Zzyzx wrote:
.
A Theist who has gained my respect said:
Christianity really should be defined only by the folks who call themselves Christian.
I agree.
I agree
if and only if, the Christian in question confesses that their definition of Christianity only applies to them.
In other words, evangelists, preachers, and Christian proselytizers would be hypocrites if they were to claim this precisely because they are trying extremely hard to define what Christianity should be for other people.
I was a Christian, I have since come to reject Christianity.
Think about how ironic this criteria becomes now. When I was a Christian I would then be the one who should define what Christianity means. Yet, I also rejected Christianity precisely because of this "Christian definition". Therefore I reject the only Christianity that can be said to be meaningful for me.
~~~~~
Ultimately I disagree that Christianity is up for personal definition. If that were true I then could just redefine it in a way that I find acceptable.
Obviously that's not possible from any realistic point of view.
IMHO, the Christian Bible defines what Christianity must be, specifically the Gospels rumors of the New Testament that claim that Jesus is the virgin-born demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament. And then, of course, the Old Testament must be included in this as well, for many reasons. First, it describes what this "Father God" must be like, and it also supposedly prophesies the coming of Jesus.
I reject the Old Testament God for many reasons thus making the New Testament moot. I reject that there exists any convincing prophesies of Jesus. I agree with the Jews that Jesus could not possible have been the promised messiah. He simply did not fulfill the prophesies that are in the Old Testament as the Jews make very clear.
I also claim that no Christian can ignore the Old Testament because of words attributed to Jesus:
Matt.5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
So according to the Christian Jesus not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass.
The following words were also attributed to Jesus. Words that he himself violated:
Matt.5:17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
But he did destroy the law.
In the Old Testament th jots and tittles clearly state:
Deuteronomy 19:
[19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
[20] And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
[21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Notice in the Old Testaments jots and tittles it is made clear that the reason for the law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is to
"put evil away from among you" and it also says,
"And thine eye shall not pity".
But in the New Testament Jesus preaches:
Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Jesus is preaching blaspheme here. Jesus is preaching to not only take pity on evil people but to also turn the other cheek and allow them to continue to exist among you. This is an extreme rejection of the Old Testament Law verbatim.
So Jesus himself was not even consistent in what he preached. If he were truly a divine being why lie? Who not speak the truth and state clearly that he came to change the laws of old?
One can argue also that the Old Testament clearly commanded men to judge one another and to stone sinners to death, but Jesus clearly taught people not to judge others and not to cast the first stone. Jesus himself was not keeping within the jots and tittle of the Old Testament laws.
I don't see where people can redefine Christianity to suit their fancy. The Bible defines what Christianity must be, it's not up for grabs.
Also things like the virgin birth of Jesus cannot be denied by someone claiming to be a Christian:
Matthew 1:
[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
If a person rejects this, then they reject Christian dogma. They can claim to redefine Christianity all they want, but if they are flat-out rejecting the Bible then they are making up their own Christianity.
~~~~
Think hard about the following too:
Mark 16:
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
[19] So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
[20] And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Here it is proclaimed that they that believe (i.e. Christians) shall cast out demons, heal the sick, not be affected by poison or any deadly thing, etc. So if a Christian can't do these things then it seems to me they are not a Christian by Jesus criteria.
Also note verse number 20 highlighted in red above and retyped below:
[20] And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
So where are all the stories of all the miracles that the disciples of Jesus performed? There were 12 disciples, although I guess Judas died. But the other 11 disciples supposedly went on to continue performing the same miracles that Jesus performed, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead, etc.
Why aren't their rumors about these guys?
If these guys went off and did the same things as Jesus had done they should have each sparked their own bibles and tales of testaments. But those stories simply don't exist in any independent way. The only place we hear about these guys at all is in the New Testament rumors, and even in that context they don't seem to have been going around performing the same miracles as Jesus.
I don't care how anyone defines Christianity for themselves, it's the Bible I reject.
How individual Christians re-define Christianity is totally meaningless to me.
I can read the Bible for myself and it's the Bible that I reject.
I don't even need to use the term "
Christianity". Call it what you will, I reject the Bible.
