What is an authentic Christian?

[blü 2]

They have nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity obviously, neither did Jesus nor his descendants nominate them or teach anything like them.

As I understand it, they claim their own distinct revelation, in which Jesus is called Jehovah and is a co-god subject to God (the Father).

Why should their revelation be inferior to any other revelation? Is there some objective standard for revelations that I'm not aware of?

 

[BilliardsBall]

On another debate a member who is a Christian dismissed some Christians, namely those Baptists of the Confederate South and Lutherans and Catholics of Nazi Germany, as "Christians in name only". That's interesting.

This implies and suggests that there are fake Christians, and thus by contrast, authentic Christians. So it got me to wondering if this is a common attitude among Christians, and if so, what is the profile of an "authentic Christian" versus "in name only".

So, do you have this attitude and belief?

If so, what makes an authentic Christian?

Does this smack of judgment?

The NT uses the word "trust" over 150 times to indicate who is a true Christian. Biblically speaking, any INDIVIDUAL who trusts Jesus (implies older than a toddler) for salvation is saved for Heaven and is a true Christian.

 

[Colt]

On another debate a member who is a Christian dismissed some Christians, namely those Baptists of the Confederate South and Lutherans and Catholics of Nazi Germany, as "Christians in name only". That's interesting.

This implies and suggests that there are fake Christians, and thus by contrast, authentic Christians. So it got me to wondering if this is a common attitude among Christians, and if so, what is the profile of an "authentic Christian" versus "in name only".

So, do you have this attitude and belief?

If so, what makes an authentic Christian?

Does this smack of judgment?

Anyone who has faith in Christ is Christ-ian.

 

[paradox]

As I understand it, they claim their own distinct revelation, in which Jesus is called Jehovah and is a co-god subject to God (the Father).

Why should their revelation be inferior to any other revelation? Is there some objective standard for revelations that I'm not aware of?

partial truth does not constitute truth.

Half-truth - Wikipedia

1 John 2:21

full truth is the bible, in this context the bible used by descendants of Jesus, not the bible used by self-proclaimed apostles.
there can't be multiple truths about same thing, one is a lie (or half truth) and the other one is truth.

 

[blü 2]

partial truth does not constitute truth.

So what objective test will determine whether any particular statement or claim in the bible is true or not ─ 'true' in the sense of being an accurate statement about reality?

And how do you say the Book of Mormon fails it?

 

[paradox]

So what objective test will determine whether any particular statement or claim in the bible is true or not ─ 'true' in the sense of being an accurate statement about reality?

We are not talking about reality or scientific evidence here, but rather about authentic teaching of Jesus passed down to his disciples.
In this context therefore translation of the bible used by descendants of Jesus is authentic or truth.

And how do you say the Book of Mormon fails it?

I don't understand you question but book of mormons is not product of Jesus or it's disciples and descendants.
Also the book of mormons is visibly different than the bible used by Jesus' descendants, therefore it's visibly not authentic.

 

[metis]

Anyone who has faith in Christ is Christ-ian.

And it's the "in" part that makes a huge difference and where many fall, such as what is referenced in Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats. As one of our priests used to say: "Joe thought he was going to heaven because of what he did on Sunday but went to hell for what he did on Monday".

 

[blü 2]

We are not talking about reality or scientific evidence here, but rather about authentic teaching of Jesus passed down to his disciples.
In this context therefore translation of the bible used by descendants of Jesus is authentic or truth.


I don't understand you question but book of mormons is not product of Jesus or it's disciples and descendants.
Also the book of mormons is visibly different than the bible used by Jesus' descendants, therefore it's visibly not authentic.

Which is to say, each to their own worldview, no?

Me, I like reasoned skeptical enquiry because it's so endlessly useful, because it looks for what is true.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what makes an authentic Christian?

When I was a Christian, I would have answered that we don't know who is a Christian. Only God does, and He will admit them but not others claiming to be Christian into heaven. That's obviously not a very useful definition for an atheist.

Like many others, I don't have a category of authentic or true Christians. There are only Christians and non-Christians. If someone believes that Jesus is the only path to salvation in an afterlife, they're a Christian. That's my only requirement to call them one, and I virtually never ask if that's what they believe. I assume it, so in effect, anybody that claims to be a Christian is one to me as well. And that's the definition people are using when they say that there are 2.38 billion Christians in the world. Somebody extrapolated the result of surveys and censuses where people self-identified as Christian to come to that figure. I am aware of only one human being, a very well-known person, who has claimed to be a Christian, but whom I don't count as one - somebody who I am sure is lying about holding even the minimal core belief I suggested. So, the twin definitions provided yield almost perfect overlap. Meeting one means you will meet the other.

There is no other doctrinal test, as some Christians have for excluding other Christians (by my definition of Christian), such as whether they have a pope or they baptize by sprinkling or immersion. Theology certainly doesn't matter to the unbeliever apart from a few essential tenets which belief bleeds into their lives, such as that Yahweh (and presumably Jesus as well) hates gays, atheists, and abortions, and those things aren't relevant in deciding who is a Christian except by Christians.

Also, there is no behavioral test. Having no doctrinal test beyond what's described above, and no behavioral test at all, there can be no concept of Christian in name only or not a true Christian.

 

[paradox]

Which is to say, each to their own worldview, no?

what's the point of deliberate use of non authentic source? aren't you lying to yourself by doing so?

Me, I like reasoned skeptical enquiry because it's so endlessly useful, because it looks for what is true.

critical thinking is not bad, in biblical sense this is called exegesis, but you need authentic scriptures for this to make any useful sense.
Exegesis - Wikipedia

 

[F1fan]

When I was a Christian, I would have answered that we don't know who is a Christian. Only God does, and He will admit them but not others claiming to be Christian into heaven. That's obviously not a very useful definition for an atheist.

Like many others, I don't have a category of authentic or true Christians. There are only Christians and non-Christians. If someone believes that Jesus is the only path to salvation in an afterlife, they're a Christian. That's my only requirement to call them one, and I virtually never ask if that's what they believe. I assume it, so in effect, anybody that claims to be a Christian is one to me as well. And that's the definition people are using when they say that there are 2.38 billion Christians in the world. Somebody extrapolated the result of surveys and censuses where people self-identified as Christian to come to that figure. I am aware of only one human being, a very well-known person, who has claimed to be a Christian, but whom I don't count as one - somebody who I am sure is lying about holding even the minimal core belief I suggested. So, the twin definitions provided yield almost perfect overlap. Meeting one means you will meet the other.

There is no other doctrinal test, as some Christians have for excluding other Christians (by my definition of Christian), such as whether they have a pope or they baptize by sprinkling or immersion. Theology certainly doesn't matter to the unbeliever apart from a few essential tenets which belief bleeds into their lives, such as that Yahweh (and presumably Jesus as well) hates gays, atheists, and abortions, and those things aren't relevant in deciding who is a Christian except by Christians.

Also, there is no behavioral test. Having no doctrinal test beyond what's described above, and no behavioral test at all, there can be no concept of Christian in name only or not a true Christian.

So my question is what would motivate a Christian to assert there IS authentic Christians in contrast with the alternative.

 

[F1fan]

Anyone who has faith in Christ is Christ-ian.

And it has been explained that "faith" in Jesus means to trust he self is saved, and saved from damnation.

So is this all there is, just believers feeling like they aren't bound for hell? No obligation to follow a moral guideline?

To my mind I would think there would be some obligation to pay back the gift of salvation. Do you feel any such thing, or did you grab the gift and run?

 

[F1fan]

All disciples of Christ must be 'sealed' with the Holy Spirit. This is the unifying factor throughout the body of Christ.

This is vague. How about you explain what you mean. Who are disciples? Are you referring to the 12, or are you implying believers like yourself are disciples?

 

[Colt]

And it has been explained that "faith" in Jesus means to trust he self is saved, and saved from damnation.

So is this all there is, just believers feeling like they aren't bound for hell? No obligation to follow a moral guideline?

To my mind I would think there would be some obligation to pay back the gift of salvation. Do you feel any such thing, or did you grab the gift and run?

Faith in Jesus means faith in his Gospel which is faith in sonship with God and the responsibility that comes with being a child of God. Naturally that includes a moral guideline.

I don't believe in hell. There is either life or death. The wages of sin is death. Death was translated into "hell" after Jesus was long gone which has confused the matter.

 

[F1fan]

Faith in Jesus means faith in his Gospel which is faith in sonship with God and the responsibility that comes with being a child of God. Naturally that includes a moral guideline.

Really? Tell us what it is, and if you follow it.

And we see many moral people you don't need faith in jesus or the Gospel to be moral. And we see many faithful who are mean, evil, immoral, etc., so what happened?

I don't believe in hell. There is either life or death. The wages of sin is death. Death was translated into "hell" after Jesus was long gone which has confused the matter.

Then what is salvation in your view? What are you "saved" from if there is no eternal torment?

 

[Colt]

Really? Tell us what it is, and if you follow it.

And we see many moral people you don't need faith in jesus or the Gospel to be moral. And we see many faithful who are mean, evil, immoral, etc., so what happened?


Then what is salvation in your view? What are you "saved" from if there is no eternal torment?

In a nutshell Jesus said "Love one another as I have loved you". Jesus lived out the will of the Father. Each follower is asked to do the same.

A person can be moral and reject God the Father. Morality is innate to personality becuse all personality comes from a moral creator. A person can have belief and do immoral things.

Salvation is from eternal death. The unsaved don't exist anymore after final judgment.

Just becuse one is a Buddhist doesn't mean they are perfect. Hard to believe but sometimes Buddhist do immoral things to.

 

[F1fan]

The NT uses the word "trust" over 150 times to indicate who is a true Christian. Biblically speaking, any INDIVIDUAL who trusts Jesus (implies older than a toddler) for salvation is saved for Heaven and is a true Christian.

That seems way too basic and simplistic given the vast disagreements among Christians. I see you repeat a similar thing, and that is that the believer is saved from some fate. But none of you say you are obligated to follow a moral guideline, at least not until I ask. It suggests being a Christian has a selfish priority, and being grateful is secondary. I brought u this whole discussion because a Christian said that Nazis and salve owners were not authentic Christians.

So why am I not seeing believers speak about their obligation as moral and decent people, and willing to follow the example and teachings of Jesus?

 

[F1fan]

In a nutshell Jesus said "Love one another as I have loved you". Jesus lived out the will of the Father. Each follower is asked to do the same.

A person can be moral and reject God the Father. Morality is innate to personality becuse all personality comes from a moral creator. A person can have belief and do immoral things.

Salvation is from eternal death. The unsaved don't exist anymore after final judgment.

So Christians can be saved, but also morally depraved? Morals are optional?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So my question is what would motivate a Christian to assert there IS authentic Christians in contrast with the alternative.

I expect to make the religion look better than it is to everyone including outsiders by denying that bad Christianity is Christianity, too. They want to present the idea that if one becomes a Christian, he is transformed into something better. Whatever contradicts that is scrubbed with apologetics. Plenty of failed Christians? They were never Christians. You say that you were a Christian and that that didn't transform you? You weren't doing it right. The religion is wholesome and delivers in its promises. Anything else isn't the religion.

It's the same thing done with the claim that God is good. If God was definitely responsible, then what appears bad to man is actually good to a deity. If what is reported in scripture undeniably bad, like making sinful people and condemning them to perdition, then God didn't do it. That was man or Satan, and God doesn't send people to hell. They send themselves, or it isn't literal torture.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is vague. How about you explain what you mean. Who are disciples? Are you referring to the 12, or are you implying believers like yourself are disciples?

The message of the Bible is clear.

In Leviticus 11:45 God says, 'For l am the LORD that bringeth you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for l am holy'.

Holiness matters. So how does God go about making a sinful people holy? He does so by taking away their sin, and by giving them his own Holy Spirit.

The new covenant began on the day of Pentecost. The promise of the Holy Spirit descended, and the Church, the body of Christ, was born.

A Christian cannot be recognised if he does not walk by the Holy Spirit in truth. When he does, the power of God goes with him.