What is an authentic Christian?

[1213]

OK. So what is this "truth" that makes you free?

And you are free from what, exactly?

I think it can mean many things. But, for example, truth makes one free from lies and sin. Confessing truth can also also free one from guilty. Perhaps one meaning is in this also:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

 

[Redemptionsong]

But you wouldn't believe in Das Kapital if you were a libertarian, and you wouldn't seek instruction from Life of Simon Magus if you were a pilot, and not many Christians read the Analects to access the wisdom, no?
The Salem witch trials were essentially Christian and were obedient to God's will and commandment, You shall not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22:18), no?
I don't know what real entity ─ what being with objective existence ─ is intended to be denoted by the word 'God', and no one seems able to tell me, such that if we find a real suspect, we'll be able to determine whether it's God or not. Isn't it correct to say that the only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain?
You don't think the Salem witch trials were sinful, since they followed God's command, but I think they were brainless, superstitious murder.

Which of us is correct?

And when we've got that one sorted, we can discuss slavery.
Pope John Paul II died despite having many many millions of Catholics around the world praying that he wouldn't. What are we to make of that (other than that God isn't a democrat)?

You admit that you have no knowledge of God, but a Christian is 'born again' of the Spirit of God, and is brought into a real and personal relationship.

Witchcraft was dealt with by the apostles, not through trials or applying a death penalty, but through deliverance from demons. It was religion that dealt with witchcraft under the law.

As for slavery, the New Testament is clear. All men are slaves to sin, and all men require a Saviour.

This thread asked how one might recognise an authentic Christian. The answer is to understand the New Testament in its relationship to the Old Testament. In the Old, we discover the root of sin; and in the New, we have God's answer to the problem of sin. The answer lies in the person of Jesus Christ, a mediator between the Testaments, and a mediator between God and man.

 

[GardenLady]

They estimate new denominations are formed at the rate of one every 10.5 hours (2.3 per day).

I can see getting to the very high numbers in tens of thousands if each "independent" or "nondenominational" church is counted as a denomination. I think it would be more accurate to define a denomination as including multiple churches that belong to a common set of beliefs and practices and count the rest as independent churches, but not call them denominations. I imagine that would result in numbers more like several hundred denominations and tens of thousands of independent churches. IMHO that is more accurate; it seems erroneous to call a single independent church a denomination.

 

[ChristineM]

I can see getting to the very high numbers in tens of thousands if each "independent" or "nondenominational" church is counted as a denomination. I think it would be more accurate to define a denomination as including multiple churches that belong to a common set of beliefs and practices and count the rest as independent churches, but not call them denominations. I imagine that would result in numbers more like several hundred denominations and tens of thousands of independent churches. IMHO that is more accurate; it seems erroneous to call a single independent church a denomination.

If that single independent church interprets the bible differently to any other sect (and the chances are that is the reason for it being an independent church in the first place) then i see no problem

 

[GardenLady]

and the chances are that is the reason for it being an independent church in the first place)

Call me cynical, but I think a lot of independent churches are founded by people who want to have control and collect the tithes without any denominational oversight.

 

[blü 2]

OK, you don't like the easy method of verifying authenticity so here is harder method then:
You have sources of biblical texts, if you go study them (good luck with that) you'll see that scriptures used by descendants of Jesus are authentic, while those of ex. mormons are not.

How do you think the NT was put together? How does a story about a Jewish male from the sticks (Nazareth) who like his followers spoke a dialect of Aramaic, come down to us in Greek (and only Greek), the commercial and administrative language of educated Judea? Written in four versions, the next two closely and the last more loosely on the frame of the first one? With such variations as pleased their respective authors ─ none of whom ever met an historical Jesus?

Is it your view that Simon Magus ─ Simon the magician ─ was an authentic magician?

This is your proof that scriptures used by descendants of Jesus are authentic.
Let me know if there is something wrong with that?

It all comes down to opinion based on taking a credulous view of the texts. The texts are ancient documents and should be approached as you'd approach any other ancient document, by skeptical reasoned enquiry. Think Bart Ehrman, for a start.

btw. "authentic" doesn't mean empirical evidence of reality.

No, but it does mean something like "being what it appears to be" or "being what it claims to be". And to test the correctness of a claim like that, skeptical reasoned enquiry is indispensable.

 

[ChristineM]

Call me cynical, but I think a lot of independent churches are founded by people who want to have control and collect the tithes without any denominational oversight.

Quite possibly in America

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

None of which are Christian churches established by Jesus.

Well, Jesus didn’t found any of them. He was Jewish.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

OK, but for what reason would you put Jesus into same basket as KKK? and reject it due to some hate group?

Jesus refused to help gentiles and had to be guilt tripped into helping. He flat out said he is only here for Jews. He rioted at the temple, with a weapon, all because he was offended, like a Karen. He could have petitioned the people in charge, but throwing a tantrum is what he went with.

 

[F1fan]

I think it can mean many things. But, for example, truth makes one free from lies and sin. Confessing truth can also also free one from guilty.

Really? What lies and what sins? If you are a believer why not just not lie and sin?

Would lies include a believer who rejects science for a false religious view? There have been things you have written in posts that were factually wrong, do you admit your guilt for those?

Is it a sin to tell children false things about science?

Perhaps one meaning is in this also:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

This is more code talk. Do they even explain what light and dark is, or leave it to people to guess? I see many Christians guessing what the truth is, and disagree with each other. The Bible is so abstract and vague that it doesn't really help believers sort things out, just offers more confusion.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But the bible says that only apostle may ordain new apostle (or bishop)

Which tells me that it’s written to benefit clergy because God calls to serve.

 

[F1fan]

You admit that you have no knowledge of God, but a Christian is 'born again' of the Spirit of God, and is brought into a real and personal relationship.

Explain what "born again" means, and how it is a real and authentic experience, and not some illusion created in a human mind.

And if you claim a personal relationship to God, what exactly are you relating to as a material and moral being?

And explain your test to make sure you have an authentic relationship with a God and isn't imagined.

Certainly you tested this, right? I hoe you didn't hear others make a claim of a "personal relationship" with God and you mimic their claims.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On another debate a member who is a Christian dismissed some Christians, namely those Baptists of the Confederate South and Lutherans and Catholics of Nazi Germany, as "Christians in name only". That's interesting.

This implies and suggests that there are fake Christians, and thus by contrast, authentic Christians. So it got me to wondering if this is a common attitude among Christians, and if so, what is the profile of an "authentic Christian" versus "in name only".

So, do you have this attitude and belief?

If so, what makes an authentic Christian?

Does this smack of judgment?

IMO, the question of who's "authentically Christian" - i.e. who's actually a member of the Christian religion - is entirely about affiliation:

- does the person identify as a member of the group?
- do other group members recognize the person as a member of the group?

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone's beliefs are consistent, good, or meet some standard except to the extent that the group actually uses them as criteria for deciding who's in or out of the group.

It seems like you're hinting at another question, though: what could a Bible-believer say or do that would make them a hypocrite?

On that, I'm not sure that it's possible to be a Bible-believer and NOT be a hypocrite to some degree - the Bible's just too contradictory for anyone to take an entirely consistent position from it - but I'd say that economic and social conservatives are the ones whose views are most incompatible with the Gospels' core messages.

 

[Revoltingest]

On another debate a member who is a Christian dismissed some Christians, namely those Baptists of the Confederate South and Lutherans and Catholics of Nazi Germany, as "Christians in name only". That's interesting.

This implies and suggests that there are fake Christians, and thus by contrast, authentic Christians. So it got me to wondering if this is a common attitude among Christians, and if so, what is the profile of an "authentic Christian" versus "in name only".

So, do you have this attitude and belief?

If so, what makes an authentic Christian?

Does this smack of judgment?

A Christian is one who accepts Jesus as their lord & savior.
(This understanding is based upon asking Christians.)
That's all it takes to be "authentic".
I don't apply any No True Scotsman test.

 

[paradox]

How do you think the NT was put together? How does a story about a Jewish male from the sticks (Nazareth) who like his followers spoke a dialect of Aramaic, come down to us in Greek (and only Greek), the commercial and administrative language of educated Judea?

Greek language was widely used just like English is widely used today, so what you're asking is similar to why don't we speak some language other than English here?
Obviously Greek language is what everybody understood back then, since Greece culture (helenism) dominated.

Written in four versions, the next two closely and the last more loosely on the frame of the first one? With such variations as pleased their respective authors ─ none of whom ever met an historical Jesus?

It's unreasonable to expect 4 different people to write about something in exact same way, same style and for the result to be replica of the other writer.

none of whom ever met an historical Jesus?

If they never met Jesus how is then possible they write about same story and do not contradict each other?

It all comes down to opinion based on taking a credulous view of the texts.

No it doesn't depend on personal opinion but rather on opinion of experts who already gave their opinion, all you have to do is accept it unless you're expert?

No, but it does mean something like "being what it appears to be" or "being what it claims to be". And to test the correctness of a claim like that, skeptical reasoned enquiry is indispensable.

I'm sorry but your skeptical reasoning suggests you're rejecting everything upfront without even researching more, it suggest you refuse anything even if something makes sense.

 

[F1fan]

To suggest that God is responsible for the way man behaves is twisting the biblical evidence.

Well the Bible says God created everything, including humans. And that means God created how humans think and behave. If God had created humans innately wise and with a smaller limbic system (the emotion center of our brains that includes fear response) then we could be less reactionary, and more thoughtful. Humans had no control over the creation of our brains, only God.

Now it is true that humans can learn mental discipline and emotional intelligence, but not all are capable due to brain defects. And it is a set of lessons many do not value, so will reject, which is art of the problem of not having discipline and EI. All this falls on what God created, and this includes the social struggle that our design has caused.

Of course, this is only if you assume the Genesis myths are true, and decide to interpret them as factual, which they are not.

Man is a creature capable of decision making, and many of his decisions have been made against the will and commandments of God. This rebellious attitude, which says, 'l'm going my way, l don't need God', should be familiar to all who place their trust in the ways of man.

Just as God created. Ask yourself why God created humans so rebellious if it causes us so many damn problems. Instead of being designed so easily rebellious how about God create we humans easily wise and mature?

Once sin separates the spirit of man from the Spirit of God there is disharmony and disease. This is why Jesus demonstrated that God's presence brings healing and deliverance. Doctors and counsellors simply don't have all the answers that God's Spirit provides.

Since Christians consistently admit we are all sinners none of this help us. It's like God kicked we humans in the ribs while we were down. Even being an authentic Christian doesn't remove your sin, does it?

What do you think "God's spirit" provides that is better that doctors and therapists? Show us facts that this really happens.

God offers mankind the solution to his problems,

OK, show us how God actually provides any actual solutions independently of church and imagination.

but there are many that choose not to heed the call to repent and believe in the Saviour.

How do these calls reach people that are real, and not imagined by believers? Let's note that people who don't assume these religious concepts are true never hear voices, or calls, or whatever. This suggests the "calls" are only in the fallible minds of people who have deiced to believe in certain types of religious concepts. If you believe God calls only the true believer, a believer will always claim they heard this call.

This, again, is a choice. As Paul says, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' [Philippians 2:12].

If God is calling we mortals how it is a choice? You seem to admit that a religious experience is an option to choose, and that it can't occur in minds that don't make that choice. This suggests it is an imaged experience, not some interaction with a supernatural force.

Do you have any evidence to demonstrate I'm wrong?

 

[F1fan]

A Christian is one who accepts Jesus as their lord & savior.
(This understanding is based upon asking Christians.)
That's all it takes to be "authentic".
I don't apply any No True Scotsman test.

But some Christians do apply a test. So far most have been resistant to admit they do it. Oddly, they have to notice they disagree with their fellow believers in big ways, so how do they reconcile these differences? Do they ponder their own beliefs, or think other Christians are wrong?

Let's see if they will fess up.

 

[Revoltingest]

But some Christians do apply a test. So far most have been resistant to admit they do it. Oddly, they have to notice they disagree with their fellow believers in big ways, so how do they reconcile these differences? Do they ponder their own beliefs, or think other Christians are wrong?

Let's see if they will fess up.

That's where the No True Scotsman fallacy is useful to them,
ie, any bad example can be dismissed as not a true Christian.

I adopted my standard after discussing it with Christians
who seem well grounded in reality, eg, @Katzpur.

 

[F1fan]

IMO, the question of who's "authentically Christian" - i.e. who's actually a member of the Christian religion - is entirely about affiliation:

- does the person identify as a member of the group?
- do other group members recognize the person as a member of the group?

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone's beliefs are consistent, good, or meet some standard except to the extent that the group actually uses them as criteria for deciding who's in or out of the group.

It seems like you're hinting at another question, though: what could a Bible-believer say or do that would make them a hypocrite?

So since this all is "eye of the beholder" an authentic Christian is relative, and not absolute. An authentic Methodist, or authentic Catholic, or authentic Baptist is more apt, and there is no cross over criticism or judgment from an evangelical to some more liberal believer. Then we get into the internal rifts, as Methodists are one denomination that had a liberal group divide from a conservative group in that they allowed gays and women in the clergy.

The "truth" seems to be moulded on the ethics of individuals and groups, not by any dictate fro God.

On that, I'm not sure that it's possible to be a Bible-believer and NOT be a hypocrite to some degree - the Bible's just too contradictory for anyone to take an entirely consistent position from it - but I'd say that economic and social conservatives are the ones whose views are most incompatible with the Gospels' core messages.

The Bible is too broad and incoherent to form any uniform theology.

 

[Truth in love]

On another debate a member who is a Christian dismissed some Christians, namely those Baptists of the Confederate South and Lutherans and Catholics of Nazi Germany, as "Christians in name only". That's interesting.

This implies and suggests that there are fake Christians, and thus by contrast, authentic Christians. So it got me to wondering if this is a common attitude among Christians, and if so, what is the profile of an "authentic Christian" versus "in name only".

So, do you have this attitude and belief?

If so, what makes an authentic Christian?

Does this smack of judgment?

Christians are sadly often a judgy bunch.

I've see an great many rules made up over the years that are not to be found in the teachings of Christ or the Apostles.

I would argue that a "True Christian" is one who loves Christ and tries to follow His teachings. None of us do it perfectly, but I think a good effort counts for a lot.