The dishonest use of the name "Christian"

[Shermana]

Yup and there was a huge conspiracy, with pirates and unicorns to cover it all up, right?

No unicorns involved. Maybe pirates. Depending on your definition.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I'm not extending anything. I'm just accepting the fact that everybody who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian, and trying to deduce what they all have in common.

You're only having trouble with this because you believe the label "Christian" is some kind of honour bestowed on an elite group. I don't suffer from that confusing factor because I don't think there's anything inherently honorable about being a Christian. Therefore, I don't feel compelled to be jealous and stingy with the title. I just call all the Christians Christians and let their God sort them out.

I call myself a doctor? Can I haz PhD?

The label of Christians should be used as the early Christians decided it should be used, it prevents abuses like "Christian" pro-choice groups or "Christian" Communist revolutionaries,

No everyone who says they are Christians are, Matthew 7;
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

 

[Me Myself]

Yup and there was a huge conspiracy, with pirates and unicorns to cover it all up, right?

I wouldn´t be surprised if that was the way it worked in your head.

 

[Shermana]

The label of Christians should be used as the early Christians decided it should be used,

If that's the case, then only Messianic Jews as under Peter's authority at Antioch, i.e. the "Disciples" should have that distinction, as is used in Acts. How "early" do you go?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

No unicorns involved. Maybe pirates. Depending on your definition.

Yes, but definately Sharks-people right

Oh come on show a little humour, locking horns with you gets old if we can't laugh a bit eh?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I wouldn´t be surprised if that was the way it worked in your head.

Give me a year limit and I will provide you with proof Christians believed in the trinity at that point

 

[Shermana]

Give me a year limit and I will provide you with proof Christians believed in the trinity at that point

Not even Justin Martyr believed in it. At best, you have Catholic translators that have the same anarthrous THeos problem where Justin most likely meant to say "A god", because he most clearly calls Jesus the "Angel of God".

You can spend 100 lifetimes looking, the best you'll come up with is some bad Trinitarian grammar.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Not even Justin Martyr believed in it. At best, you have Catholic translators that have the same anarthrous THeos problem where Justin most likely meant to say "A god", because he most clearly calls Jesus the "Angel of God".

You can spend 100 lifetimes looking, the best you'll come up with is some bad Trinitarian grammar.

That's nice, before him we have

Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

A Christian is someone who is baptised in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and who retains that faith, this the universal definition, passed down through out history, I have no time for any new age inclusivist baloney. Christians defined what it meant to be a Christian, and no one has the right to change that.

What was expected of Christians for the first 100 years of Christianity looked a lot different then it looks in todays Christian Churches in America.

Notice the difference:

-Being rich was not seen as a good thing.Read acts 4 Christians gave all wealth to the poor.
-Could not join the church if you were in the military.
-Sex for pleasure was seen as bad.
-Expected to die for Christ (including spouse and kids) with out any attempt at self defense.

From reading the writings of the early Christians most American Christians would be seen as sub par or not even allowed in side the early church. It is not only the new age inclusivist baloney its also the ethical low standard that is taught in every evangelical Church I America.

 

[Alceste]

If I don't believe in the five pillars of Islam, I am not a Muslim, and the definition will not change because I want it too.


The problem is it is not my definition, it's the definition of Christ, the Apostles and the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church (which all Christians believe in, as it's part of the Nicene Creed)
It has been accepted for centuries and no one has the right to change it.

Most Scholars actually put it much later than the canonicals, and Gnostics (who wrote the gospel of Thomas) are not Christians

What do you think the purpose of excommunication is? Just for giggles?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what to tell you. You're incorrect. Many people who call themselves Christian fall outside your narrow definition of Christianity, therefore your definition is wrong.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

What was expected of Christians for the first 100 years of Christianity looked a lot different then it looks in todays Christian Churches in America.

No one is speaking of America

Notice the difference:

-Being rich was not seen as a good thing.Read acts 4 Christians gave all wealth to the poor.

Charity is a large part of a Christian's life, this has not changed, the difference is we do not live in common.

-Could not join the church if you were in the military.

because of the cult of the Caesar, you have Saints like George and Mercius who were in the military

-Sex for pleasure was seen as bad.

Where do you get that idea?
1 Cor 7:5
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

-Expected to die for Christ (including spouse and kids) with out any attempt at self defense.

Still an expectation

From reading the writings of the early Christians most American Christians would be seen as sub par or not even allowed in side the early church.

Actually the Roman Church is the only authority on those doctrines and how they should be applied today, Christians do keep the dogmas, such as the definition of Chaldeon and the belief in the triune God, disciplinary matters were always aloud to change

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Most Scholars actually put it much later than the canonicals, and Gnostics (who wrote the gospel of Thomas) are not Christians

What do you think the purpose of excommunication is? Just for giggles?

I don't know what to tell you. You're incorrect. Many people who call themselves Christian fall outside your narrow definition of Christianity, therefore your definition is wrong.[/QUOTE]

No, they are wrong, again it is not MY definition, it is that of the Church

 

[Alceste]

No, they are wrong, again it is not MY definition, it is that of the Church

I assume by "the church" you mean your sect. They too are incorrect.

 

[Shermana]

I would have mentioned Ignatius if it weren't for the fact that there's heavy dispute that ALL of his epistles are forged, not just the 7.

The Ignatian Forgeries: They claim to be written by Ignatius in 110 AD, but were forged by another in about 250 AD that deceptively claimed to be Ignatius.

Also, the view that (the author of) "Ignatius" espouses is more of late-Modalism than classical Trinitarianism.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about "Conspiracy", why are 8 of his Epistles unananimously considered forgeries even by those who adopt the remaining 7 as authentic? Who would forge them? Why?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

1.

I assume you concede on the issue of why John worshiped the Angel to begin with before being told not to simply because he was a fellow prophet.

Interestingly, the angel corrected John. Jesus ACCEPTED worship


here's another instance of Jesus accepting worship FWIW

John 9
35Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” 37Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.” 38And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him. 39And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” 40Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” 41Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

 

[Shermana]

Interestingly, the angel corrected John. Jesus ACCEPTED worship

I don't think you quite understand what I was implying.

1. Why did John worship him in the first place? Did he never learn to not worship anyone but God?

2. Why did the Angel say that the reason he should not worship him was because they were both prophets? Why give that reason?

Worship is about accepting a higher rank from the person you are bowing to. The semantics of "Worship" are convoluted in modern day understanding. That is why David was worshiped. He was king.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I assume by "the church" you mean your sect. They too are incorrect.

Oooo, nice burn.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If a brother and sister are in love, how is not a loving act?

I was thinking more of a man and his daughter. That would entail selfishness.

Romans 13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. NIV

Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” NIV

Apparently I am not the only one to believe this.

By qualifying what is and isn't a loving act, are you not being "legalist"? Gotcha.

No, I am not a legalist, following lots of rules. However, this proves you are playing the Pharisee and trying to catch me in my words. I am underwhelmed.

I don't see anything wrong with legalism. Jesus and Paul and James and Jude and (the author of) Peter and John were all legalists.

Jesus was not a legalist.

It seems that those who don't like the word "Legalism" are espousing....no rules.

Colossians 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. NIV

Yeah, you can keep your man made rules. I'll stick with love.

 

[Me Myself]

No, they are wrong, again it is not MY definition, it is that of the Church

And such definition of one of the churches that call themselves christian is correct according to English language. As well as:

The English language has a wider definition of Christianity than yours. It includes yours, and also others:

Christian

Syllabification:OnOff
Pronunciation: /ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings:
the Christian Church
informal having or showing qualities associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness.
noun
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

No one is speaking of America

Sorry did not notice you are Catholic. I am going to have a hard time with this argument because of your rejection of Sola scriptura. Your belief in Dei Verbum with its communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture makes it much harder to argue with you.

Still I will give it a try.

Charity is a large part of a Christian's life, this has not changed, the difference is we do not live in common.

I would say it is rare in general for a Christian to give all they have to the poor. Complete renunceation of wealth is still an active concept in your monastic traditions.

I think you are wrong about living in common. Some of your monastics still live with each other in that manor.

because of the cult of the Caesar, you have Saints like George and Mercius who were in the military

Saint George and Mercius are both mythic figures of the early church. The first two centuries of your faith are filled with the real historic writtings of bishops who in general would not allow military men to join the church.

One writing among many from early Church

"If we all derive our origin from one man, whom God created, we are plainly all of one family. Therefore it must be considered an abomination to hate another human, no matter how guilty he may be. For this reason God has decreed that we should hate no one, but that we should eliminate hatred. So we can comfort our enemies by reminding them of our mutual relationship. For if we have all been given life by the same God then what else are we but brothers? ... Because we are all brothers God teaches us never to do evil to one another but only good - giving aid to those who are oppressed, and experiencing hardship, and giving food to the hungry." - Lactantius

For the first three centuries, no Christian writing which has survived to our time condoned Christian participation in war. Some Christians held that for them all bloodshed, whether as soldiers or as executioners, was unlawful. At one stage in its history the influential Church of Alexandria seems to have looked askance upon receiving soldiers into its membership and to have permitted enlistment in the legions only in exceptional circumstances (A History of Christianity, pp. 242-243).

Where do you get that idea?
1 Cor 7:5
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Read on

6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Clearly Pauls teaching is only marry if your very weak.

This is from a Catholic site

6. Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons owe one another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining one another's weakness, in order to shun unlawful intercourse: so that, although perpetual continence be pleasing to one of them, he may not, save with consent of the other. For thus far also,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm