you prove that these historians are all lying.)

So if you want your point to be PURELY Theologically based, you're gonna have trouble with that in the Theology section as well because your Theology involves EMBLELLISHMENTS and NOT READING THE TEXT AS IT IS and then if you base your position with only one verse, you're gonna be in trouble by your own logic, because you have a numerical-baesd criteria. You didn't mention anything about the Adam and Eve thing, I asked how many verses prove Eve came from a Rib. One? Well, only one!!! According to you, since only one verse says Eve came from a Rib, all credibility for this subject has been lost. And then I mentioned Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:17-20 which say we follow the Law, but of course that didn't register because you'll interpret it differently and say I'm wrong and then say I have no biblical basis.