Toto

This Methodist Bishop has been cleared of charged of heresy:

But this Episcopal priest went too far:

Old Man

I believe the title of your thread may be inaccurate.

One of the problems today, is that anybody has the legal right to call themselves a Christian. You can't stop them. From the Hollywood whore to the denier of the resurrection, to the Jesus was a myth brigade. They all like to call themselves Christians.

The problem with that, is that the bible defines Christianity differently, and I know it, and they know it, and you know it.

So may be the evidence is not as "empircal" as one might initially consider, once you realize that these people are certainly not Christians by biblical standards of adjudication.

Toto

Could you point me to where the Bible defines who is a Christian?

Old Man

A Christian was perceived by one thing only: his actions. So whether a person obeyed the teaching of the apostles was pretty conclusive of the matter. Hence:


2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.


More particularly:


1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1Cr 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?


One of the central tenets was belief in Christ's physical resurrection:


Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


Therefore, anyone questioning or disagreeing with this point, cannot be a Christian according to the bible.

Other factors to note, connected with the genuineness of particular churches, are the following.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches

The non-adherence of many churches to the above command must render those churches deeply suspect as being genuine churches. In particular, the methodist and episcopalian churches both disagree with this verse, and it is appropriate to regard both those churches as "gnostic" churches and not Christian churches. Gnostic churches have existed side by side with true churches since the beginning, and ought not to be confused with Christian churches by a serious inquirer.

ManM

"Let your women keep silence in the churches"

Old Man,
The women in that particular Church were gossiping during the worship service. If the men had been chattering away, they would have been the target of Paul's chastisement. Now, on what grounds do you take Paul's comment to be a universal command, instead of a recommendation to a particular Church under particular circumstances?

Gregg

ManM,

You made this up.

Nowhere in that passage, or in the entire epistle, does Paul say he is talking only about specific women in a specific church engaging in silly gossip during services.

Here is the passage in full:

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

What do you mean on what "grounds" can we take Paul's comment to be a universal command? The comment speaks for itself. It refers to "ALL the churchES." It references the Law, which Paul surely considered universally applicable. It talks about women asking questions, presumably about church policy and doctrine, not gossiping among themselves. It closes by emphasizing, "it is shameful for a WOMAN to speak in church." Not, "It is shameful for any person to engage in frivolous banter during worship," but shameful for a woman to speak in church. Period. It says what it means and means what it says. It can't be made to say or mean anything else.


Your remark is ad hoc apologetics at its worst.

In any event, this passage is probably a later scribal interpolation, because it interrupts Paul's train of thought. Note that he is talking about prophesying in speaking in tongues, then out of nowhere pops this passage about women asking questions in church. Then he goes back to talking about prophesying and speaking in tongues.

Treacle Worshipper

Quote (Old Man):

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches

The non-adherence of many churches to the above command must render those churches deeply suspect as being genuine churches. In particular, the methodist and episcopalian churches both disagree with this verse, and it is appropriate to regard both those churches as "gnostic" churches and not Christian churches. Gnostic churches have existed side by side with true churches since the beginning, and ought not to be confused with Christian churches by a serious inquirer

Old Man, which churches do you consider to be Christian rather than gnostic? (I am an ex-Methodist, btw.)
TW

Gregg

Before there was a New Testament, there were Christians. And these Christians, if the NT is any indication, did not agree on just what a Christian was. And, in fact, several councils, Inquisitions, and religious wars later, they still don't.

There is no single definition of Christianity, not even in the Bible.

Gregg

Old Man,

How can Paul "commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchrae" (don't have verse on hand at the moment), if women aren't allowed to speak in church? They allowed women to be deacons, but didn't let them talk in church?

How about Priscilla in Acts? She's allowed to instruct Apollos in the fine points of the gospel, but she can't speak in church?

I have to agree with scholars who argue that 1 Cor 14:34,35 is a later scribal interpretation. It doesn't really have anything to do with what Paul is talking about before or after. It makes no sense that he would be talking at length about prophesying and speaking in tongues, then suddenly throw in this comment about women asking questions in church, and then go right back to talking about prophesying and speaking in tongues without missing a beat. Try skipping this passage and see how much more sense 14:26-40 makes.

Kassiana

As much different stuff as you can imagine, of course. Trying to ascertain what ALL Christians, be they Unitarian Universalist, Amish, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, Fundamentalist, Fundamentalist Scary (i.e. Fred Phelps, Christian Reconstructionist) believe unless it's a generalized statement like, "Christians tend to like a guy named Jesus they believe was special in a religious sorta way" is really useless. A UU Christian will sharply disagree with all of the above on many issues, as will all the other (what, 30,000?) denominations of Christianity.

It's like trying to decide what all atheists believe. Other than "they believe there ain't no God," you can't really decide what the entire group believes because they're so darn diverse.