Christians: What does it mean to be a "Christian"?

[Katzpur]

Hi again, Shiranui. Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you.

Aside from the "spirit offspring" business, i think we're both agreed here.

Let me just give you a couple of biblical references to support this "spirit offspring business." Hebrews 12:9 states, "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto theFather of spirits, and live?" And Acts 17:29 says, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." In other words, to us, these scriptures are saying that each of us has a mortal father, who is the father of our physical body, as well as a Heavenly Father, who is the father of our spirit. We are God's spiritual offspring, which means that we are more closely related to Him than any of His other creations.

I've heard the "flesh and bone" terminology before, and I'm not quite sure I agree with it. On the whole though, we're agreed here.

Since you have said you believe God to be spaceless, sizeless, and shapeless, I’d say we clearly do not agree as to His physical attributes. With regards to His divine qualities (and I would argue that He could conceivably be divine whether He had a physical form or not), I’d say we agree fairly closely. We both see God as being the epitome of knowledge, love, goodness, power, etc. and we both see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as having exactly these same qualities. Well, almost… The Bible does say that the Son does not know the hour of His Second Coming, but that the Father does, so I suppose there is some knowledge the Father has that the Son does not have. Still, it’s not as if the Son were less loving, less merciful, or less powerful than the Father, so we’re pretty much on the same page there. One way or the other, though, I don’t believe that a difference of opinion with respect to whether or not God has a physical form qualifies one of us to be a “Christian” and prevents the other one from being a “Christian.”

Aside from the LDS disagreeing with the Father and Son having the same "physical substance or essence" (which may or may not be an accurate description of the Greek ousia), we're agreed.

Okay, it’s the words “substance” and “essence” that we LDS have issues with. They are simply words that are not a part of our vocabulary. For this reason, when they are used, we are uncomfortable with them. I remember reading once that part of the debate at Nicea concerned the word that would be used to describe the essence of the Father and the Son. The word that was settled upon meant “the same substance” and the word that was ultimately rejected meant “a like substance.” When I think of the word “substance” or “essence” I typically think along the lines of water being a substance, air being a substance, flesh being a substance, gold being a substance, Jello being a substance, etc. So to me, two separate persons cannot be “the same substance” (if they were, they’d be just one person, and an extremely odd looking one at that). They could, however, be of “like substance.”

Just so the definitions are clear, and so we're both on the same page and talking about the same thing, here are a couple definitions of "essence":

Note: Thank you. I believe that coming to an agreement with respect to definitions is absolutely essential.

In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.
identifying nature: the quality or nature of something that identifies it or makes it what it is
the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural.

^After seeing these definitions, would you say that the Father and Son each have the same Divine
Nature/Essence?

Okay, now we’re talking something entirely different. I am 100% okay with the word “attributes” because these can be either physical or non-physical. If either the Father or the Son were lacking in any of the attributes which someone deemed to be “God” must have, then that person would not be divine. But, since they both have every single divine attribute there is, they have the same “divine nature.” I’m okay with the phrase, “divine nature,” by the way. I’m just uncomfortable with the words “essence” and “substance” because I can’t seem to think of them as referring to non-physical qualities. Consider for a minute the fact that Jesus was a man, walking the earth, living a “mortal” life. He ate, slept, felt pain, etc. and did all of the things that a person with a physical body would do. Now, whether you believe He still has that physical body today or not (and I’m not quite sure what your belief is on that issue), there was a time when He did. And at that time, He communicated through prayer to His Father whom He referred to as being “in Heaven.” You believe, I’m sure, that the Father does not have a physical, corporeal form. So, if we have two persons, one with a corporeal body and the other without a corporeal body, it would be inaccurate to say that they have the same “essence” – if “essence” is understood to be referring to their physical beings. If “essence” is being understood to be referring to their divine qualities or attributes, then yes, they could have been of “one essence” even while Christ was living as a mortal man.

 

[Katzpur]

This is unfortunately the biggest difference between the two of us yet. This particularly falls under the umbrella of either "Arianism" or "Semi-Arianism," which the Orthodox Church rejected in the 4th century. The Orthodox teaching is that "There was never a time when the Son was not."

Actually, it doesn’t qualify as Arianism. I’m not sure what you mean by “Semi-Arianism” as I’ve never actually heard that term used before. We are no more “Arian” than we are “Trinitarian,” but I can see why people would jump to this conclusion. The problem is that we are have an understanding of the Son’s relationship to the Father that doesn’t fall under any pre-LDS umbrella. (Well, actually, we would say that ours is the understanding that would have existed in the minds of Christ’s Apostles, but of course that is debatable. We don’t believe an accurate understanding of their relationship existed at all by 325 A.D.)

I’m going to try to explain our perspective on the traditional Christian belief that “there was never a time when the Son was not.” It may be as difficult a concept for you to grasp as the idea of two persons sharing “the same substance” is to me, but from what I’ve seen from you so far, my guess is that you’ll make an honest and sincere attempt to comprehend our doctrine on this topic. So, here goes… The Bible begins by saying what happened “in the beginning.” It describes the creation of our universe and the populating of the earth by God’s will and power. This is in Genesis, in the Old Testament. The New Testament tells us that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Knowing that “the Word” is the Son, we would have to conclude that (a) the Son was with God in the beginning, and (b) that the Son was God in the beginning. The Bible also tells of the Son’s role in the creation of the universe. He would have obviously had no role had He not existed as “God” “in the beginning.” Now, consider this: If God has always existed, then He existed “before the beginning.” He was doing something or other before the events which took place in Genesis occurred. The LDS believe that it was during the time “before the beginning,” before the clock started ticking, so to speak, before any part of our universe came into being that the Son came into existance as “God,” as the Son of the Father. We do believe that the Father preceded the Son, but that in terms of their relationship to us, they have always existed, as both of them existed as “God” by the time “the beginning” rolled around.

Surprisingly, this is not a disagreement between us; the Son is subordinate to the Father, not in terms of majesty or glory or divinity or power, but in the sense that the Father begets the Son.

Would you say that the Son is divine in and of Himself, or only because He is related to the Father?

Please don’t think I’m trying to avoid answering this question, because I’m not. It’s just that this is something that’s not even of any importance to us. Logically speaking, the “begetter” precedes the “begettee” (I know, that’s not a real word, is it?) To beget means “to procreate, to generate, to produce, as an effect, to cause to exist.” If the Father begat the Son, they He caused the Son to exist. But since He did so “before the beginning,” as it concerns us, there is no contradiction with either Genesis or John.

Agreed again, but we Orthodox also believe that God has another way in which He communicates with us. Or, more accurately, we have a teaching on exactly how God communicates with us from the Father, through the Son and by the Holy Spirit. More on that later; it's more pertinent to one of your later points

Okay. Let’s not forget to go there, though, since I’m interested in learning from you.

Each one of them individually IS fully God, but they are also together God.

Perfectly put.

From what I can gather, the reason that Mormons more often have the "polytheist" charge levelled against them is because of (what seems to me, anyway) your even stronger emphasis on the Threeness of God that goes beyond even what the Orthodox normally state. And between the Catholics and Orthodox, we Orthodox place more emphasis on God's threeness!

That is really interesting! Yes, we definitely do believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are “one,” but we do emphasize their “threeness” more than most other Christians. What frustrates us is how some Christian groups will do almost anything to get around seeing their “threeness” at all. It's like "three" is some horrible to-be-avoided-at-all-costs kind of word.

I'll get to your other post tomorrow. And thanks for the discussion. I just looked at your profile. I didn't realize that you were just 19. I am way, way, way impressed.

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi again, Shiranui. Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you.

It's all good; unlike me, some people have lives

Let me just give you a couple of biblical references to support this "spirit offspring business." Hebrews 12:9 states, "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto theFather of spirits, and live?" And Acts 17:29 says, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." In other words, to us, these scriptures are saying that each of us has a mortal father, who is the father of our physical body, as well as a Heavenly Father, who is the father of our spirit. We are God's spiritual offspring, which means that we are more closely related to Him than any of His other creations.

I can roll with this; God DID create us and give us life, breathing into us and giving us our spirits. And we ARE adopted by God. But I say our being "sons of God" is something very different from how Jesus is the Son of God.

Since you have said you believe God to be spaceless, sizeless, and shapeless, I’d say we clearly do not agree as to His physical attributes. With regards to His divine qualities (and I would argue that He could conceivably be divine whether He had a physical form or not), I’d say we agree fairly closely. We both see God as being the epitome of knowledge, love, goodness, power, etc. and we both see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as having exactly these same qualities. Well, almost… The Bible does say that the Son does not know the hour of His Second Coming, but that the Father does, so I suppose there is some knowledge the Father has that the Son does not have.

You know, that bolded point is interesting. I heard very recently that the Son didn't know when the hour is, because He had limited His knowledge to human levels during His time on earth, and after His Resurrection or Ascension, when He let His Divinity fully kick in again, He once again knew when His hour was; it's implied that He knows the hour in Revelations.

Still, it’s not as if the Son were less loving, less merciful, or less powerful than the Father, so we’re pretty much on the same page there. One way or the other, though, I don’t believe that a difference of opinion with respect to whether or not God has a physical form qualifies one of us to be a “Christian” and prevents the other one from being a “Christian.”

True, but it still remains that "No one has seen the Father."

Okay, it’s the words “substance” and “essence” that we LDS have issues with. They are simply words that are not a part of our vocabulary. For this reason, when they are used, we are uncomfortable with them. I remember reading once that part of the debate at Nicea concerned the word that would be used to describe the essence of the Father and the Son. The word that was settled upon meant “the same substance” and the word that was ultimately rejected meant “a like substance.” When I think of the word “substance” or “essence” I typically think along the lines of water being a substance, air being a substance, flesh being a substance, gold being a substance, Jello being a substance, etc. So to me, two separate persons cannot be “the same substance” (if they were, they’d be just one person, and an extremely odd looking one at that). They could, however, be of “like substance.”

Yeah, the word "substance/essence" as used by Christians follows the Platonic meaning, which is distinct from our everyday usage of the word. The Greek-speaking Christians back in the day would have had in mind the Platonic definition of the word, which is not at all how we use the word in our vernacular, non-philosophical language.

Note: Thank you. I believe that coming to an agreement with respect to definitions is absolutely essential.

AHH!!! That pun!!! :biglaugh:

Okay, now we’re talking something entirely different. I am 100% okay with the word “attributes” because these can be either physical or non-physical. If either the Father or the Son were lacking in any of the attributes which someone deemed to be “God” must have, then that person would not be divine. But, since they both have every single divine attribute there is, they have the same “divine nature.” I’m okay with the phrase, “divine nature,” by the way.

Good, at least we've agreed on something. :yes: And FWIW, I'm still not entirely sure on how "nature" and "essence" differ in meaning, or if they're simply interchangeable. I'll keep poking around and see what I can find.

I’m just uncomfortable with the words “essence” and “substance” because I can’t seem to think of them as referring to non-physical qualities.

Which I can understand. Keep in mind that the word for "essence" in Greek is ousia, which means something along the lines of "being."

Consider for a minute the fact that Jesus was a man, walking the earth, living a “mortal” life. He ate, slept, felt pain, etc. and did all of the things that a person with a physical body would do. Now, whether you believe He still has that physical body today or not (and I’m not quite sure what your belief is on that issue), there was a time when He did.

JSYK, I do believe that He still has His body with Him in Heaven.

And at that time, He communicated through prayer to His Father whom He referred to as being “in Heaven.” You believe, I’m sure, that the Father does not have a physical, corporeal form. So, if we have two persons, one with a corporeal body and the other without a corporeal body, it would be inaccurate to say that they have the same “essence” – if “essence” is understood to be referring to their physical beings.

Yeah, that's the thing; essence doesn't refer to their physical being within the philosophical context. "Essence" is simply what makes you "you." Essence isn't your body, thoughts, emotions, memories, soul, or anything like that. It's something at the core of our being that makes us who we are, that we can't quite put our finger on.

If “essence” is being understood to be referring to their divine qualities or attributes, then yes, they could have been of “one essence” even while Christ was living as a mortal man.

Ahh! You just gave me a more succinct way of putting it: The "essence" is what GIVES those qualities and attributes.

 

[Shiranui117]

Actually, it doesn’t qualify as Arianism. I’m not sure what you mean by “Semi-Arianism” as I’ve never actually heard that term used before. We are no more “Arian” than we are “Trinitarian,” but I can see why people would jump to this conclusion. The problem is that we are have an understanding of the Son’s relationship to the Father that doesn’t fall under any pre-LDS umbrella. (Well, actually, we would say that ours is the understanding that would have existed in the minds of Christ’s Apostles, but of course that is debatable. We don’t believe an accurate understanding of their relationship existed at all by 325 A.D.)

From Wiki:
Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. Arians taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and therefore inferior to) God the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist.[5]

A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.
BTW, I did manage to find the full text of the letter. You can view it here (it's only a paragraph and a few sentences)

And here's this on Semi-Arianism:
Semi-Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I’m going to try to explain our perspective on the traditional Christian belief that “there was never a time when the Son was not.” It may be as difficult a concept for you to grasp as the idea of two persons sharing “the same substance” is to me, but from what I’ve seen from you so far, my guess is that you’ll make an honest and sincere attempt to comprehend our doctrine on this topic. So, here goes… The Bible begins by saying what happened “in the beginning.” It describes the creation of our universe and the populating of the earth by God’s will and power. This is in Genesis, in the Old Testament. The New Testament tells us that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Knowing that “the Word” is the Son, we would have to conclude that (a) the Son was with God in the beginning, and (b) that the Son was God in the beginning. The Bible also tells of the Son’s role in the creation of the universe. He would have obviously had no role had He not existed as “God” “in the beginning.” Now, consider this: If God has always existed, then He existed “before the beginning.” He was doing something or other before the events which took place in Genesis occurred. The LDS believe that it was during the time “before the beginning,” before the clock started ticking, so to speak, before any part of our universe came into being that the Son came into existance as “God,” as the Son of the Father. We do believe that the Father preceded the Son, but that in terms of their relationship to us, they have always existed, as both of them existed as “God” by the time “the beginning” rolled around.

Please don’t think I’m trying to avoid answering this question, because I’m not. It’s just that this is something that’s not even of any importance to us. Logically speaking, the “begetter” precedes the “begettee” (I know, that’s not a real word, is it?) To beget means “to procreate, to generate, to produce, as an effect, to cause to exist.” If the Father begat the Son, they He caused the Son to exist. But since He did so “before the beginning,” as it concerns us, there is no contradiction with either Genesis or John.

Very interesting. So pretty much, you're saying that you believe that there was never a TIME when the Son was not--emphasis on TIME. But before time... A very interesting position. Seems to be a balance.

Okay. Let’s not forget to go there, though, since I’m interested in learning from you.

Sure! For your benefit, I'll link you to the post where I explained it, on the off-chance that you were busy and didn't notice it. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3285610-post38.html When you get around to it, feel free to ask for clarification as needed

That is really interesting! Yes, we definitely do believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are “one,” but we do emphasize their “threeness” more than most other Christians. What frustrates us is how some Christian groups will do almost anything to get around seeing their “threeness” at all. It's like "three" is some horrible to-be-avoided-at-all-costs kind of word.

I actually find it deliciously ironic; the Western Christians say that the Trinity is one God in three Persons, while the Orthodox say that the Trinity is three Persons in one God Both are right, of course, but the former puts the Trinity's Oneness first, and the latter puts the Threeness first. Yet it was mainly the Orthodox that have lived under the Muslims for 1400 years, so if anything, we would have have more of a practical reason to emphasize His oneness like that (Though, to be entirely accurate and fair, the Antiochian Orthodox do say "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the one God" for this reason, but that’s beside the point).

 

[Tranquil Servant]

(Sigh)..... does believing in God's manifested salvation really have to be this complicated?
It makes me feel like I really do have to be sophisticated and educated even though God's word tells me otherwise. Even without all these "explanations", I have faith in, believe in, and understand Him.

 

[Shiranui117]

(Sigh)..... does believing in God's manifested salvation really have to be this complicated?

No. The Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ don't HAVE to be complicated. But for those who do not have simple faith, and wish to ask further about how either of those two can be, these "complicated" clarifications of the Faith exist in order to help the doubters and seekers believe and make sense of their faith.

It makes me feel like I really do have to be sophisticated and educated even though God's word tells me otherwise. Even without all these "explanations", I have faith in, believe in, and understand Him.

Which is good, and all the better for you. You are seeing the elaborate explanations given to those faithful who need elaboration on the faith; if you believe simply and do not need to question your faith, then the marathons of the seekers seem bizarre to you who are content with a stroll through the park.

 

[John Martin]

What does it mean to be a Christian Today?
In the conference in Italy, I have presented the following twenty points to the question of what it means to become the good news of Christ for our times. I thought of sharing these thoughts with you.


1. It is to become like Christ, to become the kingdom of God which is to discover the universal presence of God and the essential unity of humanity with God. Jesus proclaimed his good news saying, “The kingdom of God is at hand, repent.” (Mk 1.15). It means that God is everywhere and everyone and everything is in God; the humanity and the creation are essentially one with God though functionally different. When Jesus said “I and the Father are one.” he revealed his essential unity with God. When he said “I am in the Father and Father is in me.”, (Jn.14:10) and “My Father is greater than I.”(Jn.14:28) he revealed his functional difference. Repentance is a process of continuous and descending. In ascending we discover our unity and in descending we return to our functional difference.1
2. It is to become the instruments of peace. Jesus is peace and his message is peace. To do this, we need to be free from any ambition of expanding our boundaries and increasing our number. Instead, we need to see everyone already in the kingdom of God and help them to discover this truth. We need to renounce religious conversions. Where there is mission to convert there is violence within and this violence produces violence outside. With this inner violence we cannot become the instruments of peace.
3. It is to become spiritual liberators and not spiritual colonizers. Jesus was not a spiritual colonizer who wished to convert people to his authority and rule them. He was a spiritual liberator who came to make people free with his truth. “Truth will make you free,” (Jn.8.14-15) he said. “I do not call you servants anymore, because a servant does not know what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father,” (Jn.15.15) Jesus declared.
4. It is to transform our religious identities or boundaries from being essential to functional. It is not to identify with the means but to focus on the destiny, which is our unity with God. Instead of saying “I am a Christian.” I prefer to say “I am journeying to God through the path of Christ.” Suppose if I go to London and take Air India, I do not say “I am Air India.”, but “I am flying by Air India.” Where there is essential identity with the means there is an essential boundary and where there is essential boundary (not functional, which is necessary) there are seeds of conflict and war.
5. It is to become the seekers of the Kingdom of God, not just to remain as the believers of the kingdom of God. This transition from being believers to seekers is very important today. Remaining as believers is the source of conflict and violence. Jesus said, "Seek you first the kingdom of God and its righteousness and all things will be given unto you." (Mt.6.33). Believing is only the starting point. We also need to have an inclusive vision of being a Christian. A Christian is not just one who believes in Christ but everyone who is searching for Truth or God or the kingdom of God.3
6. It is to become who we already are. Our spiritual journey is to discover our deepest reality and not to become something else. Jesus said, “You are the Light of the World.” (Mt.5.14). He did not say, “You must become the light of the world”. We need to discover this truth for ourselves and help others to discover it.
7. It is to become the way, the truth and the life just as Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. This way is not exclusive but like a trunk that holds all the branches and the leaves so includes all ways, truths and ways of life but transcends them. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me.” (Jn:14.6). It means that in order to enter into God we need to transcend the conditioned truth that is present at the levels of the branches and enter into the trunk, which is the unconditioned truth. The way is to move from the conditioned truth to the unconditioned truth. This is the only way through which Jesus entered it and this is the only way foreveryone.
8. It is to realize that there is only one way to God and this one way is inner conversion of purifying our ego and surrendering it to God so that it becomes an instrument of God. Every religion is trying to help people to do this in its unique way and Christianity does it in its unique way. The difficulty is that sometimes religions create a subtle religious ego rather than freeing people from the ego. Jesus said, “If you lose your ‘self’ (conditioned self or ego) you gain your ‘self’ (unconditioned self or true self); if you hold or gain your self’ (conditioned self or ego) you will lose your ‘self’ (unconditioned self or true self).”(Lk.9.23-24). Jesus used different words to describe this one way of conversion: repentance, rebirth, becoming like little children, interior death, and growing into the kingdom of God.
9. It is to recognize that every religion is a gift from God to humanity and every scripture reveals the will of God - but conditioned by the era in which it was revealed. So we always need to be open to understand the will of God for our times. The will of God is not static but dynamic.
10. It is to embrace within us the radical love of God and the radical love of neighbour just as Jesus Christ is the archetype of this radical love. “I and the Father are one.” (Jn.10.30) reveals his radical love of God and “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters that you do unto me.” (Mt. 25.40) reveals his radical love of neighbour. The Eucharist is the essence of this radical love.
11. It is to affirm the dignity of human beings and the equality of men and women in all areas of life. All social, political, cultural, moral and spiritual values have to be evaluated according to this human dignity and equality of sexes.
12. It is to build harmony between our creation (cosmos) humanity (anthropos) and God(Theos).
13. It is to proclaim the good news of Christ to the whole creation and not just to human beings. Jesus said, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.” (Mk.16.15). We need to proclaim to every human being that he/she is the manifestation of God and to every creature that it is also the manifestation of God. First we need to believe in this truth and then, through repentance or conversion, we realize this essential truth for ourselves and invite others to do so.
14. It is to abolish the spiritual apartheid between Jesus and other humans and make it possible for everyone to realize what Jesus realized in his life. Jesus opened this possibility to everyone but Christianity closed it. Jesus not only said, “I am the light of the world.” (Jn.8.12) but also “You are the light of the world.” (Mt.5.14). These two statements are the two wheels of Jesus’ good news.
15. It is to identify with the poor and the suffering humanity and give them the message of hope and liberation. Jesus identified with the message: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim the good news to the poor; he has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set liberty those who are oppressed.” (Lk.4.18). We have to do this without the motive for conversion.
16. It is to become humble, which comes from the realization that we are all interconnected and what we are now is the gift of others. We need to serve others in love and compassion. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, an effective symbol of humility and service (Jn.13.14).
17. It is to affirm that God or Truth is greater than belief structures (religions), human beings in their deepest level are greater than belief structures, and belief structures are meant to be at the service of human beings and not human beings at the service of belief structures. “The Sabbath is made for humanity and not humanity for the sake of the Sabbath. The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath,” (Mt.12.8) said Jesus. When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” he was affirming this basic truth. Violence comes when people serve religions or belief structures.
18. It is to transform our religion (belief structure) into a nest where human beings are born, protected, nourished and given security until the wings are grown and then helped to move into the freedom of the Kingdom of God. This is what it means to fulfill religion or the Law. Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish the Law (religion) but to fulfill the Law (religion).” (Lk.5.17).
19. It is to live in the eternal present, which fulfills the past, manifests in the present and opens to the future. The time does not move towards eternity but manifests eternity. It becomes the instrument of eternity. "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit,” (Jn.3.8) said Jesus to Nicodemus.
20. It is to see God in the family, in the community since God is the family, God is the community. God is the relationship, the Trinity. God is the unity of life and peace loving relationships with our brothers and sisters so that we purify ourselves and grow into love, unity, and peace.

 

[LovingChild]

Hello, dear Tranquil Servant.

To be a Christian obviously means to follow the Christ, Jesus.

He Himself told us what it means to be His follower:

"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world....
As You [The Father] sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world." (John17:16,18)

Thus you are a Christian if you follow Christ, not the world, and if you tell others about God's Kingdom as Jesus did.

Love, LovingChild

 

[savagewind]

John Martin that is very good! All of it is fine, especially this;

15. It is to identify with the poor and the suffering humanity and give them the message of hope and liberation. Jesus identified with the message: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim the good news to the poor; he has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set liberty those who are oppressed.” (Lk.4.18). We have to do this without the motive for conversion.

 

[BornAgain]

as I mentioned before "Christian" was not a title given to us by Christ but by man.

Ac 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[savagewind]

Ac 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

By whom? They were there for a year and taught many people. It does not say many people then became believers. So....who called them Christians? Were they first called Christians by the population of Antioch or by someone in the congregation?

 

[Shiranui117]

By whom? They were there for a year and taught many people. It does not say many people then became believers. So....who called them Christians? Were they first called Christians by the population of Antioch or by someone in the congregation?

I believe we were first called "Christians" by our enemies. But we liked the name so much, that it stuck. It was also much more descriptive than the old name of our religion that we ourselves had previously used, which was The Way.

 

[savagewind]

I believe we were first called "Christians" by our enemies. But we liked the name so much, that it stuck. It was also much more descriptive than the old name of our religion that we ourselves had previously used, which was The Way.

It interests me when a poster calls himself or herself "we" with dead people. I am not calling it wrong.

As a believer, but not of the Orthodox faith, am I also considered by you, a member of the we party?

 

[Shiranui117]

It interests me when a poster calls himself or herself "we" with dead people. I am not calling it wrong.

As a believer, but not of the Orthodox faith, am I also considered by you, a member of the we party?

If you call yourself a Christian, then yes, I would include you in this as well. The subject of the naming of Christians is something that concerns everyone who identifies as such.

EDIT: As far as the "we" thing goes, it's because I very much consider myself a descendant and continuation of those Christians, identifying myself with them. I'm sure you understand this?

 

[savagewind]

If you call yourself a Christian, then yes, I would include you in this as well. The subject of the naming of Christians is something that concerns everyone who identifies as such.

EDIT: As far as the "we" thing goes, it's because I very much consider myself a descendant and continuation of those Christians, identifying myself with them. I'm sure you understand this?

Yes! I think it is wonderful.

 

[captainbryce]

I recently decided to refer to myself as a follower of the messiah (or Christ) and the reason was because I'm so tired of being labelized (as a Christian) and categorized into a group who is so divided, it causes confusion and conflict within the "religion"? (which is another word I despise)
I don't regard the "doctrine" (or theory) of the trinity. In the Old Testament, God repeatedly states that he is ONE God. I do believe God is all-powerful and can do whatever he pleases but does whatever he does for a reason and with a purpose. In the Old testament God appeared to man and manifested his attributes and power in many ways; One, was through the Holy Spirit. However, I don't recall anyone referring to God as being two persons in one being. With that being said, I believe God manifested many of his attributes in Jesus or Jesus is his greatest manifestation. This may sound crazy but I believe Jesus is like a clone of God; except Jesus was sent in a form (of flesh) which we humans could understand...(I'm only using this analogy in an attempt to simplify my interpretation). This is why Jesus is the greatest example to mankind because Jesus showed mankind the true definitions of the attributes God wanted us (humans) to imitate. So Jesus is God but while on earth not God in his entirety; a portion of God. Since I believe God is all-powerful, I also believe god can multiply and/or distribute his powers like with the holy spirit. I apologize if my description sounds confusing; that's the last thing I want to do but How could we mere humans understand God the almighty and his infinite power. It's as simple as that!!

I agree with everything that you've said so far, but I still think that one can be called a Christian whether they believe in the false trinity doctrine of man or not. Christian means "Christ-like" and is generally referred to anyone who actually believes that Jesus Christ is the messiah and have decided to repent their sins and be born again in his name. If you believe that Christ is the savior and you are born-again as he commands, then you are a Christian, regardless of what church you belong to or what doctrines they've established. Only when you reject the authority of Christ are you NOT a Christian in my humble opinion.

 

[Shiranui117]

The word "Christian," in addition to meaning Christ-like, also means one who is "of Christ" or follows Him.

 

[BornAgain]

By whom? They were there for a year and taught many people. It does not say many people then became believers. So....who called them Christians? Were they first called Christians by the population of Antioch or by someone in the congregation?

You are right we can not tell from this verse if non-believers or believers called them “Christians”

Before there were Gentile believers, there were Jews believers first, and they were known as “disciples,” “believers,” “the Lord disciples,” and those “who belonged to the Way”

When the church took root in Antioch the word “Christians” for believers -both Jews and Gentiles- were use.

Perhaps nonbelievers who were more perceptive in this matter than the church itself--nicknamed this group of Jewish and Gentile believers "Christians." i.e., "Christ followers."

They saw that the ministry to Gentiles and the fellowship of Jews with Gentiles went beyond the bounds of what was usually permitted within Judaism. In other words, these Gentiles were not proselytes by Judaism and non-believers perhaps named them “Christians” because they perceived that they were followers of Christ and not Judaism.

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

Was Peter referring this verse of his own denial of Christ?

Mk 14:67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
Mk 14:68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the **** crew.


1Pe 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

"That you bear that name" probably refers to the name "Christian."

 

[savagewind]

"That you bear that name" probably refers to the name "Christian."

I disagree that "name" means a word designating a person or thing. I believe "name" as used by the writer of scripture means character and cause.....

onoma: a name, authority, cause
Original Word: ὄνομα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: onoma
Phonetic Spelling: (on'-om-ah)
Short Definition: name, character, reputation
Definition: name, character, fame, reputation.

http://biblesuite.com/greek/3686.htm

 

[BornAgain]

I disagree that "name" means a word designating a person or thing. I believe "name" as used by the writer of scripture means character and cause.....

I am not talking about the literal name given to a person, but the name given to a group of believers or followers of Christ.

1Pe 4:14 If ye be reproached/revile/insult for the name of Christ,

Mt 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile/reproach/insult you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Why would people revile/reproach/insult Christians? Because they are followers of Christ. I will not be ashamed if one calls me a Christian, because I am a follower of Christ.