• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian in the non-religious sense

blackout

Violet.
Only if you believe in Him though.

otherwise it would have to be called philosophy, IMO.

What if 'Him' signifies 'The Way' of Christhood (at large)
and, as such, 'believe' means believing in the... power... of that Way (or Life-or Way of Life)
(ie., that Christhood is attainable by anyone, and can be lived out by anyone)
as opposed to 'believing in' the existance of a one and only God-Man.

Thus Christ'ianity as opposed to Jesusianity.

I'm just saying, words can be interpreted--read-- a myriad of ways.

Esoteric and Exoteric readings will always yield
VERY different results.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
What if 'Him' signifies 'The Way' of Christhood (at large)
and, as such, 'believe' means believing in the... power... of that Way (or Life-or Way of Life)
(ie., that Christhood is attainable by anyone, and can be lived out by anyone)
as opposed to 'believing in' the existance of a one and only God-Man.

Thus Christ'ianity as opposed to Jesusianity.

I'm just saying, words can be interpreted--read-- a myriad of ways.

Esoteric and Exoteric readings will always yield
VERY different results.

This is a very important issue, what exactly does it mean to "believe on" Jesus? The word Pisteuon is more about being convinced and persuaded and having reason to believe something due to a logical and evidential reason, not "blind faith" which is somewhat more covered, though not entirely by Pistis.

It says that anyone who truly "believes on Jesus" will be saved, but it also says that anyone who "believes on Jesus" will be able to do miracles greater than the works he did.

So perhaps there's something to this "believe on" that actually means obeying his teachings and commandments, much to the common chagrin of "Christians" who insist otherwise.

The test to see who truly "believes on Jesus" should be those who are able to do works greater than the miracles described in the NT. If they can't, while claiming to "believe" in Jesus, then the text itself is calling them frauds. Jesus was quite clear that those who call him "Lord" while not doing the Will of the Father (the doers of "Lawlessness") will be rejected by him.
 

Shermana

Heretic
False, until Aryius taught people that heresey no one believed that
The real followers of Christ always taught He was God those who didn't were not real Christians as they followed a fake Christ

There is no proof whatsoever that anyone before Tertullian was teaching that Jesus was God incarnated. Justin Martyr calls him God's angel. Some dubious Trinitarian translators have made translations of the Church Father's that have the same problems as with their translations with the Anarthrous of Theos, making it an issue of "God" versus "a god", but there is absolutely no evidence that Arian was teaching something new while Tertullian and Athanasius weren't. If anything, Arian was teaching what the original Christians believed regarding Jesus's deity.

I find it interesting that your criteria of who was and wasn't a "Fake Christian" has to do with who believed Jesus was God or not. Have you actually researched any of this? Have you researched the history of the Trinity at all? There's absolutely nothing in the Gospels or Epistles that says anything about the Criteria of a Christian being to believe that Jesus was God. There's a few ways you can twist the hell out of the meaning of a few select cherry picked passages out of context to get it to say that though perhaps, which is usually the case with Trinitarians and Antinomians. If anything it can be argued that those who believe Jesus was God are missing out on what it actually means to be the Jewish Messiah and THEY are the ones who have historically been following a False Christ and are under that category in the warnings, denying the actual Christ in favor of their reconstructed reinterpreted idol version. How many 'Christians" are in any way focused as much on Jesus' character as Jewish Messiah as opposed to as God incarnated?
 
Last edited:

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
What if 'Him' signifies 'The Way' of Christhood (at large)
and, as such, 'believe' means believing in the... power... of that Way (or Life-or Way of Life)
(ie., that Christhood is attainable by anyone, and can be lived out by anyone)
as opposed to 'believing in' the existance of a one and only God-Man.

I'd still call that a spiritual humanistic philosophy based on the teachings of the figure Jesus.
 

blackout

Violet.
I'd still call that a spiritual humanistic philosophy based on the teachings of the figure Jesus.

I'm thinking more of a personal experience kind of thing
than a rational arguement kind of thing,
but that would be because of my own personal experience/s I guess. :shrug:
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
False,

Where did the Bible come from by the way?

the bible came from Gods representatives, the dogmas of the churches did not.

You will find that many of the dogmas of the church were introduced by the so-called 'church fathers' ... not by any of Jesus 12 apostles.
 

Shermana

Heretic
the bible came from Gods representatives

And why should one believe that the Council defining the particular versions of the books and the Canons themselves were His representatives? Why weren't the Ethiopians His representatives? Why wasn't Clement His representative? Or Iraneus?
 

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
the bible came from Gods representatives, the dogmas of the churches did not.

You will find that many of the dogmas of the church were introduced by the so-called 'church fathers' ... not by any of Jesus 12 apostles.

What proof do you have that the books of the Bible are inspired? Who assembled the Bible?
 

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
And why should one believe that the Council defining the particular versions of the books and the Canons themselves were His representatives? Why weren't the Ethiopians His representatives? Why wasn't Clement His representative? Or Iraneus?
God made His promise to the Catholic Church to guide them, that is why.
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
You are approaching the gospels like eyewitness accounts
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, Luke 1

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1:16



As I've said before, there are two definitions of "Christian".

The Non-scriptural definition is anyone who says they are a "Christian" with some degree or another of claiming to believe in Jesus and his teachings as something or another, basically anyone as long as they claim to follow Jesus, whatever those words may mean to them.

The Scriptural definition is that Christians were first called such as the Disciples under Peter's authority in Antioch. Those would be Torah obedient Messianic Jews. Not Paul's specific brand necessarily, but Peter's.
Christians follow neither Peter or Paul, but Christ is the foundation of our faith. We trust in Christ's finished work on the cross to have saved us and he gets all the glory. Having trusted in Him, we have his power working in us mightily enabling us to keep a higher law of love, mercy, and grace.

This is a very important issue, what exactly does it mean to "believe on" Jesus? The word Pisteuon is more about being convinced and persuaded and having reason to believe something due to a logical and evidential reason, not "blind faith" which is somewhat more covered, though not entirely by Pistis.

It says that anyone who truly "believes on Jesus" will be saved, but it also says that anyone who "believes on Jesus" will be able to do miracles greater than the works he did.

So perhaps there's something to this "believe on" that actually means obeying his teachings and commandments, much to the common chagrin of "Christians" who insist otherwise.

The test to see who truly "believes on Jesus" should be those who are able to do works greater than the miracles described in the NT. If they can't, while claiming to "believe" in Jesus, then the text itself is calling them frauds. Jesus was quite clear that those who call him "Lord" while not doing the Will of the Father (the doers of "Lawlessness") will be rejected by him.
To believe in or on Christ is to rely on, cling to him and his finished work on the cross for our salvation. Being filthy sinners without any hope of saving ourselves, in due time Christ died for the ungodly, so whoever trusts him, that his death paid the penalty of their sins, is freely and wonderfully saved. The saved person then begins to grow in this grace, as a child of God and begins to learn obedience, not to get or stay staved, but because they are saved and Christ is living in and working through them so they begin to grow and trust and obey Him. The miracles greater than Christs? Why, leading others to salvation by leading them to trust in Christ for the matter. When Moses brought the ten commandments down, 3,000 people died. When the Holy Spirit came and ushered in the Age of Grace, or Church Age, 3,000 people gained eternal life on that very day. It was life and it was eternal, and it was free.
 
Top