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?

[ScioVeritas]

This is the point at which the analogy breaks down. You have posited a fact, that the house is on fire. Christians deal entirely in conjecture: "You have to be baptized." "It's important to believe there are three gods, not one." "No, there's only one god and he's three." "And it is impossible to see him." "Right, but also possible."

There are no facts, nothing to test the claims against.

Your understanding of the purpose of my analogy is flawed and that is reflected in your response. It is an illustration on the nature of belief not an assessment of the content of said belief. Regardless of if the house is on fire or not the analogy still holds because it shows the difference between what it looks like for someone to actually believe something vs someone who only mentally acknowledges something.

If you're going to be taking things literally, then it wouldn't make sense to be waiting for Jesus now when his second coming was promised for 2000 years ago.

I don't see how this is relevant. Nothing in my post was about that.

[dianaiad]

The OP asks what is the definition of Christian. I pointed out that there is no privileged answer. We can look at the various and contradictory things self-identified Christians mean by the word. We can look at the various and contradictory things the bible says you have to do to be saved. What we can't do is find one answer that is somehow correct, and compared to which other answers are somehow wrong.

I will agree that within Christianity there are different definitions applied to the word "Christian" and that was the original purpose of my OP - to show that without an objective definition then use of the term becomes meaningless. However I disagree that the Bible contradicts itself in terms of what you have to do to be saved - can you point out these perceived contradictions?

In general most people will equate being a "Christian" with being "saved" and while originally I would have agreed with that assessment (based on my definition of what it means to be a Christian*), I don't think that the over generalized meaning of the word "Christian" can continue to be associated with being "saved".

* My definition of what it means to be a Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is God in the flesh and acts accordingly. The usage of the term "true Christian" I think stems from the fact that there are people who profess to believe in Jesus but don't act accordingly, i.e. they don't do what He says to do. And it's those instances where I would question the belief of the person since belief is an action not just mental assent.

An analogy being there are two people in a house that's on fire. The first person says that he believes the house is on fire because he can smell the smoke and feel the warmth. The second person doesn't have time to talk to you because they're outside across the street calling 911. The first person used the word "belief" but it would be more accurate to describe it as mental assent. The second person actually believes the house is on fire and so their actions reflect that. When the letter that James wrote speaks about living vs dead faith it is the same type of idea. A person who truly believes will have evidence of their belief through their actions - and a person who says they believe but doesn't act on that belief is a person who's belief can (I think rightly) be called into question.

Interesting analogy. I would call it the difference between belief...and faith. A believer can well think that the house is on fire, but not enough to leave it. FAITH is that guy calling 911.

The NT, in that idea of faith without works being dead, also mentions something about even the devils believing, and trembling; belief doesn't do anybody any good if they don't ACT on it.

Indeed, I like your analogy very much; I think I'll use it myself, if that's OK with you.

As you pointed out in a later post, as an analogy of the difference between faith and belief, it doesn't matter whether or not the building really IS on fire; just what people do about their belief that it is--or might be.

[tam]

May you have peace!

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?

Well...

The word Christ (or Messiah) means anointed one.

THE Christ - THE Anointed One

The above you should find in any dictionary that also shows etymology of the word.

Christians are those who are anointed with holy spirit... which Christ gives them, which His Father gave to Him. For example from what is written,

"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the Truth." 1John 2:20.

The dictionary definition states that a Christian is a follower of Christ. This is true - but that does not mean that all who follow Christ are YET Christian (anointed with holy spirit) Until one is anointed, one would be a disciple. The apostles also began as disciples, and later received their anointed with holy spirit.



So in answer to your question, and from what I have understood from Christ (and from what is written that I shared), what makes one a Christian is being anointed with holy spirit, and so being in union with Christ.

A follower of Christ who is not (yet) anointed would be a disciple of Christ. Perhaps that disciple remains in Christ by obeying Him so as to receive an anointing, and perhaps that disciple leaves Him (as many did when He taught that one must eat and drink of Him in order to have life, and in order to remain in Him - John 6:50-58)



Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian IS a Christian, from Christ's own words:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'

Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'


This should account for at least some of those who do or who teach things that are obviously against Christ and His word. Such as burning people at the stake.


I hope that answered your question. I hope I did not ramble too much.

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





[/u]

[Zzyzx]

.

Christians are those who are anointed with holy spirit... which Christ gives them, which His Father gave to Him.

Can said / claimed "anointing" be shown to be anything more than imaginary?

If someone claims to be "anointed with the holy spirit", is anyone authorized or empowered to dispute their word? Is "they don't act like it (in my eyes)", adequate reason to assume that they are mistaken or lying?

For example from what is written,

Many things written are not true. Is there assurance this tale is true?

what makes one a Christian is being anointed with holy spirit, and so being in union with Christ.

Is the claimed "anointing" a temporary condition or permanent? Is it withdrawn if one becomes and Ex-Christian?

Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian IS a Christian, from Christ's own words:

But whoever is speaking or writing at the moment considers themselves a "True Christian" and often points fingers at others who are "Not True (or Real) Christians".

[tam]

Can said / claimed "anointing" be shown to be anything more than imaginary?

Perhaps, through gifts of the Spirit. One Christian may recognize another Christian by the spirit they share, and in hearing Christ (truth) through what they have been given to share/speak.

If someone claims to be "anointed with the holy spirit", is anyone authorized or empowered to dispute their word?

If one who claims to be a Christian but is not... then one who is could dispute their claim. We have examples of this written in some letters of the NT.

From my understanding and experience, one would at least first test the teachings that someone else claims to be true, to see if they are in conflict with the truth Christ teaches. If in conflict, one could point that out and show where it is in conflict with Christ. One would do this to bear witness to the Truth, to help others who might be seeking Truth, and to help build up the Body of Christ. Besides, someone might simply not have an accurate understanding from Christ (yet).


What others are or are not... is not my concern. That is between them and their master. We who follow Christ are to keep our eyes upon Him and also upon ourselves; to make sure that WE are obeying Him.

Many things written are not true. Is there assurance this tale is true?

Many things are written that are not true, yes. But in the context of the question being asked about how some here define what it means to be a Christian, does it matter?

If a Christian follows Christ, then shouldn't His words be the ones that matter? That was my reason for posting His words.

Is the claimed "anointing" a temporary condition or permanent? Is it withdrawn if one becomes and Ex-Christian?

From what I understand, it is possible that one could reject their anointing if one rejected Christ.

But whoever is speaking or writing at the moment considers themselves a "True Christian" and often points fingers at others who are "Not True (or Real) Christians".

True.


That is why it is important (for those who are Christian or who are seeking Christ) to look at Christ... rather than at others. Christ is the Truth (if one has faith in Him, I realize this will not mean anything to one who does not), and so all claims should be tested against Him.



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

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Tammy, and a belated welcome to the Forum.

I hope you realize that disagreeing about ideas presented does not indicate personal disapproval or personal attack. Although I often challenge religious claims and stories, some of my good friends on the Forum and in real life are and have been Theists – Jews, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, and a Muslim or two. Also, I am a transplant resident of the Bible Belt surrounded by Bible Thumping Christians (some of whom are friends – provided they don't attempt god talk at me).

Can said / claimed "anointing" be shown to be anything more than imaginary?

Perhaps, through gifts of the Spirit.

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

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

Do you see any conflict between these statements (all yours)?

One Christian may recognize another Christian by the spirit they share, and in hearing Christ (truth) through what they have been given to share/speak.

If one who claims to be a Christian but is not... then one who is could dispute their claim. We have examples of this written in some letters of the NT.

From my understanding and experience, one would at least first test the teachings that someone else claims to be true, to see if they are in conflict with the truth Christ teaches. If in conflict, one could point that out and show where it is in conflict with Christ.

vs.

What others are or are not... is not my concern. That is between them and their master. We who follow Christ are to keep our eyes upon Him and also upon ourselves; to make sure that WE are obeying Him.

Many Christians seem to acknowledge that judging is God's job – but they often seem to regard themselves as qualified to speak for God and decide who is and who is not a Christian (or a TRUE Christian or a REAL Christian).

Many things written are not true. Is there assurance this tale is true?

Many things are written that are not true, yes. But in the context of the question being asked about how some here define what it means to be a Christian, does it matter?

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

If a Christian follows Christ, then shouldn't His words be the ones that matter? That was my reason for posting His words.

How does one know what Jesus actually may have said? 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.

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

Is the claimed "anointing" a temporary condition or permanent? Is it withdrawn if one becomes and Ex-Christian?

From what I understand, it is possible that one could reject their anointing if one rejected Christ.

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

But whoever is speaking or writing at the moment considers themselves a "True Christian" and often points fingers at others who are "Not True (or Real) Christians".

True.

That is why it is important (for those who are Christian or who are seeking Christ) to look at Christ... rather than at others.

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.

It seems unlikely that anyone would "look at Christ" unless they had come to believe what others say (particularly Bible writers and religious authorities). A person born and raised in an environment without religious literature and religion promoters would not likely come up with the Christ concept on their own.

Christ is the Truth (if one has faith in Him, I realize this will not mean anything to one who does not), and so all claims should be tested against Him.

Agreed. "Christ is truth" is meaningless to the majority of world population who do not choose to believe the claims and stories of Christianity.

We debate here in an environment that does not assume Christianity or the Bible are true or are proof of truth.

Peace to you Zzyzx,

I am at peace beyond what others I know seem to experience. I hope the same is true for you and yours.

[tam]

Hi Tammy, and a belated welcome to the Forum.

Thank you for your welcome.

I hope you realize that disagreeing about ideas presented does not indicate personal disapproval or personal attack. Although I often challenge religious claims and stories, some of my good friends on the Forum and in real life are and have been Theists – Jews, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, and a Muslim or two. Also, I am a transplant resident of the Bible Belt surrounded by Bible Thumping Christians (some of whom are friends – provided they don't attempt god talk at me).

I do realize this yes. I hope you realize the same, but I assume that you do since you brought it up ; )

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

Something like love or even wisdom might not be distinguishable to others from someone's personal characteristic (except for the person who might know themselves well enough to know what they were lacking).

But this is one reason why I said 'perhaps' through gifts of the Spirit can one's anointing be shown to be more than imaginary.

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.

Do you see any conflict between these statements (all yours)?

I can see where my words might be confusing. I will try to clarify.

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.


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.


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.

Many Christians seem to acknowledge that judging is God's job – but they often seem to regard themselves as qualified to speak for God and decide who is and who is not a Christian (or a TRUE Christian or a REAL Christian).

Yes, but I hope that the above clarifies what I meant. If you are making a different point here, you will need to elaborate for me to understand, please.

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.

...

(I don't know how to quote yours and my previous posts so I hope you can follow along without that)

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)

How does one know what Jesus actually may have said?

One could ask Him.

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. 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.

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.

Thus, 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.

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.

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."

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.

Agreed. "Christ is truth" is meaningless to the majority of world population who do not choose to believe the claims and stories of Christianity.

We debate here in an environment that does not assume Christianity or the Bible are true or are proof of truth.

I know. But for a Christian (and this thread is about the definition of Christian and where we get our definition from), Christ is that source. Or should be that source. So I quoted Him - not to judge others as false christian - but for those who were stating that 'anyone who claims to be a christian is a christian."

I am at peace beyond what others I know seem to experience. I hope the same is true for you and yours.

Thank you Zzyzx.


Your servant, and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Goat]

May you have peace!

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?

Well...

The word Christ (or Messiah) means anointed one.

THE Christ - THE Anointed One

The above you should find in any dictionary that also shows etymology of the word.

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.

So, what were the Jews expecting in their Messiah? They were expecting an extraordinary human who kicked foreign rulers out, and established themselves as King over Israel, to bring in a period of peace and prosperity. This is a different concept than what the Christians later adopted.

[tam]

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.

So, what were the Jews expecting in their Messiah? They were expecting an extraordinary human who kicked foreign rulers out, and established themselves as King over Israel, to bring in a period of peace and prosperity. This is a different concept than what the Christians later adopted.

Okay.

But what one expects (including the timing of what one expects to happen) does not mean that one is correct in their expectation.




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

[Zzyzx]

.

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

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?

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?

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?"

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 . . . .

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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?

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?