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?

[bjs]

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.

Okay.

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

So what?

So nothing. It is a more specific definition within the larger concept of a Christian. I can only say that my personal interest is limited to those who consider themselves orthodox Christians since the definition outside of orthodoxy is too vague to be useful, imo.

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

There are different doctrines within orthodox Christianity. If someone wants to define in more detail they may. However, the central doctrines are consistent through the three main branches of Christianity.

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.

A Christian is someone who follows Christ.

If someone is not following Christ then that person is not a Christian.

Are you arguing about the definition? If not, do you seriously disagree with the conclusion?

Who is authorized to say they are not (and by what authority are they appointed judge)?

We can say this about literally anything. Who is authorized, and who appointed them judge, to say who is a Democrat, or a Platonist, or a Scotsman? If words have meaning then their definitions will exclude some people. If we are talking about Platonists or Scotsmen or Christians, not everyone will fit the definition.

[tam]

What, EXACTLY, is a Christian?

A Christian is one who is anointed (with holy spirit). Christ means anointed one; and Christians are also anointed ones who belong to Christ.


I had started to go through the entire list from the OP, but it felt like I was then placing rules upon those who are called to be free. So I stopped.


A Christian does follow Christ of course; His word and commands, as well as His example (understanding that we will fall short at times; as do most people who are learning from their Teacher).


However, one who follows another person is considered to be a disciple of that person. So one can be a disciple (follower) of Christ without (yet) being a Christian, if one has not yet been anointed with holy spirit (which holy spirit/water of life CHRIST gives, as has been given to Him without end by His Father).


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

[catnip]

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.

I LOVE IT! lol

And this is why I perceive that we are very often on the same side.

And I wish more atheists would realize this! And quit assuming, despite being told repeatedly, that I am not one of the false christians promoting an angry god eager to condemn the vast majority of his creation to a fiery hell, that would allow the poor to starve to death, leave the sick to die, promote trickle down economics and coerce all people to live by ancient moral law defined and redefined according to their selected point of view. And I do consider them false if in no way do they follow, teach or do what Jesus of Nazareth taught. Sorry. I will let them call themselves Christians, but I will argue against them. I want to reclaim Christianity for Christ's sake!

You would have no reason to hate Christians if they all followed Christ.

[bluethread]

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.

I was speaking to why I do not accept the term as an identifier. Though the term may have been used as an identifier of the followers of Yeshua back then, it now refers more to one who holds to the doctrines of the RCC or protestant denominations, let alone the myriad of views that claim to be "Christian" simply because they are acceptable to the RCC or any one of the many protestant denominations.

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.

The name of the "biblical hero" is Yeshua. Yes, one can refer to the leader of the Roman empire as Caesar, but if one is discussing specifics, one must then determine which Caesar one is talking about. After all, the thread is asking, What, EXACTLY, is a Christian? I personally do not care to fight a one man war to redeem a term that is not specific in it's origin and applies more to RCC doctrine than it does to the specific person of Yeshua.

[marco]

I was speaking to why I do not accept the term as an identifier. Though the term may have been used as an identifier of the followers of Yeshua back then, it now refers more to one who holds to the doctrines of the RCC or protestant denominations, let alone the myriad of views that claim to be "Christian" simply because they are acceptable to the RCC or any one of the many protestant denominations.

Your unilateral declaration of independence from billions of voices is wonderfully brave. The sea changes that have taken place in what constitutes a Christian are just the waves of time. Indulgences are no longer sold and I think Limbo has been lost, especially as a place for unbaptized babies. Christianity has had to fight with change, and has amended its erroneous views from time to time. Your old Christians would still have the Sun travelling round the Earth. As a lover of all things Old Testamental you understandably find Church dogma unpalatable. I don't like onions.

I personally do not care to fight a one man war to redeem a term that is not specific in it's origin and applies more to RCC doctrine than it does to the specific person of Yeshua.

You are being over-modest, for you do indeed engage in such hostilities against the present day bastions of Christianity. The problem with naming Christ is we don't know his name, for some odd reason. He survives as two titles, one of which you want to withhold. If he didn't have the courtesy to introduce himself properly than we can't be held responsible for getting his name wrong, can we?

[marco]

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.

Islam suffers the same disagreements, as we see in today's world. Sunni Muslims accept Abu Bakr, Muhammad's friend, as the Prophet's true successor. Shia Muslims believe the succession passed through the family, to Ali, Muhammad's son-in-law. They often kill each other over this triviality.

It would seem that Yahweh, from the very beginning, was never able to keep his human playthings in order. His word is ever ambiguous, and so many interpretations are possible. Jesus didn't help at all, sometimes sticking up for what his Father said and sometimes disagreeing or rather casting a blind eye. A Christian is someone who follows, in any interpretation, the teachings of Christ, or tries to. A good indication that one is a Christian is one's behaviour at Christmas time. This brings some pretend non-Christians out of the woodwork.

[bluethread]

I was speaking to why I do not accept the term as an identifier. Though the term may have been used as an identifier of the followers of Yeshua back then, it now refers more to one who holds to the doctrines of the RCC or protestant denominations, let alone the myriad of views that claim to be "Christian" simply because they are acceptable to the RCC or any one of the many protestant denominations.

Your unilateral declaration of independence from billions of voices is wonderfully brave. The sea changes that have taken place in what constitutes a Christian are just the waves of time. Indulgences are no longer sold and I think Limbo has been lost, especially as a place for unbaptized babies. Christianity has had to fight with change, and has amended its erroneous views from time to time. Your old Christians would still have the Sun travelling round the Earth. As a lover of all things Old Testamental you understandably find Church dogma unpalatable. I don't like onions.

You are talking about RCC and protestant doctrine here. That is my point. If people equated vegan with onion lover, how would you suggest that someone who eats only vegetables, but does not eat onions refer to himself?

I personally do not care to fight a one man war to redeem a term that is not specific in it's origin and applies more to RCC doctrine than it does to the specific person of Yeshua.

You are being over-modest, for you do indeed engage in such hostilities against the present day bastions of Christianity. The problem with naming Christ is we don't know his name, for some odd reason. He survives as two titles, one of which you want to withhold. If he didn't have the courtesy to introduce himself properly than we can't be held responsible for getting his name wrong, can we?

If, as you say, I am engaging in hostilities against the present day bastions of Christianity, that would mean that the term would not apply to me, would it? There is no way His name was Christos or even Meshiach. The fact that He is referred to by that title does not make it His proper name, any more than referring to a RCC priest as "father" makes that his proper name. Would you fault a member of the RCC for not referring to himself as a papist? After all, he is a follower of the pope.

[marco]

You are talking about RCC and protestant doctrine here. That is my point. If people equated vegan with onion lover, how would you suggest that someone who eats only vegetables, but does not eat onions refer to himself?

Choosing analogies on which to draw conclusions requires you to pick precise analogies. You haven't done so. All are vegetarians; some vegetarians don't like onions but they remain vegetarians. All follow Christ - some follow Christ in a way different from others. They remain Christians. Differences between don't alter the classification name. You're just being a bit awkward and saying the general name doesn't apply to you because it has been eroded over the centuries, and you want the old name back.

If, as you say, I am engaging in hostilities against the present day bastions of Christianity, that would mean that the term would not apply to me, would it?

Of course it would apply. Christian very often fights Christian. Your objection is to their definitions, their preferred dogma, their nomenclature. You are all Christians.

There is no way His name was Christos or even Meshiach. The fact that He is referred to by that title does not make it His proper name, any more than referring to a RCC priest as "father" makes that his proper name. Would you fault a member of the RCC for not referring to himself as a papist? After all, he is a follower of the pope.

You are talking in false analogies again. An attribute of the now anonymous Saviour is that he was "anointed" and so people, not knowing whether he was called George Prince or Jonathan King, called him Jesus Christ, as though he were the son of Mr and Mrs Christ. I don't recall knowing Mary's maiden name or indeed her married name. Christ is an identifier and his followers are called Christian not because they have a special devotion to anointing, but because it identifies the nameless being whose sermons they love. I agree it is ridiculous for someone to come all the way from the Andromeda Nebula, or that area, and never leave a name. It puts you, especially, in a very difficult position. I have never heard the word Christian used as a derogatory term, but then I lead a sheltered existence. Papist, on the other hand, is decidedly nasty.

[OnceConvinced]

From my old Christian perspective.

1. Professes belief in Jesus?

It would be expected that if you were a Christian you would profess a belief in Jesus. Otherwise you would just be a pretender.

2. Follows the teachings of Jesus a little? A lot? Completely?

You would dedicate your life to the teachings of Jesus.

3. Is baptized?

Jesus set the example, so we should follow his example. However it is a must? I'm not sure about that. The bible seems to suggest it is, but as a Christian I would not insist upon it. However if you wanted to follow Jesus's example, I would expect you would want to be baptised.


4. Goes to church?

Church is important, however as a Christian I would not condemn you if you didn't go. I would however question your attitude and your motives. The church is the training ground and just like a soldier, you would expect to go through training. You would also... as a more mature Christian, be expected to train and guide others.


5. Identifies with one of the 40,000 Christian denominations?

I don't believe denominations are all that important. From a Christian perspective, the basic necessities are the same. There may however be denominations that are not true Christians though, but as a Christian I would struggle with condemning any genuine and sincere worshipper/follower of Christ.


6. Lives a Christian life?

If one wants to be like Jesus, then one would live as Jesus lived and follow his teachings. Otherwise how could you call yourself a Christian?


7. Acts like a Christian?

There are things called the fruits of the holy spirit, which if you are a Christian you should be exhibiting. If you are not exhibiting these fruits I would have to ask why? However bear in mind, the Christian walk is about working towards being more Christlike, not just suddenly becoming Christlike.


8. Believes Bible stories are true?

I don't see why you would need to believe all bible stories are true. eg, if you don't believe the Noah's Ark story, that has no bearing on your salvation through Jesus Christ.


9. Keeps the commandments?

If you wish to be like Christ then you will follow the ten commandments as he did. However be careful not to be so pedantic as the pharisees

10. Confesses their sins, asks forgiveness, repents?

This is all a crucial part of the salvation process. You have to do this to be a true Christian.


11. Is accepted by other Christians?

There are scriptures that say that a wise man will be recognized by his peers as being wise. If you can't get on with other Christians, then the problem is most likely you, not them. However you are not going to get along with everyone. There are always personality clashes and disagreements. Some Christians aren't actually very nice people.


12. Believes that Jesus was resurrected physically? Spiritually?

You would have to. The whole thing revolves around Jesus being alive. If he's dead, you have nothing.


13. Believes there is an afterlife and that their soul can go to heaven?

I would expect you would believe this as Jesus taught it, but it is not crucial for salvation.


14. Claims to be (identifies as) Christian?

There shouldn't be any shame in identifying as a "Christian". If you're not, then aren't you actually doing what Peter did and in a way denying Jesus? Just because "Christian" has been sullied by past Christians does not mean you should be ashamed of the moniker.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Anyone who claims to be a Christian and claims to follow Christian princples and rules. It doesn't matter what anyone else says because it's a personal standard to which they have to adhere, not what others say or claim.
Which is one of the things that makes Christianity so easy