The dishonest use of the name "Christian"

[Alceste]

What if I try to change the definition of "Taoism" by claiming that name despite preaching something that contradicts its central tenets (assuming it even has any tenets or doctrines)?

You're assuming I'm attached to the labels I use to describe myself. I am not. I invented the word "Taoish" because taoism is pretty close to what I believe. If the world took the word I invented and collectively decided it meant something that no longer represented my beliefs, I'd make up another. How else could I ever be expected to communicate my beliefs with the world?

 

[Bob Dixon]

What if I try to change the definition of "Taoism" by claiming that name despite preaching something that contradicts its central tenets (assuming it even has any tenets or doctrines)?

Then it's not Taoism.
But say Taoism had a tumultuous beginning, with many different sects arising, all claiming to be "Taoist" sects, and all of them focusing on the ideas related to the "Tao". And then, let's say that one sect had dominated above all others, wiping them out (or leaving little groups in tiny, isolated communities). And then, let's further elaborate and say that that one sect grew and, eventually, gave birth to new sects that splintered off it, which also called themselves "Taoist".
Which one is the right one? Which one is the closest to the "original Taoism"? How can you tell? Which doctrines are proper? Which are correct? Why?

 

[waitasec]

Which one is the right one? Which one is the closest to the "original Taoism"? How can you tell? Which doctrines are proper? Which are correct? Why?

the most popular...
why? because it's the most popular

 

[McBell]

What if I try to change the definition of "Taoism" by claiming that name despite preaching something that contradicts its central tenets (assuming it even has any tenets or doctrines)?

you can make whatever claims you like.

For example, you claim that the "definition" of Christian has changed, yet you have not shown that it actually ever meant what you claim it means....

So yes, you are free to make whatever claims you like.
Doesn't mean that any one will believe them....

 

[Shermana]

What if I try to change the definition of "Taoism" by claiming that name despite preaching something that contradicts its central tenets (assuming it even has any tenets or doctrines)?

Then you should call yourself "orthodox-Christianity" or some kind of hyphenation to state that your beliefs are a particular "development" away from the original doctrine, since the original doctrine most certainly didn't include belief that Jesus was God.

Are your beliefs the same as the original people who were called "Christians"? Are you a Torah obedient member of a Jewish sect that believes Yashua was the prophecied Jewish Messiah in the original Jewish context of what it means to be Jewish Messiah as were the "Disciples" under Peter's authority at Antioch? Or are you basing your ideas on a gentilized development that took place after a century-long initial schism? (Hint: The latter).

Thus, using the word "Christian" to define anything but a sort of Messianic Jewish belief is in fact distorting the definition of the initial use of the term. Just because the orthodox want to lay claim to the word "Christian" doesn't mean they are right or that their revisionized version of history is accurate. If you want to make this kind of sweeping claim, you best be able to defend your claim. And then there's all the interpretation issues, you can't just act as if your interpretation is automatically correct when there are alternate ways to view what the scriptures say. Trintiarians are notorious for distorting the grammar of various passages and sticking to interpolated passages while ignoring all the clashes and holes those interpolations have created, so it's not so cut and dry as you'd like to think. If you want to debate the specifics of whether this is the case, we have many threads for that, and I'll tell you ahead of time, the Trinitarians have lost each one.

Do you think being a "Christian" has anything to do with actually following the teachings of Jesus? It's amazing how many 'Christians" don't. See CARM's quiz for example. It's a sad day when being a "Christian" involves obedience to manmade doctrines and not what Jesus actually teaches (at least the whole of what he teaches in its full context).

 

[Alceste]

the most popular...
why? because it's the most popular

In the dictionary, the most "popular" definition of any given word is placed first. All the other definitions are represented in order of their commonality of use.

For example:

Chris·tian   [kris-chuhn]
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2.
of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3.
of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4.
exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5.
decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

 

[Alceste]

you can make whatever claims you like.

For example, you claim that the "definition" of Christian has changed, yet you have not shown that it actually ever meant what you claim it means....

So yes, you are free to make whatever claims you like.
Doesn't mean that any one will believe them....

It's a particularly pointless exercise when you have two (or more) different sects of Christianity arguing in the same discussion that their own unique, mutually incompatible tenets represent the "correct" definition of the word.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Then you should call yourself "orthodox-Christianity" or some kind of hyphenation to state that your beliefs are a particular "development" away from the original doctrine, since the original doctrine most certainly didn't include belief that Jesus was God.

Are your beliefs the same as the original people who were called "Christians"? Are you a Torah obedient member of a Jewish sect that believes Yashua was the prophecied Jewish Messiah in the original Jewish context of what it means to be Jewish Messiah as were the "Disciples" under Peter's authority at Antioch? Or are you basing your ideas on a gentilized development that took place after a century-long initial schism? (Hint: The latter).

Thus, using the word "Christian" to define anything but a sort of Messianic Jewish belief is in fact distorting the definition of the initial use of the term. Just because the orthodox want to lay claim to the word "Christian" doesn't mean they are right or that their revisionized version of history is accurate. If you want to make this kind of sweeping claim, you best be able to defend your claim. And then there's all the interpretation issues, you can't just act as if your interpretation is automatically correct when there are alternate ways to view what the scriptures say. Trintiarians are notorious for distorting the grammar of various passages and sticking to interpolated passages while ignoring all the clashes and holes those interpolations have created, so it's not so cut and dry as you'd like to think. If you want to debate the specifics of whether this is the case, we have many threads for that, and I'll tell you ahead of time, the Trinitarians have lost each one.

Do you think being a "Christian" has anything to do with actually following the teachings of Jesus? It's amazing how many 'Christians" don't. See CARM's quiz for example. It's a sad day when being a "Christian" involves obedience to manmade doctrines and not what Jesus actually teaches (at least the whole of what he teaches in its full context).

Convoluted arguments aside, you can't in your right mind tell me that the scriptural argument that the disciples viewed JC as God isn't stronger than any argument claiming that the apostles denied his divinity. For ****'s sake Thomas called him "GOD", spelled "G" "O" "D". The disciples bowed down and WORSHIPPED the guy. I realize that Thomas could've taken God's name out of surprise. For that matter, he could've decided to bust into spontaneous worship and for some bizarre reason chose to direct his words intended for who trinitarians would call the "Father" in Jesus' direction instead. And what about the Jews that prostrated themselves in front of David? Were they worshipping him thereby committing idolatry or were they just paying homage to the king? If it's the former than we can assume that its inclusion in the Bible does not represent an endorsment of it. If it's the later, which far more likely, then they're simply honoring the king and it's a moot point. This is all besides the fact that they continually address JC with the NAME "Lord". I've never met anybody or ever heard of anybody being named "Lord" except God. Yes, people may address someone as "my lord" or "lord so and so". That's a little different than someone who's name is "the Lord". Admittingly, I haven't studied the Bible in its original languages very much but my understanding is that "kyrios" is used quite a few times in the Septuagint as the name for God. Again, we can come up with all types of bizarre hypotheses to explain the evidence in such a way so as to argue against the divinity of Jesus or to argue that the disciples denied his divinity. We also have to consider what is the most logical/likely conclusion irrespective of whether or not that conclusion inconveniences us or clashes with our worldview

 

[McBell]

It's a particularly pointless exercise when you have two (or more) different sects of Christianity arguing in the same discussion that their own unique, mutually incompatible tenets represent the "correct" definition of the word.

How much you wanna bet that if we really looked, we could find several other sects of Christianity all claiming that their own unique, mutually incompatible tenets represent the "correct" definition of the word.

 

[Shermana]

Convoluted arguments aside,

Which arguments are convoluted? In my view, YOUR arguments are not only convoluted but based on bad interpretation and ditching Ancient Jewish theology in favor of post 2nd-4th century Greek philosophy.

you can't in your right mind tell me that the scriptural argument that the disciples viewed JC as God isn't stronger than any argument claiming that the apostles denied his divinity

We have entire threads about this. The Trinitarians lose every single one. Perhaps you think you have something to add that they didn't.

. For ****'s sake Thomas called him "GOD", spelled "G" "O" "D".

As I've pointed out, the endings of John and Matthew clash (once again, I ask where the disciples first met Jesus, the mountains of Galilee or a Locked room in Jerusalem), and it could have just been OMG as you admit yourself. If you want to discuss the specifics, start a specific thread about it. I've discussed this countless times. Now watch your language, foul language is not approved of in Proverbs and Sirach. Each of these issues you are bringing up is a whole debate on the issue, and each of your issues has been presented (and squashed) in the "Did Jesus say he was God" and many other threads on the issue.

The disciples bowed down and WORSHIPPED the guy.

Addressed below. To worship is to worship, it only and only means "To bow down to". David is worshiped. The commandment is to worship God AND SERVE HIM ONLY. The key word "and" can be a tricky issue. You are commanded to worship God, but you can still worship other beings that are in His league of command. Even before the Angel corrected him, why did John worship the Angel in the first place? Did I not ask you that before? Did you skip that question for a reason? Notice that the Angel tells him to not worship only because they are both prophets. Why would he mention that? Why not just say its wrong altogether? Why would John even worship him to begin with? Did he have a moment of weakness? Did he never learn to worship anyone but God alone?

I realize that Thomas could've taken God's name out of surprise.

Okay, now do you realize that it wasn't even God's name as well?

For that matter, he could've decided to bust into spontaneous worship and for some bizarre reason chose to direct his words intended for who trinitarians would call the "Father" in Jesus' direction instead.

Once again, David was worshiped. The commandment is to worship God AND SERVE HIM ONLY. You simply don't believe me when I say "Worship" means to bow down to or something?

And what about the Jews that prostrated themselves in front of David? Were they worshipping him thereby committing idolatry or were they just paying homage to the king?

It doesn't matter, all worship means is to bow down to. So no idolatry involved. Worship is worship. The problem is the modern connotation of the word is different than the original.

If it's the former than we can assume that its inclusion in the Bible does not represent an endorsment of it

It includes an endorsement that worship means only to bow down to.

. If it's the later, which far more likely, then they're simply honoring the king and it's a moot point.

Then they were simply honoring Jesus.

This is all besides the fact that they continually address JC with the NAME "Lord".

Did you selectively ignore all the times we pointed out that David is called Lord and that the word Lord doesn't exclusively apply to the Father? There's a problem in understanding whether it should be Lord or LORD I agree.

I've never met anybody or ever heard of anybody being named "Lord" except God.

It's not my fault if you selectively read which parts of scriptures you want to read. David is called Lord. Perhaps you haven't read much history either, countless people are referred to as "Lord". In fact, it's a British title of nobility to begin with. But that's for English. In the Greek, the word is used as well. Why do you think they use the title "lord" in the first place?

Yes, people may address someone as "my lord" or "lord so and so". That's a little different than someone who's name is "the Lord".

It's an interpretation issue as to whether the word Kurios is meant to be Lord or LORD which is an implication of the Tetragramamton. The word "LORD" is not really the Name itself. It's the implied. And it can be hard to tell which is which.

Admittingly, I haven't studied the Bible in its original languages very much but my understanding is that "kyrios" is used quite a few times in the Septuagint as the name for God.

Just like how LORD is substituted for the Holy Name itself. At the same time the word is used for David and others.

Again, we can come up with all types of bizarre hypotheses to explain the evidence in such a way so as to argue against the divinity of Jesus or to argue that the disciples denied his divinity.

It's only bizarre when looking at a post-orthodox perspective. However, the issue of the word "Divinity" is as well up to debate. If Jesus was "a god", i.e. an "Angel" (and as I've said, angels are in fact called "gods"), then Jesus did have "divinity" but not quite the way you see it, the same way that Michael the Archangel has "Divinity". Notice that some translations use "Divine beings" for the Angels. So as you can see, Semantics are a big issue, if you want to discuss this objectively, you need to objectively look at the ancient theological ideas, not through the orthodox lens.

We also have to consider what is the most logical/likely conclusion irrespective of whether or not that conclusion inconveniences us or clashes with our worldview[

Exactly. And that's why I consider my view the most logical. If you want to discuss the specifics of these issues, we have countless Trinity threads where I've discussed each of your objections in detail. Like I said, what you are talking about is interpretation issues, and each of those issues in my opinion, has been historically abused to promote the wrong translation or meaning to promote a Trinitarian agenda. The Arians had it right, the Athanasians had it wrong. The JWs have it right in the regards to the Trinitarian theology. You also have to understand Philo's Logos Theology which John's audience was well acquainted with. Now I suppose that no matter how much I explained the problem of each of your positions that you wouldn't necessarily see it as any less logical or likely, so that kind of conclusion is a bit relative unless you have some criteria of what is most likely and logical. For every "proof text" there is for the Trinity, there's other verses like "The Father is Greater than I" that decisively prove that they were totally separate beings. So in that regard, the Trinitarians have little to no defense against the counter-verses.

Either way, I notice you completely skipped what I said about the original Christians being Messianic Jews.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Either way, I notice you completely skipped what I said about the original Christians being Messianic Jews.

This statement means absolutely nothing because we're not even close to being on the same page about what "Messianic Jew" means. There are few couple groups claiming the title. I go to church with a self proclaimed "Messianic Jew". Guess what? She worships Jesus in an orthodox evangelical church. There's an entire movement of "Messianic Jews" who are orthodox Christians. I'd never even heard of your "sect" until coming to RF

 

[Shermana]

This statement means absolutely nothing because we're not even close to being on the same page about what "Messianic Jew" means. There are few couple groups claiming the title. I go to church with a self proclaimed "Messianic Jew". Guess what? She worships Jesus in an orthodox evangelical church. There's an entire movement of "Messianic Jews" who are orthodox Christians.

That's the problem with the term "Messianic Jew". It means so many different things. I used to have it as my title for my religion here, then I realized it's more of a "Jews for Jesus" thing. I probably shouldn't use the term when discussing the beliefs of the original 33 A.D. Christians who were the ones actually called "Christian" in the text that were a Torah obedient Jewish sect. I'm talking about what the original Church under Peter's authority believed in. Perhaps I should say "Ebionite" or "Nazarene" instead. I'd have to ask if your friend keeps Torah or if she's simply a Jewish convert to evangelicism which is most often the case today.

Also, I worship Jesus too. Just not as you think the term means. I worship him like I'd worship a king, as I'd worship David. If anything the modern use of the English word "Worship" is a bit of a stumbling block for trying to get to the root meaning of the Hebrew. In old English, it meant someone who was WORthy of being kneeled to. Like a judge.

I am well aware though of the "Messianic Jews" who are nothing more than orthodox evangelicals, we lament this often in the MJ DIR.

 

[Alceste]

How much you wanna bet that if we really looked, we could find several other sects of Christianity all claiming that their own unique, mutually incompatible tenets represent the "correct" definition of the word.

I'd bet the farm.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It's a particularly pointless exercise when you have two (or more) different sects of Christianity arguing in the same discussion that their own unique, mutually incompatible tenets represent the "correct" definition of the word.

Thats not my take on this at all. You have two members who agree that their the only true Christians and they belong to the same sect. I don't believe the rest of the Christians posting believe their brand of Christianity is the only people deserving to be called Christians at all.

 

[Reverend Rick]

How much you wanna bet that if we really looked, we could find several other sects of Christianity all claiming that their own unique, mutually incompatible tenets represent the "correct" definition of the word.

I don't see this at all. I think most of us don't believe our brand of Christianity is the only true Christians. I think most of us have a broad use of the word.

Not everyone proclaims the no scottsman arguement.

 

[Alceste]

Thats not my take on this at all. You have two members who agree that their the only true Christians and they belong to the same sect. I don't believe the rest of the Christians posting believe their brand of Christianity is the only people deserving to be called Christians at all.

Wasn't one a Catholic and the other a "born again", whatever that is? I thought that was the nut-bearing wing of the Baptists.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Wasn't one a Catholic and the other a "born again", whatever that is? I thought that was the nut-bearing wing of the Baptists.

Nope, the OP and the other member where both subscribers of the Church of Rome.

 

[Pegg]

I'm continually amazed at the number people who feel they have the right to redefine what that name means considering it's a name that never belonged to them until they attempted to steal it through the twising its defintion. What is a Christian? Let's go back to who that name was bestowed upon.

Acts 11:
26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

This was a group of people that WORSHIPPED Jesus as God.

the verse you quote says nothing about how the Christians viewed Jesus. If you want to know exactly who they thought he was, you should look at Matthew 16:13'...Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo′nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did

Looks like the disciples viewed Jesus as 'the Christ' or 'Messiah'...not as God himself.

And it also looks like Jesus was well pleased and agreed with that view.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

the verse you quote says nothing about how the Christians viewed Jesus. If you want to know exactly who they thought he was, you should look at Matthew 16:13'...Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo′nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did

Looks like the disciples viewed Jesus as 'the Christ' or 'Messiah'...not as God himself.

And it also looks like Jesus was well pleased and agreed with that view.

welcome to the conversation. I already covered this on pages 10-13ish.

 

[Alceste]

Nope, the OP and the other member where both subscribers of the Church of Rome.

I believe Forever Faithful is Catholic and King of the Jungle is Evangelical. Am I mistaken?