bacht

Theoretically the only "real" Christians were early Jewish believers like Paul expecting the Parousia within their lifetimes. Once the advent of Christ receded in expectation a later generation of gentile seekers adopted the salvation theme, and ultimately Catholicism claimed the position of authority.

rhutchin

The term "Christian" is used three times in the Bible.

...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (Acts 26:28)

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. (1 Peter 4:16)

By these verses, the only "real" Christians are those who can be described as disciples of Christ with the term "disciple," defined by Christ in this manner, It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master. (Matt 10:25)

rhutchin

You write much of which little is substantive enough to merit one's time to respond. Rather than just ask questions or opine, perhaps you could explain why you believe what you believe.

bacht

Yes but by the time these passages were written the apocalyptic expectations of early believers were largely forgotten. The Christ expected by people like John of Patmos was now seated in heaven indefinitely. In that sense 2nd C proto-Catholics were no longer following the primitive tradition, they had invented a new salvation movement.

rhutchin

What is problematic seems to be that we don't know much of what actually happened. It may be that John wrote about Lazarus because Lazarus had died again before he wrote his account of Christ while the other accounts were written while Lazarus was still alive. Perhaps, the story of Lazarus was spread among the disciples but not written down less men like Saul read of him and hunt him down to kill him. The gospel accounts seem to have been written during times of considerable persecution.

Paul, of course, did not write of the life of Christ because he did not have personal experience of those events. Paul wrote of his own experiences with Christ.

rhutchin

The "Christian" would still have been a disciple in each time. The only difference would have been their expectations regarding the return of Christ and this distinction would not identify one as a "Christian" and the other as "not Christian." Both were disciples of Christ and therefore Christians.

Regardless, if you could get the Bible to say that which you are arguing (that a Christian is only a person who has a particular belief about the return of Christ), you would have support for your point. Can you do that?

show_no_mercy

All of those documents were written in the 2nd century.

rhutchin

Hmmm. Apparently, few people lived in the past.

Like the variety of letters collected and published in what we call the Bible?

Boy, not many people lived in the past.

No physical evidence other than the explosive rise of Christianity beginning in the first century and not through the use of coercive methods as Islam relies on but in spite of the oppression of those who followed the new religious sect.

rhutchin

At least the copies of those documents seem to have been copied in the 2nd century.

rhutchin

Why not believe them? They are consistent with what is written about Jesus and that which He claimed to be. One does not have to accept something as true but that does not determine whether it is true or require that it not be true.