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]

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.

Now, you are talking about issues and not labels. This thread is about who is rightfully referred to by the label "Christian". I tend to avoid the term for three reasons. First, it was originally used as a pejorative, by various Jewish sects to identify it as Greek and not Jewish, and by Romans to identify it with Judaism. Thus, it has been a confused term from the beginning. Second, over the last to millennia, it's connotation has been closely associated with RCC doctrine and not just the teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles. Third, the pervasive influence of RCC doctrine on Western culture has resulted in the equating of the two in the first half of the second millennium, followed by a divergence in the later half of that millennium. In spite of this divergence, the transfer of the term "Christian" to Western society in general has stuck. This has resulted it the term being equated with the term "civilized". Thus many who wish to add legitimacy to their cause like to use the term "Christian" for that purpose, without regard for whether that cause lines up with Yeshua's teachings or RCC doctrine. Therefore, even if the term had been established as an accurate identification of a follower of Yeshua, it has lost all usefulness, in that regard.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 19 by catnip]

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

Whether he thumped his chest or not is an open question. People long after he was dead were certainly thumping his chest for him. You must keep in mind at least, that none of the claims attributed to Jesus are directly derived FROM Jesus himself. Every bit of it is something attributed to Jesus by others long after Jesus was dead. You have to simply assume without question it that the things attributed to Jesus by others are an accurate representation of the things he said and the things he believed because it pleases you to do so.

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

Are YOU a heretic? That depends, doesn't it! You genuinely believe everything you believe is true. The same can be said for all of the genuine believers in Jesus, including Paul and the authors of the Gospels. They believed it to be true, just as you do.

That leaves open the question of the apostles and at least some of the earliest disciples of Jesus. Were they knowingly spreading a false rumor they knew to be untrue? Since the majority of these individuals were not even named, we know nothing at all about them.

So let's turn to Peter, the one figure who stands out prominently in the story of Jesus. Was Peter a trustworthy character, even in the pages of Scripture? Peter was in fact a rough sort of man, a fisherman by trade, who carried a sword and was prepared to use it violently. At least against unarmed servants. According to Gospel John, Peter was the great earslayer, who bravely smote off the ear of Caiaphas's servant. And then when confronted by armed guards he ran, and denied repeatedly that he even knew Jesus. Despite traveling with Jesus for around three years prior to the crucifixion, Peter was a weasel! But of course as any Christian will happily testify, Peter was a changed man after witnessing the risen Jesus. Or was he?

Acts.5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
[10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

As we can see from this example in Acts, Peter and his band of thugs and their actions in the extortion and murder of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, Peter wasn't simply a weasel, he was a murderous weasel. Is such a man a trustworthy source of ANYTHING? I would suggest in the strongest possible terms THAT HE IS NOT!

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 17 by Tired of the Nonsense]

If this is not a rhetorical question, I don't think there is much evidence that Jesus himself thought he was Divine.

Even John and Paul are amibiguous on this point.

So the the whole "Divinity test" for what makes a true Christian becomes a moot point, IF Jesus himself did not believe he was Divine.

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]

Good posts Elijah!

All great points on the Divinity of Christ. Although I haven't added any substantial points to this post, in regards to this point, I'll add another resource. Honestly speaking, I can't think of any other debate that does a better job on exploring this point. (based on New Testament proofs).

In this link that I will post, N.T. Wright debates against John D. Crossan. Both are considered to be one of the most influential Christians Scholars, but both differ on their views on this topic. N.T. Wright has written many influential books throughout his life that proves the divinity of Christ, whereas John D. Crossan has written many influential books proving that Yeshua was not God but still promoted Christianity and helped spread the Gospel. In terms of Authority, I cannot think of any other debaters who would be more qualified than these scholars for this topic.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 19 by catnip]

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

Whether he thumped his chest or not is an open question. People long after he was dead were certainly thumping his chest for him. You must keep in mind at least, that none of the claims attributed to Jesus are directly derived FROM Jesus himself. Every bit of it is something attributed to Jesus by others long after Jesus was dead. You have to simply assume without question it that the things attributed to Jesus by others are an accurate representation of the things he said and the things he believed because it pleases you to do so.

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

Are YOU a heretic? That depends, doesn't it! You genuinely believe everything you believe is true. The same can be said for all of the genuine believers in Jesus, including Paul and the authors of the Gospels. They believed it to be true, just as you do.

That leaves open the question of the apostles and at least some of the earliest disciples of Jesus. Were they knowingly spreading a false rumor they knew to be untrue? Since the majority of these individuals were not even named, we know nothing at all about them.

So let's turn to Peter, the one figure who stands out prominently in the story of Jesus. Was Peter a trustworthy character, even in the pages of Scripture? Peter was in fact a rough sort of man, a fisherman by trade, who carried a sword and was prepared to use it violently. At least against unarmed servants. According to Gospel John, Peter was the great earslayer, who bravely smote off the ear of Caiaphas's servant. And then when confronted by armed guards he ran, and denied repeatedly that he even knew Jesus. Despite traveling with Jesus for around three years prior to the crucifixion, Peter was a weasel! But of course as any Christian will happily testify, Peter was a changed man after witnessing the risen Jesus. Or was he?

Acts.5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
[10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

As we can see from this example in Acts, Peter and his band of thugs and their actions in the extortion and murder of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, Peter wasn't simply a weasel, he was a murderous weasel. Is such a man a trustworthy source of ANYTHING? I would suggest in the strongest possible terms THAT HE IS NOT!

The way I read that, it was the Holy Spirit leaving her that killed her. Although I admit it is a strange story.

[marco]

I tend to avoid the term for three reasons. First, it was originally used as a pejorative, by various Jewish sects to identify it as Greek and not Jewish, and by Romans to identify it with Judaism. Thus, it has been a confused term from the beginning.

It is rather odd to avoid the term NOW because of some meaning it possessed 2000 years ago. Goodness, if we were to apply that criterion to everyday words, where would we be, for words change over centuries, even decades -never mind 2 millennia?

Second, over the last two millennia, its connotation has been closely associated with RCC doctrine and not just the teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles.

Well, that's a contentious view. Different Christians try in their own ways to live up to what Christ wanted. Very often he - or his biographers -expressed themselves ambiguously or puzzlingly figuratively. So one would expect a variety of interpretations as to what was wanted. It always amuses me that some people are completely convinced that they have hit on THE RIGHT interpretation.

Third, the pervasive influence of RCC doctrine on Western culture has resulted in the equating of the two in the first half of the second millennium, followed by a divergence in the later half of that millennium. In spite of this divergence, the transfer of the term "Christian" to Western society in general has stuck. This has resulted it the term being equated with the term "civilized". Thus many who wish to add legitimacy to their cause like to use the term "Christian" for that purpose, without regard for whether that cause lines up with Yeshua's teachings or RCC doctrine. Therefore, even if the term had been established as an accurate identification of a follower of Yeshua, it has lost all usefulness, in that regard.

Again you're being unnecessarily strict. It is probably true that there is some correlation between what is Christian and what is civilised, but one mustn't think Christianity has a monopoly of civilised culture. True, when the British empire was in full swing non-Christians were regarded as inferior, but this wasn't a Christian attitude. And Christianity has fixed itself in that regard.

If one accepts Christ and complies with what Christ wanted, for all useful purposes that person is a Christian, even if he admires the Torah.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 19 by catnip]

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

Whether he thumped his chest or not is an open question. People long after he was dead were certainly thumping his chest for him. You must keep in mind at least, that none of the claims attributed to Jesus are directly derived FROM Jesus himself. Every bit of it is something attributed to Jesus by others long after Jesus was dead. You have to simply assume without question it that the things attributed to Jesus by others are an accurate representation of the things he said and the things he believed because it pleases you to do so.

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

Are YOU a heretic? That depends, doesn't it! You genuinely believe everything you believe is true. The same can be said for all of the genuine believers in Jesus, including Paul and the authors of the Gospels. They believed it to be true, just as you do.

That leaves open the question of the apostles and at least some of the earliest disciples of Jesus. Were they knowingly spreading a false rumor they knew to be untrue? Since the majority of these individuals were not even named, we know nothing at all about them.

So let's turn to Peter, the one figure who stands out prominently in the story of Jesus. Was Peter a trustworthy character, even in the pages of Scripture? Peter was in fact a rough sort of man, a fisherman by trade, who carried a sword and was prepared to use it violently. At least against unarmed servants. According to Gospel John, Peter was the great earslayer, who bravely smote off the ear of Caiaphas's servant. And then when confronted by armed guards he ran, and denied repeatedly that he even knew Jesus. Despite traveling with Jesus for around three years prior to the crucifixion, Peter was a weasel! But of course as any Christian will happily testify, Peter was a changed man after witnessing the risen Jesus. Or was he?

Acts.5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
[10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

As we can see from this example in Acts, Peter and his band of thugs and their actions in the extortion and murder of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, Peter wasn't simply a weasel, he was a murderous weasel. Is such a man a trustworthy source of ANYTHING? I would suggest in the strongest possible terms THAT HE IS NOT!

The way I read that, it was the Holy Spirit leaving her that killed her. Although I admit it is a strange story.

Peter and his group confronted Ananias concerning why he held back money. He was then carried out dead and buried. Next Peter confronted Sapphira about the money, her OWN money mind you, and then she was also carried out dead and buried next to her husband. Peter and his group claimed that they both coincidentally just happened to drop dead. If you were the district attorney of this case would you decline to prosecute the group, based on such a claim? If you were on the jury, would you acquit them all, based on their "Will of God" defense?

[bluethread]

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.

Again, I did not insist that there are other types of atheists. I stated that "we have been informed" that there are. You like to see only two types of atheists. ie hard and soft, which I suspect refers to those who say there are no deities and those who say no deities can be confirmed. Others have longer lists based on more specific reasons for not believing in deities. Which is EXACTLY an atheist? That depends on who one asks, just as who EXACTLY a theist depends one who one asks. There is no exactitude in philosophy. There are basic definitions and commonalities.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 19 by catnip]

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

Whether he thumped his chest or not is an open question. People long after he was dead were certainly thumping his chest for him. You must keep in mind at least, that none of the claims attributed to Jesus are directly derived FROM Jesus himself. Every bit of it is something attributed to Jesus by others long after Jesus was dead. You have to simply assume without question it that the things attributed to Jesus by others are an accurate representation of the things he said and the things he believed because it pleases you to do so.

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

Are YOU a heretic? That depends, doesn't it! You genuinely believe everything you believe is true. The same can be said for all of the genuine believers in Jesus, including Paul and the authors of the Gospels. They believed it to be true, just as you do.

That leaves open the question of the apostles and at least some of the earliest disciples of Jesus. Were they knowingly spreading a false rumor they knew to be untrue? Since the majority of these individuals were not even named, we know nothing at all about them.

So let's turn to Peter, the one figure who stands out prominently in the story of Jesus. Was Peter a trustworthy character, even in the pages of Scripture? Peter was in fact a rough sort of man, a fisherman by trade, who carried a sword and was prepared to use it violently. At least against unarmed servants. According to Gospel John, Peter was the great earslayer, who bravely smote off the ear of Caiaphas's servant. And then when confronted by armed guards he ran, and denied repeatedly that he even knew Jesus. Despite traveling with Jesus for around three years prior to the crucifixion, Peter was a weasel! But of course as any Christian will happily testify, Peter was a changed man after witnessing the risen Jesus. Or was he?

Acts.5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
[10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

As we can see from this example in Acts, Peter and his band of thugs and their actions in the extortion and murder of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, Peter wasn't simply a weasel, he was a murderous weasel. Is such a man a trustworthy source of ANYTHING? I would suggest in the strongest possible terms THAT HE IS NOT!

The way I read that, it was the Holy Spirit leaving her that killed her. Although I admit it is a strange story.

Peter and his group confronted Ananias concerning why he held back money. He was then carried out dead and buried. Next Peter confronted Sapphira about the money, her OWN money mind you, and then she was also carried out dead and buried next to her husband. Peter and his group claimed that they both coincidentally just happened to drop dead. If you were the district attorney of this case would you decline to prosecute the group, based on such a claim? If you were on the jury, would you acquit them all, based on their "Will of God" defense?

Well . . . this is terribly difficult to explain. St. John of the Cross points out that if a person isn't properly prepared, the presence of God can do them great harm--that even though God is gentle with people, God's power is so great. I've had the experience where I had difficulty breathing --though I was younger then-- my heart and respiration were raised considerably. It is a strange thing . . . I actually had an out-of-body experience. But what I am saying is that if the Holy Spirit were present and one told a lie, especially concerning their dedication to God of all they had, who knows what would happen. A clean vessel has become unclean, the Holy Spirit leaves. All accounts appear to me that it was a time of power. I've had sufficient experience that I believe these mysterious things might have actually occurred.

There is no reason for the men to have done anything to them. I would assume Peter was taken aback. On the other hand, I wonder, also, if they mean they died spiritually. The authors of the Bible seem to mix up this reality and the spiritual reality rather like mixing ingredients in a soup. That's the way I take Paul's warning about taking the Eucharist without discerning the Body that it causes sickness and death. But your claim of violence wouldn't be good either for Peter. That would remove a person from the presence of God.

[bluethread]

I tend to avoid the term for three reasons. First, it was originally used as a pejorative, by various Jewish sects to identify it as Greek and not Jewish, and by Romans to identify it with Judaism. Thus, it has been a confused term from the beginning.

It is rather odd to avoid the term NOW because of some meaning it possessed 2000 years ago. Goodness, if we were to apply that criterion to everyday words, where would we be, for words change over centuries, even decades -never mind 2 millennia?

However, we are not talking about an everyday word. If we are, then as I said in point 3, the term is useless as a definitive term. This is a term that is meant to be intrinsically connected to history and culture. If the history and culture related to the term has changed, then it is no longer useful for referring to the history and culture it is meant to represent. Also, as I pointed out, it was originally an epithet.

Second, over the last two millennia, its connotation has been closely associated with RCC doctrine and not just the teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles.

Well, that's a contentious view. Different Christians try in their own ways to live up to what Christ wanted. Very often he - or his biographers -expressed themselves ambiguously or puzzlingly figuratively. So one would expect a variety of interpretations as to what was wanted. It always amuses me that some people are completely convinced that they have hit on THE RIGHT interpretation.

Yes, but when a particular interpretation becomes attached to a term, that term becomes less and less applicable to other interpretations. it is kind of like being names Hitler. It is a fine German name and all(from Hiedl or hut dweller), but having to always explain that you do not agree with that other guy by the same name makes one reluctant to accept that name. I do not mind being associated with the person that the title was given to in the first century. However, I prefer to not have to defend the dominant group that the term applies to now.

Third, the pervasive influence of RCC doctrine on Western culture has resulted in the equating of the two in the first half of the second millennium, followed by a divergence in the later half of that millennium. In spite of this divergence, the transfer of the term "Christian" to Western society in general has stuck. This has resulted it the term being equated with the term "civilized". Thus many who wish to add legitimacy to their cause like to use the term "Christian" for that purpose, without regard for whether that cause lines up with Yeshua's teachings or RCC doctrine. Therefore, even if the term had been established as an accurate identification of a follower of Yeshua, it has lost all usefulness, in that regard.

Again you're being unnecessarily strict. It is probably true that there is some correlation between what is Christian and what is civilised, but one mustn't think Christianity has a monopoly of civilised culture. True, when the British empire was in full swing non-Christians were regarded as inferior, but this wasn't a Christian attitude. And Christianity has fixed itself in that regard.

No, I am talking about accepting XYZ, because it is the "Christian" thing to do. XYZ can be anything from gun control to cradle to grave welfare. The term no longer has much of anything to with Yeshua, let alone HaTorah. In fact, many say one should ignoring the "Old Testament" because it is the "Christian" thing to do.

If one accepts Christ and complies with what Christ wanted, for all useful purposes that person is a Christian, even if he admires the Torah.

Well, first of all "Christ" is not a proper name, but a title. If one accepts Shabbatai Tzvi or Bar Kokhba, who were thought be the Meshiach, and complies with what either of them wants, would one call that person a "Christian"?