Christianity is Judaism-lite?

[Levite]

Originally Posted by Bob Dixon

OK, you're right, then. His emphasis wasn't the same as that of the mainstream Jews around him.
But why would you say that he is "very weak" on ritual commandments?

As I recall, Jesus refused to wash before eating bread. He prevented people from burying dead relatives. He picked grain and ate it on the Sabbath. And in his major sermons, he goes to great lengths about the social and ethical commandments that concern him, but never reinforces keeping the Sabbath, observing the festivals, keeping kosher, and other such fundamental and basic laws-- all just as important to Jewish life as treating people justly and helping the poor. There are probably other instances of specific issues in the accounts of his deeds and those of his followers, but I haven't actually read the gospels and the Acts in a while.

[Shermana]

I really see no problem with calling them Christian though. They are trying to be Christ like. Sure, they may not agree with your form of being Christ-like; however, I see no reason to assume you have a monopoly on such ideas.

I don't claim to own the monopoly, I claim to have a position that disagrees with them. Thus, my position is that calling yourself "Christian" without a hyphenation, even if with "Nazarene-Christian" or "Ebionite-Christian", it is less audacious than the term "Christian" of which the definition is ill-defined to the point that its essentially held by the "orthodox" establishment due to its historical use alone. Most "Protestants" I've talked to who hold the recognizable place called "Christian" in their discussions about Mormons often don't consider them "Christians". They will say JWs aren't "Christians" because they don't hold to the Trinity. The popular CARM site and others that represent where they get their doctrinal views outright declare those who don't believe their way aren't "Christians".

It becomes a challenge to the claims of monopolies of others.;

Nonetheless, the question of how "Christlike" they try to act and what their idea of "Christlike" is is definitely open to debate.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Shermana

I don't claim to own the monopoly, I claim to have a position that disagrees with them. Thus, my position is that calling yourself "Christian" without a hyphenation, even if with "Nazarene-Christian" or "Ebionite-Christian", it is less audacious than the term "Christian" of which the definition is ill-defined to the point that its essentially held by the "orthodox" establishment due to its historical use alone. Most "Protestants" I've talked to who hold the recognizable place called "Christian" in their discussions about Mormons often don't consider them "Christians". They will say JWs aren't "Christians" because they don't hold to the Trinity. The popular CARM site and others that represent where they get their doctrinal views outright declare those who don't believe their way aren't "Christians".

It becomes a challenge to the claims of monopolies of others.;

Nonetheless, the question of how "Christlike" they try to act and what their idea of "Christlike" is is definitely open to debate.

Point taken. I will agree that Christian is a very ill-defined word and that a hyphenation, or a better way of explaining ones stance is needed. However, I also think Christian is a nice umbrella term for quick conversations where specifics really are not needed, nor cared for.