Shake

Serious question here folks. Over in this thread, Amos tries to say that Catholics are not Christians. On page three of that thread, I posted some definitions of "Christian" that I found on the web. These went right along with what I'd always been taught that Christians were. Also, as I said there, it's only been in the last 3 years or so that I heard specific groups of Christians refer to themselves as such, and basically say that other sects were not true Christians. In my most recent post on the above linked thread I said that not every Christian sect recognizes every other one as Christians (or something to that effect - it's on p.4). I'm just curious what everyone else had been taught that Christians were.

I was taught: 1) that Christians were folks who believed in JC as the Messiah, son of God, what have you, ... and followed his teachings. 2) There was basically only one major sect (Catholicism) until after the Reformation, where all the Protestant (protest against the Vatican) sects emerged. 3) There are today many, many different (and even some new ones) sects of Christianity, but basically one could lump them all together as Christians.

Anyway, what's everyone else been brought up to believe? Have you learned anything over the years to change those thoughts about what Christians are? I'd like the opinions of theists and non-theists alike. Thanks, everybody!

philechat

1. Jesus' resurrection was not literally believed by many Christians, especially in Gnostic and Arian circles.

2. Not all Christians believed in the Trinity, and not all Christians believed in the virgin birth of Jesus.

3. Not all Christians are monotheists. In some Asian, African, and central American societies Christianity was syncretized with the local religion (and dieties), without experiencing major conflict.

4. Belief of baptism and nature of worship differ from sect to sect, and many Christian sects do not recognize other sects as Christians.

5. Perhaps the only agreement is that Christians usually accept the Bible (both OT and NT) as being unusual and different from other books in some basic ways. It does not necessarily mean that they call the Bible "God-inspired". Some gnostics even called the Bible an evil document and the Diety behind the Bible an evil god.

beastmaster

A Xn is someone who regards Jesus to be the ultimate religious authority on Earth.

Nevertheless, Xns dispute over what Jesus's teachings were.

Some Xns may dispute whether Jesus claimed to be the son of God or how to interpret the significance of that claim. My understanding is that Xn Gnostics, for example, think that Jesus claimed to be the son of God only in the sense that *everybody* is the son of God, and that following the teachings of Jesus results in gnosis - an actualization of one's god nature.

2) There was basically only one major sect (Catholicism) until after the Reformation, where all the Protestant (protest against the Vatican) sects emerged.

My understanding is that the early Xns had a greater diversity of beliefs about the teachings of Jesus than the Xns of today. The overriding purpose of the institutionalization of the church and the canonization of the NT was to delegitimize heretical beliefs.

Amos

Catholics are Catholic until they become Christian very much in the same way as Jesus was a Jew until he became Christ(ian) and was no longer be a Jew after he became Christan. Don't you see how this makes religion a means to the end?

Why would anybody want to be both? So you can be torn between heaven and hell like the rest of them? Absurd!

Sabine Grant

Bonsoir Amos... can you please document or show me where you draw the conclusion that Jesus was no longer a jew? The gospel describes him as celebrating Passover and his lineage as presented in the Gospels describes him as from the house of David. Are you struggling with the notion that one can be both a christian and a jew? Both Jews for Jesus and the Messianic Jew movement seem to point to the reality that one can be both.

Tercel

Well it depends doesn't it: Anyone can call themselves a "Christian". Who gets the privilege of deciding on the definition?
Generally though, I would suggest as a good definition of "True Christian" as someone who accepts the Nicene Creed. (A statement of faith formulated by 2 big church councils in the 4th century and accepted universally ever since by all Christian denominations save the seriously different sects such as JW's, Mormons etc.)

Er: No. There was a couple of minor splits halfway through the 1st millennia. (Nestorians (which has since mostly died out) and Monophysites (which still survives, eg the Christians in Ethiopia))
There was a very very major split that probably rates as bigger than the Reformation near the end of the 1st millennia in which the Eastern and Western halves of the Church broke apart. (The Roman empire had been separated politically in half centuries earlier and the Church schismed along those political boundaries) The Western Church in western europe became the "Roman Catholic Church" aka the "Catholic Church" and the eastern Church became the "Eastern Orthodox Church" aka the "Holy Orthodox Church" aka the "Orthodox Catholic Church" aka the "Orthodox Church". Both bodies suvive today (the Catholic church later being split again by the Reformation) and are the two largest Christian groups.
In the western world we don't hear much of the Orthodox Church but it is the main church all the countries between Greece and Russia inclusive and goes as far south as Israel.


Oh and Sabine: You should be warned that nothing Amos says ever makes any sense whatsoever.

philechat

Tercel:

Would you call the Gnostics--the sect who called the Creator evil and maintains that there exists another God (God of gnosis?)who is not the Creator of humans--and the Arians--those who rejects the Trinity--as Christians? What about the Johnites? The Free Spirits (hippie "Christianity" with pantheistic beliefs at around 12th century)? There seems to be many sects indeed that does NOT fit in the statement of the Nicene Creed.

Amos

Bonsoir madame Sabine, . . . document?

Let me say that the Christian idea of Passover is wrong but that is not important for now. It is to be negated and of no value here.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew and the gospels show us how Jesus left Judaism behind that had served him well as a means to the end.

This already begins at the wedding in Cana in the gospel of John while in the gospel of Matthew Judaism tried to win him back as a slave to sin with the temptation in the desert (notice that these two events are parallel and that the 'pleasure' of John was the mirror image of the 'pain' in Matthew). I should add here that Matthew was the Jewish perspective and John was the inspired perspective whereupon Catholicism would be formed.

Just the same, Jesus was still the Jew who needed to take the sins of his world to the cross but before he could do that he had to leave Judism behind, which had served him well and now has become a liability in the end.

The second mention of this is when he called Peter satan which is after Peter had revealed that Jesus was the messiah (or the Christ) who was to come. This indicates that the inspired message of Judaism is needed but not Judaism itself and that faith had become a tool for "judgement by man's standard" (a liability).

The betrayal of Judas, the silver pieces and the death of Judas speak for the termination of Judiasm in the life of Jesus the ex-Jew.

Later, when Thomas was 'convinced' Peter was 'disrobed' because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt and so when all doubt was removed all faith was annihilated through understanding (Thomas and Peter are twins because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt). Hence Peter was left naked and to indicate that the Catholic Church was built on inspiration alone Peter went fishing with Jesus and after catching nothing all night long (while naked on this fishing trip) Jesus told them to cast their nets on the other side of the boat and that is when they caught many big ones without tearing their nets. It is at this moment that Peter put on the cloak of faith and dove headfirst in to the celestial sea.

So clearly, Jesus was a Jew, and after the resurrection wherein he became fully Christ he formed the Catholic church upon the inspired faith of Peter who learned to walk on water right after that incident.

The Messianic Jews are a contradiction just as saved sinners are a contradiction. This does indicate that there can be Messianic Jews but my point is that there should not be any Messianic Jews because they will endure the same fate as saved sinners.

Sabine Grant

And what fate is that Amos? These are your words not mine....

Jekyll

As one of my favourite authors once said, "Sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make you a chicken." Well, in varying degrees, maybe it does. What do we define as a chicken? Maybe that person is on his way to becoming a chicken. If he believes he's a chicken, does that make him more so? How about if I gave him a funny hat and taught him to recite some chicken-like noises... would he pass out of manhood and into chicken-dom?

Amos, your views ring of anti-semitism. No suprise, since the Gospels are full of such rhetoric. Why? Because it was early Christians leaving Judiasm behind, not Jesus. After the destruction of the second temple in 70 A.D., Christians and Jews (still practicing in the same space, generally), had to find a way to cope. Jews wished to close the cannon and return to tradition. Christians didn't like this idea, and wouldn't compromise. They took their toys and moved across the street (literally, in some cases), and harbored angst. The greater Church grew progressively anti-semetic ever since. Jesus was a rabbi, plain and simple. A teacher; a Jewish teacher. Always a Jewish teacher. Jesus was not a "Christian." Unless you concede that Jesus was an egotist, in which case, I may or may not disagree with you.

"Christian" is a blanket term for a world power, and it carries with it a corresponding level of individual power. "Christian" is what "pagans" (I hate to use this blanket term) called followers of Jesus before they came to power under Constantine. Like, the invaders called Indians "Hindus" (or, "Hindoos") - a blanket term which stuck. Similar to "Shinto," etc. Christians claim to stive to be one force - at the key center of individual dogmatism, they are as varied as varied can be. To wax philosophical, any concept is a fluid one, and no two people can agree on what any given concept means. Religous agreement is even worse. How can we therefore even begin to define it?