What is a Christian?

Faithofchristian · Jan 25, 2019

2ndpillar said:
The Gentiles, "Christians", would be best described as the "adulteress" of Hosea 3, who was bought for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, and kept for "many days" , until the "sons of Israel will return".

A second good description, would be the "flock doomed to slaughter" (Zechariah 11), "pastured" by two staffs/shepherds, one called "Favor", Paul, because of his false gospel of grace, and the other one called "Cords", Peter, because of how he died (John 21:18), and because of his breaking the bonds between Judah and Israel, by his shameful "vision" (Zechariah 13:4), and who was called the "worthless shepherd" who would not feed, care, or tend the sheep (Zechariah 11:16-17). There are other descriptions, but I like to keep my post short and sweet.

In case you miss something, not all Christians were Gentiles, As the first Christians were of Israel.
As the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ were Israel and Christians.
Christ = Christian

SalixIncendium · Jan 25, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
In English, when someone wants to communicate that something is always or regularly the case, they use present indefinite tense (i.e. what you used).

Nevertheless, I now know that this isn't the sense that you intended.

... so you think the criteria for what makes someone a Christian changed at some point?

I would think this would be the case, given that the initial followers of Jesus didn't even refer to themselves as Christian, likely until around 100 A.D. They originally called themselves "disciples," "brothers," or "saints."

What were they before they were “Christians”?

9-10ths_Penguin · Jan 25, 2019

SalixIncendium said:
I would think this would be the case, given that the initial followers of Jesus didn't even refer to themselves as Christian, likely until around 100 A.D. They originally called themselves "disciples," "brothers," or "saints."

That's right; "Christians" is what we call them now... and this thread is about how we use the term.

Faithofchristian · Jan 25, 2019

SalixIncendium said:
I would think this would be the case, given that the initial followers of Jesus didn't even refer to themselves as Christian, likely until around 100 A.D. They originally called themselves "disciples," "brothers," or "saints."

What were they before they were “Christians”?

Before people were called Christians
People called themselves ( The Way)

As Jesus said of himself, ( I am The Way )

Then soon after the death of resurrection of Christ Jesus the disciples of Jesus Christ started to call themselves Christians, to separate themselves from the false Jews of Israel

Fool · Jan 25, 2019

GoldenThread said:
John 15:4-6, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
According to Jesus we are suppose to be like Him.

In peace

I AM is the keyword in your second verse

jesus was ordered/patterned "after" melchizedek. why do christians not idolize melchisedec?

metis · Jan 25, 2019

Marcion said:
There are the so-called holy sacraments performed by Christian priests and they also perform rituals over an altar in a temple-like building.
This would not initially have been part of the practices of the earlier followers of Yeshua,

The ealy followers, namely the apostles, were Jews who did what observant Jews did, namely follow the Jewish rituals (at least at first), and many of them continued to follow some of these rituals later, plus adding some of their own, such as with the Eucharist and with baptism in the name of God, Son, and H.S.

Marcion said:
Seeing God as a trio was also a later invention.

Yes and no. The Nicene Creed was an attempt to try and define the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Now whether that was a home run or a foul ball or maybe just a base hit is debatable since the only way we could know the answer to that would be if we ourselves knew with certainty what that exact relationship is.

Marcion said:
Christianity came about through syncretism, by mixing the original teachings of Jesus with hellenistic, Jewish and Roman influences.

Not so much the latter but definitely the first two. The authoritarian structure actually mimic that with Jesus and the apostles and the other disciples. In the gospels it say "Jesus taught with authority...", as Jesus also mandated for the apostles to do.

Marcion said:
The teachings of Jesus receded to the background and became more iconic and much less important than what the Church teaches

Not at all true.

Do you remember the structure of the mass? the two or three scripture readings and the homily that must reflect them under Canon Law? the Psalm reading? the prayers to God? the Eucharist taken from the Last Supper? Every Sunday and weekday that a Catholic church is open does all of these.

So, what's supposedly missing, iyo? Or what's so added at the mass that's so wrong, iyo?

metis · Jan 25, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
Before people were called Christians
People called themselves ( The Way)

As Jesus said of himself, ( I am The Way )

Then soon after the death of resurrection of Christ Jesus the disciples of Jesus Christ started to call themselves Christians, to separate themselves from the false Jews of Israel

Just a correction in that it wasn't until the early 2nd century we see "the Way" calling themselves "Christians". Many theologians believe being called a "Christian", as it is found in Acts, was actually used by others against "the Way" as a term of insult.

BTW, by the end of the 2nd century, the words "catholic" (universal) and "orthodox" (truth) began to be used, and it's the former that became the main name of the Church in the 3rd century. This is found in the many writings from these eras, btw. Much later the Church split to become "Catholic" and "Orthodox", which is why those names were chosen. .

2ndpillar · Jan 25, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
In case you miss something, not all Christians were Gentiles, As the first Christians were of Israel.
As the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ were Israel and Christians.
Christ = Christian

The term "Christ" is Greek. The first people called "Christian" were associated with the false prophet Paul, who according to him, he was sent to the "Gentiles". The real apostles were sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" who are of the house of Jacob, and are under the Law. The 12 disciples were of Judah/Jewish.

Faithofchristian · Jan 25, 2019

metis said:
Just a correction in that it wasn't until the early 2nd century we see "the Way" calling themselves "Christians". Many theologians believe being called a "Christian", as it is found in Acts, was actually used by others against "the Way" as a term of insult.

BTW, by the end of the 2nd century, the words "catholic" (universal) and "orthodox" (truth) began to be used, and it's the former that became the main name of the Church in the 3rd century. This is found in the many writings from these eras, btw. Much later the Church split to become "Catholic" and "Orthodox", which is why those names were chosen. .

Those so called theologians, haven't a clue or idea, that the 12 disciples of Christ Jesus were the first to call themselves Christians.

Book of Acts 11:26--"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch"

So it is the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ were the first to call themselves Christians.

GodInUs · Jan 25, 2019

GoldenThread said:
Please give me a good thoughtful answer, and if you can use Scripture.

I don't find anything wrong with being called a "Christian" or how about a "Saint" I like that one. Better yet I like to be a stranger or a visitor just passing through earth on the the way Home, thats niiiice I think. Labels! here labels there, divide that group, lets divide that one too! These days there's so many labels placed on us, and the same goes as far back where the term Christian originated from too. I personally just prefer to tell people that "I follow Jesus". Because if you think about it, even satan calls himself a christian.
Pssst!! Don't tell no one but something that I found on Wickapedia under "Christian":

Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames. However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.

The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;" Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians" and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome.

metis · Jan 25, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
Those so called theologians, haven't a clue or idea, that the 12 disciples of Christ Jesus were the first to call themselves Christians.

Book of Acts 11:26--"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch"

So it is the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ were the first to call themselves Christians.

Maybe read it again as the key words here are "were called", and in quite basic English that would imply that it was some others that were calling them "Christians", whereas we don't know with any certainty whatsoever when they started to call themselves as such.

Also, isn't it rather presumptuous out of arrogance for you to say "so called theologians", thus implying that you know so much more than they? How long have you studied the scriptures from your knowledge of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic? How much time have you spent studying the details of the earliest Christian documents that can help explain how the early Church saw itself and why?

Faithofchristian · Jan 25, 2019

metis said:
Maybe read it again as the key words here are "were called", and in quite basic English that would imply that it was some others that were calling them "Christians", whereas we don't know with any certainty whatsoever when they started to call themselves as such.

Also, isn't it rather presumptuous out of arrogance for you to say "so called theologians", thus implying that you know so much more than they? How long have you studied the scriptures from your knowledge of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic? How much time have you spent studying the details of the earliest Christian documents that can help explain how the early Church saw itself and why?

Well seeing that the 12 disciples of Christ Jesus were still alive when first called Christians.
So it couldn't have happened in the 2nd centure.

Maybe you should read it again without leaving words out.

Acts 11:26---"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch"

Seeing how the book of Acts was written while the 12 disciples were still alive.

All Acts 11:26 is letting people know, is that the 12 disciples were called Christians first in Antioch before they were called Christians any where else.

As it is, it was in Antioch where Christians first got started from and the name Christian first got it's name Christian in Antioch.

I've been studying for about 55 years.

Desert Snake · Jan 25, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
In case you miss something, not all Christians were Gentiles, As the first Christians were of Israel.
As the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ were Israel and Christians.
Christ = Christian

The word gentiles usually means non -Christians, in the text. Gentiles are said to sacrifice to idols . And blaspheme deity, outright, [book of Romans, with no specific differentiation given, between a gentile, and those in the Church of God. In other words, usually, gentiles, those in the Church of God, and 'jews', are all different groups.
Where we might find gentiles referring to Christians, is in the book of Galatians, however, note that this seems to be an ethnic differentiation, not religious, as elsewhere.

Marcion · Jan 25, 2019

metis said:
The ealy followers, namely the apostles, were Jews who did what observant Jews did, namely follow the Jewish rituals (at least at first), and many of them continued to follow some of these rituals later, plus adding some of their own, such as with the Eucharist and with baptism in the name of God, Son, and H.S.

Yes and no. The Nicene Creed was an attempt to try and define the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Now whether that was a home run or a foul ball or maybe just a base hit is debatable since the only way we could know the answer to that would be if we ourselves knew with certainty what that exact relationship is.

Not so much the latter but definitely the first two. The authoritarian structure actually mimic that with Jesus and the apostles and the other disciples. In the gospels it say "Jesus taught with authority...", as Jesus also mandated for the apostles to do.

Not at all true.

Do you remember the structure of the mass? the two or three scripture readings and the homily that must reflect them under Canon Law? the Psalm reading? the prayers to God? the Eucharist taken from the Last Supper? Every Sunday and weekday that a Catholic church is open does all of these.

So, what's supposedly missing, iyo? Or what's so added at the mass that's so wrong, iyo?

Like most Christians you seem to believe in the historicity of the Christian myths found in the New Testament. I don't believe that the original followers of Yeshua had anything to do with the mythical apostles of the Christian story of its own origins.

The Yeshua of Q-lite never said that he was part of a "trinitarian" God, he simply said that he was one with the Father, which any realised soul or teacher can say about himself/herself. The Holy Spirit or Cosmic/Supreme Consciousness is one of many ways to describe God. So there is no question of a so-called Trinity, it was purely invented by the Christian Church.

So the idea that the structure of the Christian Church somehow originated in and reflects the original relationship between Jesus/Yeshua and his first followers is a carefully constructed myth. A myth made to support the authority of the bishops whose ideology can be found in the New Testament (reflected in real or fake letters). The bishops made the story in such a way that they seemed like the legitimate inheritors of the authority of the (mythical) apostles. There are no writings of any first or direct followers of Yeshua in the New Testament, none at all.

Of course the Church invented all kinds of links to the Old Testament to boost its authority. These linking tactics can also be found in e.g. Hinduism, this is how new forms of religion evolve.
What is so special about Yeshua (in Q-lite), is that Yeshua does not do such things. His words go back to his own realisations only and do not prey on religious truths coming from others.

So someone who tries to follow the historical Yeshua is a Jesuist, not a Christian. Christianity is a religion, not so the teachings and mission of Yeshua.

metis · Jan 25, 2019

Faithofchristian said:
Well seeing that the 12 disciples of Christ Jesus were still alive when first called Christians.
So it couldn't have happened in the 2nd centure.

Again, you are conflating things as it says that they were "called" "Christians", not that they called themselves "Christians". And in no other books is the name "Christians" ever used.

Anyhow, I was telling you what most of the theologians that I have read tend to think, but at least I profess that I don't know with certainty that it was at first an assigned name from some outside the Church, whereas you insist that somehow you do know, and then you reinforce your claim with a misreading of what actually is stated in Acts. [how's that for a run-on sentence?

]

And to paraphrase Confucius: The more you know, the more you know you really don't know that much. Or, to put it another way, to a child a tree is simple but to a botanist a tree is highly complex. IMO, it's better to be a "botanist' than a "child" even in this area of theology.

Anyhow, take care.

metis · Jan 25, 2019

Disciple of Jesus said:
The word gentiles usually means non -Christians

"Gentiles" means non-Jews.

metis · Jan 25, 2019

Marcion said:
Like most Christians you seem to believe in the historicity of the Christian myths found in the New Testament. I don't believe that the original followers of Yeshua had anything to do with the mythical apostles of the Christian story of its own origins.

The Yeshua of Q-lite never said that he was part of a "trinitarian" God, he simply said that he was one with the Father, which any realised soul or teacher can say about himself/herself. The Holy Spirit or Cosmic/Supreme Consciousness is one of many ways to describe God. So there is no question of a so-called Trinity, it was purely invented by the Christian Church.

So the idea that the structure of the Christian Church somehow originated in and reflects the original relationship between Jesus/Yeshua and his first followers is a carefully constructed myth. A myth made to support the authority of the bishops whose ideology can be found in the New Testament (reflected in real or fake letters). The bishops made the story in such a way that they seemed like the legitimate inheritors of the authority of the (mythical) apostles. There are no writings of any first or direct followers of Yeshua in the New Testament, none at all.

Of course the Church invented all kinds of links to the Old Testament to boost its authority. These linking tactics can also be found in e.g. Hinduism, this is how new forms of religion evolve.
What is so special about Yeshua (in Q-lite), is that Yeshua does not do such things. His words go back to his own realisations only and do not prey on religious truths coming from others.

So someone who tries to follow the historical Yeshua is a Jesuist, not a Christian. Christianity is a religion, not so the teachings and mission of Yeshua.

Is there a conspiracy theory that you don't believe in?

BTW, to be clear. I am not a biblical literalist, plus if you read "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts, your asserting that I somehow "believe in the historicity of the Christian myths found in the New Testament" is clearly a bogus change. Maybe actually ask a person before stereotyping them and then jumping to conclusions.

Marcion · Jan 25, 2019

metis said:
Is there a conspiracy theory that you don't believe in?

BTW, to be clear. I am not a biblical literalist, plus if you read "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts, your asserting that I somehow "believe in the historicity of the Christian myths found in the New Testament" is clearly a bogus change. Maybe actually ask a person before stereotyping them and then jumping to conclusions.

Fallacies will not help you in your argumentation dear metis. I was merely explaining what I see as Christianity and what not. How you fit into that yourself is your own business, I have no wish to judge people.

metis · Jan 25, 2019

Marcion said:
Fallacies will not help you in your defense dear metis. I was merely explaining what I see as Christianity and what not. How you fit into that yourself is your own business.

Well, I guess just believe in whatever you want to believe in, and the only real "fallacy" that I can see is that you know what you're talking about with your know-it-all absolute assurance that you must be right and that those theologians I mentioned must therefore be ignorant.

Anyhow, I'm moving on, so I'll let you have the last word, but maybe take a humble pill first-- it's not sin to say "I'm not sure".

Desert Snake · Jan 25, 2019

metis said:
"Gentiles" means non-Jews.

Romans 4:1
Romans 4:2
Romans 4:3
Romans 4:4
Romans 4:9
Romans 4:12
Romans 4:13
In the book of Galatians, the 'Abrahamic Covenant', is unto the "Gentiles".

•
Romans 2:28
Is that a contradiction? The word 'jew' is being used in a manner of differentiation, however, in this verse, it is used as a literal description, which would contradict the usual usage, in the text.

So, either 'jew' and gentile are not being used as descriptions always in the same manner, or, this is a contradiction to the entire sequence of verses, and text meaning.

•
Romans 1:13 [nations
Romans 3:9 [not nations
[[Inherent literal differences

What is a Christian?

Well-Known Member

अग्निविलोवनन्दः

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Well-Known Member

ALL in all

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Veteran Member