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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[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.

It's hard to disagree here.

[Hamsaka]

.
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?

Before I read on, I'd opine that a Christian is anyone who worships YHWH and Jesus, and refers to the Christian Bible as the inspired text given them for direction and wisdom.

The difficulty in agreement only seems to occur within Christianity itself. The meaningful differences to a practicing Christian aren't all that meaningful to a non-religious person, or a Muslim or Jew. If a person says they are a Christian, I take them at their word because I don't have a dog in whatever fight they're having over who is a true Christian and who's not.

[Elijah John]

.
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?

Before I read on, I'd opine that a Christian is anyone who worships YHWH and Jesus, and refers to the Christian Bible as the inspired text given them for direction and wisdom.

I agree with you here, only I would say that a Christian is someone who worships YHVH WITH Jesus, not "and Jesus".

The Jesus of the Synoptics anyway always directed worship to YHVH, the Father.

[JoeyKnothead]

What, exactly, is a Christian?

Here in my neck of the woods, it's a sanctimonious individual who'll swear up and down he knows the mind of a God he can't show exists, and who'll vote to deny your freedoms 'cause of it.

He's a holier'n though blowhard who espouses his beliefs as if we oughta all be tied to the unconfirmed. He's the -censored- lipped immigrant son of immigrants who swears up and down, it's the immigrants a-causin' us all the problems.

Or, he's the some of the Christians on this site, who swear up and down - AND SHOW IT - that lovin' one another, well it ain't such a bad way to go.

[bjs]

A Christian is a follower of Jesus, who was called the Christ.

We can get more specific if you like, but you would have to ask a more specific question.

[Zzyzx]

.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus, who was called the Christ.

Okay. Kindly tell what being a "follower" means.

If a person lives in accord with what Jesus is claimed to have taught, WITHOUT accepting that he was anything more than human, are they a Christian?

For instance, a Christian friend who knows me pretty well said "You are [act] more Christian than 98% of those who call themselves Christians." Does that mean I am a Christian -- even though I do not consider myself as such and do not accept any supernatural claims for Jesus?

[marco]

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.

The term is useless as a definitive term if it is an everyday word? What a curious thing to say. It is a word in common use and defines groups of people. Protest as much as you wish but that is the reality.
"Meant" to be... and in whose mind does this intention reside?
I can see why you love the changeless Torah. I see no point is bemoaning the home territory in which the word was created. It still stands as an indicator of a follower of Christ. Your one-man protest against the tsunamis of time-change is commendable.

Yes, of course it was originally an epithet and to form the epithet we have to regard Christus as a noun , so that "Christianus" pertains to the person or thing referred to as Christ. But how "early" are you speaking? Tacitus certainly takes the word as a noun in his passage about Nero's persecutions:

quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat.

The word christianos could be taken adjectivally, but there is already a qualifier going with it - namely invisos - so christianos is a noun. Pliny of course is quite certainly referring to the Christians in his letter to Trajan.

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"?

You remind me of Nelson raising the telescope to his blind eye at the Battle of Copenhagen. The world and its uncle and granny regard Christ as the name of a biblical hero. As an infant I learned the word meant "anointed" but doubtless there are subterranean rivers of extensions to that. Go well.

[marco]

N.T. Wright has written many influential books throughout his life that proves the divinity of Christ,

N T Wright speaks most eloquently but he doesn't "prove" the divinity of Christ. In his sermon that is Appendix B in Antony Flew's book: There is a God, he explores the various explanations of the empty tomb. He amusingly accords to his opponents a certain lack of the facundity he displays himself. He writes:
"Recently some people have tried to say, by way of arguing that the resurrection couldn't have happened, something like this: "Ah, well, when those you love die, sometimes you will experience them in the room."

To be fair to him, Richard Dawkins uses the same technique to dismiss his opponents. He concludes his discussion with "The resurrection of Jesus doess in fact provide a sufficient explanation for the empty tomb." And of course it does. Resurrection WOULD mean empty tomb. He adds:
"Having examined all the other possible hypotheses I've read about anywhere in the literature, I think it's also a necessary explanation."

That is false conclusion. Had he dismissed (successfully) EVERY other possible explanation, he might be entitled to claim his was a necessary explanation. He has examined attempts to explain and found those he has seen deficient. The ones he has not seen cannot be dismissed, of course.

The bottom line is there can be no "proof" of Christ's divinity. The massive objection to it is that it introduces another God into a monotheistic set-up. A Christian follows the example of Christ, with or without his assumed divinity.

[bjs]

.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus, who was called the Christ.

Okay. Kindly tell what being a "follower" means.

Follower: (noun) 1. A person who follows another in regard to his or her ideas or belief. 2. A person who imitates, copies, or takes as a model or ideal.

If a person lives in accord with what Jesus is claimed to have taught, WITHOUT accepting that he was anything more than human, are they a Christian?

This would set someone outside of orthodox Christianity as practiced by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians. I suppose someone could still claim to be a Christian while denying the deity of Christ, but to avoid confusion they should explain that when they make the claim since it goes against a central belief of the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians.

For instance, a Christian friend who knows me pretty well said "You are [act] more Christian than 98% of those who call themselves Christians." Does that mean I am a Christian -- even though I do not consider myself as such and do not accept any supernatural claims for Jesus?

If you do what is good then that is great. If you do not do it in order to follow Christ then you are not a Christian.

[Zzyzx]

.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus, who was called the Christ.

Okay. Kindly tell what being a "follower" means.

Follower: (noun) 1. A person who follows another in regard to his or her ideas or belief. 2. A person who imitates, copies, or takes as a model or ideal.

Thank you.

Notice that the definition you supply says NOTHING about believing the person followed is supernatural.

Thus, one can “imitate, copy or take as a model or ideal� the Jesus character without believing him to be anything more than human (or anything more than imaginary). Furthermore, one can take as a model Sherlock Holmes or any other fictional character while knowing that they are imaginary characters.

If a person lives in accord with what Jesus is claimed to have taught, WITHOUT accepting that he was anything more than human, are they a Christian?

This would set someone outside of orthodox Christianity as practiced by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians.

So what?

I suppose someone could still claim to be a Christian while denying the deity of Christ, but to avoid confusion they should explain that when they make the claim since it goes against a central belief of the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians.

Confusion seems to typify “mainstream Christianity� with beliefs that vary greatly. Shall adherents explain their position to avoid confusion?

For instance, a Christian friend who knows me pretty well said "You are [act] more Christian than 98% of those who call themselves Christians." Does that mean I am a Christian -- even though I do not consider myself as such and do not accept any supernatural claims for Jesus?

If you do what is good then that is great. If you do not do it in order to follow Christ then you are not a Christian.

Does this sound a little silly as you (generic term) say / write / read it? Again one can “follow� the ideas and teachings of Jesus without believing him to have been divine -- and consider themselves Christians if they so choose. Who is authorized to say they are not (and by what authority are they appointed judge)?