What is Christianity.

[Rise]

A Christian is a follower of Christ. A disciple of Christ.
A disciple seeks to be more like their teacher.
A follower of Christ has made Christ the lord over their life, seeking to do His will and conform to His image.
A disciple doesn't achieve this by acquiring knowledge from books, but through active relationship with their master.
A disciple of Chris has the Holy Spirit in them and they seek to obey His leading.
You will know a true disciple of Christ because they manifest the fruit of the Holy Spirit's working in their life, which is love and all of it's various aspects.

John 8
“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 13
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

John 14
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Matthew 7
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

 

[Rise]

Thank you rusra02 for your reply. So then going by this, the Pope is pointless and well nothing really to do with Christianity, Jesus never made anyone leaders of the Church nor anyone to decide things for Christians. The Pope and the other higher ups are therefore to be honest the opposite to Christianity, Jesus did not want this kind of thing.

Jesus did tell Peter to take care of His sheep (John 21)

He does appoint people to positions of authority. But it is a fatherly position, for the sake of caring for those who are new and growing, for their protection and growth.
These people are called to serve those under them, not called to be served by them.

Furthermore, it's Jesus who calls people to these positions, it's Jesus who equips them for their calling, and It's Jesus who gives them their spiritual authority which others will recognize (often confirmed with signs, wonders, miracles, among other things).

Ephesians 5:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

God is all about order and structure, respect for authority, especially authority that God has ordained and put into position - But leadership is ordained by God, not by man, not by self. Sometimes the church gets too caught up in the web of wordly institutions and self appointed leadership, based around man's ideas rather than God's ideas for how things should be run.
The end result is never as good as if we had submitted entirely to God's plan and purposes.


We are also told to keep assembling together:

Hebrews 10
24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Paul's epistles are also full of exhortations about what we are to do to help out the rest of the body of Christ, with things like the use of our spiritual gifts and service. It was always intended that we would follow Christ as a community, not alone.

My second remark would be to say then Christianity in a way does not exist, there is no Christianity as far as a Physical object is concerned or a group of people, nor is it the Bible because the Bible is not just about the teachings of Jesus, it is an Ideal with a belief of God included.

The church is called the body of Christ. He's the head, but we have a function to perform and have to all work in unison to achieve the will of Christ.
So the church as a corporate entity does physically exist, but it is intended to be far more dynamic and spirit led than it traditionally has been.
A lot of times we've substituted the leading and structuring of the spirit for man made structures and man appointed leadership.

Thirdly and finally then the Bible then should be judged differently topic by topic, I realize there are different books by different people but different parts of each have different relevance and meaning to others, making it almost a scrambled, in some parts an incoherent mess. The Bible could be better if it was more organized, and with clear separation of meaning and how things should be interpreted.

It's a lot more coherent than it appears at first. But you need the Holy Spirit's illumination to guide you into truth and start assembling the puzzle pieces in your mind.

A lot of things about the bible just didn't make sense to me initially, but I eventually understood enough that I was willing to put my faith in Christ fully. It was almost immediately after that that things just started making sense as I read through them. I probably aquired more understanding in that one month after full acceptance of Christ than I think I did in the whole year previously, as the facts and information I had been taking in suddenly started to fall together in a way that made sense.

 

[Rise]

　

There are hardly any real Christians in this world. Christianity is NOT "accepting JC as your lord and be saved and then you don't have anything to worry about because you are saved"... Saved from what? exactly?

Saved from slavery to sin, saved from destruction.

It is this: Humility, selflessness, always striving to be a better you, going around doing good things and being good to people. Thinking of what you can do for others, wanting nothing in return. BUT, this is not just Christianity, it is a way of life that transcends all religion while being the core of every religion....

　
Other religions might be aware of the problems we face, they might even know some of what the ideal is suppose to be, but none of them have the solution to the problem.

Christ is the solution. Becoming more like Him is the solution. And receiving His Spirit is the method by which that is achieved. Submitting to the will of God, through Christ, is the only way we can stop coming into agreement with demonic spirits and our own selfish rebellious desires which wreck havoc upon the world and those in it.

The whole point of the law was to show us that we can't do it on our own (we couldn't even keep the letter of the OT perfectly, much less the spirit behind it). When we see how hopelessly broken we are trying to do things our own way we realize we need to surrender to God for our own good, and for the good of those around us.
　

JC died for the sins of the world says the book. To strive to be Christlike is a tall order. Doesn't the book also say that all sins are equal. That little white lie is equal to murder in the "eyes of God". Strive to be Christlike and you will experience a heaven that you could not have ever dreamed. And it isn't in some magical ever after life. It is now and at eye level. Read the words of JC I guess.

We are called to be like Christ, but we don't strive for it.
It's not we who do it, but His Spirit in us.
　
　

You are right in that it is counter to what is commonly taught. The bible is what you make it... period. "you" is anyone. I have a right to pick and choose what is in line with self and my conscious. Jesus said follow me.

Jesus told you to follow Him, not to follow what seemed right in your own eyes.

Proverbs 14
12 There is a way that appears to be right,
but in the end it leads to death.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hello I have just joined this forum (and around 4 others today), I aim to improve my debating skills mainly and to ruffle some feathers.
So what is Christianity, is it the bible, is it the people who follow it and count themselves as Christian or is it the head of the church (Pope)?

Hello fellow feather ruffler, I hear answers like, "Christianity not a religion. It's a relationship." A related quote is: "The church isn't a building; it is the body of believers."
The Catholic Church was, and still thinks, it is correct in saying that it is the true Church, and, therefore, defines what Christianity is.
I like where Protestants have taken Christianity for the most part. Except, they are all over the place in defining what is Christianity. I like looking at three levels of literal, Bible-believing Protestant Christians. The first takes the Word as absolutely literal but doesn't believe in speaking in tongues. The next group says they take the "full gospel" and speak in tongues and use other "gifts" of the Spirit. The last group takes the Bible to even more of a literal extreme and adds in handling snakes. Each group believes the same Bible but interprets it different and practices Christianity different.
But, no matter which denomination they come from, my favorite Christians are the "Golden Rule" Christians. That's who I define as Christian and what I wish Christianity could be like, people who love their neighbor as themselves and try their best to be Christ-like.

 

[Desert Snake]

Explain what you mean, thanks.

Sure
I brought up that by your logic, Catholics can't debate with PRotestants or Ethiopian Christians. Or that Bible scholars who reject the Deutero-Pauline canon can't debate either.

Please cease from using this ridiculous logic

With that said, what I said was not a criticism of the Bible, it was a criticism of your woeful ignorance of what it actually says and your outright lies on what it does

Have you read Matthew 5? ......"fulfill the laws" means to end them, in this context...that is why Jesus goes on a literal diatribe about how people should change their viewpoint in regards to them.....
those are laws He is referring to, that's what "laws" mean in Biblical scripture

Exactly what isn't an interpolation, according to you??

 

[Muffled]

Hello I have just joined this forum (and around 4 others today), I aim to improve my debating skills mainly and to ruffle some feathers.

Simple question though never a consistent answer. Now lets take Christianity as the example but this is a question for all faiths, I know Christianity best so it is easier for me if we start there.

What I mean by this question is the way Christians react to different things, if a certain Christian does something that another Christian does not like then they do not represent Christians and you cannot count that as Christian. Now the same is said about the Pope and other high ups and also about the Bible, often it is said the Bible is old and not relevant. So what is Christianity, is it the bible, is it the people who follow it and count themselves as Christian or is it the head of the church (Pope)?

Welcome to RF.

I believe Christianity in its essence is Jesus in the believer saving him from sin.

I believe there are many who claim Christianity but do not live up to the essence of Christianity.

I think I might be what is called a hard shell Baptist, lol.

I believe the Paraclete does not hold two opposite opinions. I also believe that many beliefs come from a lack of undertanding of the Bible which is probably the Christianity that many practice.

 

[Muffled]

Hello fellow feather ruffler, I hear answers like, "Christianity not a religion. It's a relationship." A related quote is: "The church isn't a building; it is the body of believers."
The Catholic Church was, and still thinks, it is correct in saying that it is the true Church, and, therefore, defines what Christianity is.
I like where Protestants have taken Christianity for the most part. Except, they are all over the place in defining what is Christianity. I like looking at three levels of literal, Bible-believing Protestant Christians. The first takes the Word as absolutely literal but doesn't believe in speaking in tongues. The next group says they take the "full gospel" and speak in tongues and use other "gifts" of the Spirit. The last group takes the Bible to even more of a literal extreme and adds in handling snakes. Each group believes the same Bible but interprets it different and practices Christianity different.
But, no matter which denomination they come from, my favorite Christians are the "Golden Rule" Christians. That's who I define as Christian and what I wish Christianity could be like, people who love their neighbor as themselves and try their best to be Christ-like.

I believe In esssence these Christians are not different from Jews. I believe In practice there are more and different laws than judaism.

I beleive these Christians may not be much different from the golden rule variety.

I believe this appears to be Biblically correct and takes advantage of the essence of Christianity.

I don't beleive the Paraclete leads people into foolishness. I believe the context is that if one encounters a poisonous snake while on a mission the person will not die. Such was the case with the Apostle Paul who was bitten by a viper on the Island of Mileta and did not die.

 

[Muffled]

Christianity is the belief and the following of Jesus teachings.

I woud call that Christianism. Of course if a person truly followed the teachings of Jesus he would be following Christianity instead.

 

[Falvlun]

Because we are free thinking people.
Who understand perfectly well that there are some things we are not sure about,
But share a core belief in God and the teachings of Jesus.

And that's basically Christianity's core, the one thing that everyone must believe. No Jesus, no Christianity. And I would venture that part of that core isn't just believing in Jesus' teachings, but believing that his life and/or death played some role in salvation/atonement/forgiveness, etc.

The details are where you get into different denominations, etc.

 

[Shibolet]

Simple question though never a consistent answer. So what is Christianity, is it the bible, is it the people who follow it and count themselves as Christian or is it the head of the church (Pope)?

Christianity is a religious organization of people who believe that Jesus was Christ.

 

[Shermana]

Because we are free thinking people.
Who understand perfectly well that there are some things we are not sure about,
But share a core belief in God and the teachings of Jesus.

Some people go even further and follow a different religion entirely.
They bypass the teachings of Jesus altogether
But serve the same God.

How can you serve God while bypassing the teachings of Jesus? (Which arguably, most Christians completely ignore 90% of what Jesus actually taught like "Give to whomever asks of you")

What's your opinion of Matthew 7:21-23? Even those who are able to perform miracles in Jesus's name and call him lord will be rejected by him if they aren't obeying the Law and doing what God wills.

"Many will be called but few will be chosen".

Clearly, the church is exclusive and not just open to anyone who claims to call Jesus "lord" and claims to serve God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How can you serve God while bypassing the teachings of Jesus? (Which arguably, most Christians completely ignore 90% of what Jesus actually taught like "Give to whomever asks of you")

What's your opinion of Matthew 7:21-23? Even those who are able to perform miracles in Jesus's name and call him lord will be rejected by him if they aren't obeying the Law and doing what God wills.

"Many will be called but few will be chosen".

Clearly, the church is exclusive and not just open to anyone who claims to call Jesus "lord" and claims to serve God.

Those verses are so un-Christ-like that I doubt they are true.

They sound more like the rules thought up to provide exclusivity.
No one knows all that God wills,so it is an unobtainable standard. And why would God call the unchosen.

However such rules give immense power over individual members of any church, which diminishes the likelihood of their truth still further.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How can you serve God while bypassing the teachings of Jesus?.

By chosing another faith.

 

[Shermana]

By chosing another faith.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. Now the next step is to choose the faith that Jesus actually taught, right?

 

[Shermana]

Those verses are so un-Christ-like that I doubt they are true.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just dismiss verses as interpolation without scholarly reason just because we don't agree with them. At this rate, we can just say the Bible says whatever we want it to say and snip out any verse we don't think fits regardless if there's good scholarly reason. I think I'll just leave this discussion with you after this. I'd do it with the divorce issues, but then again, there's actually manuscript issues for that. Hey to be fair, there are plenty of reasons to think that certain verses are in fact interpolated where there is little manuscript or scholarly backing, but the reasoning for such is what matters. And your reasoning is because you want there to be a "Universalist" style church whereas I would be suspicious of verses that promote a non-exclusivist, non-Jewish context.

Personally I think it's completely unreasonable to call those verses "unChrist-like", and in fact think they are quite the opposite. They are completely in line with what the Jewish "Christ" Would say and nothing less.

We just have different interpretations of what "Christ like" means. Just like we may not agree what "Christ" means either. 'Christ" means anointed, why would he be anointed?

I assume you'd also think "I have not come for anyone but the lost sheep of the House of Israel" was interpolated by Nazarene Jews who didn't like Universalism?

They sound more like the rules thought up to provide exclusivity.
No one knows all that God wills,so it is an unobtainable standard. And why would God call the unchosen.

Ummm, Jesus was all about exclusivity. Who are the unchosen exactly? What do you think was the intention of whoever you think interpolated that verse? Can you imagine why he'd want exclusivity? I guess you think any verse that talks about separating yourselves from other people, like disbelieving family members were interpolated by power-hungry early church members?

However such rules give immense power over individual members of any church, which diminishes the likelihood of their truth still furthe

So you think there should be no rules then, got it. Or did you mean they should have SOME rules? If so, what kind of rules? Rules like giving to anyone who asks of you? Or are you implying that any instance of laying down a foundational set of rules and regulations is just a control measure?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Wouldn't it be great if we could just dismiss verses as interpolation without scholarly reason just because we don't agree with them. At this rate, we can just say the Bible says whatever we want it to say and snip out any verse we don't think fits regardless if there's good scholarly reason. I think I'll just leave this discussion with you after this. I'd do it with the divorce issues, but then again, there's actually manuscript issues for that. Hey to be fair, there are plenty of reasons to think that certain verses are in fact interpolated where there is little manuscript or scholarly backing, but the reasoning for such is what matters. And your reasoning is because you want there to be a "Universalist" style church whereas I would be suspicious of verses that promote a non-exclusivist, non-Jewish context.

Personally I think it's completely unreasonable to call those verses "unChrist-like", and in fact think they are quite the opposite. They are completely in line with what the Jewish "Christ" Would say and nothing less.

We just have different interpretations of what "Christ like" means. Just like we may not agree what "Christ" means either. 'Christ" means anointed, why would he be anointed?

I assume you'd also think "I have not come for anyone but the lost sheep of the House of Israel" was interpolated by Nazarene Jews who didn't like Universalism?

Ummm, Jesus was all about exclusivity. Who are the unchosen exactly? What do you think was the intention of whoever you think interpolated that verse? Can you imagine why he'd want exclusivity? I guess you think any verse that talks about separating yourselves from other people, like disbelieving family members were interpolated by power-hungry early church members?

So you think there should be no rules then, got it. Or did you mean they should have SOME rules? If so, what kind of rules? Rules like giving to anyone who asks of you? Or are you implying that any instance of laying down a foundational set of rules and regulations is just a control measure?

Not all churches have rules or dogma..
Try the Nonsubscribing presbyterians for size.
And you are free to interpret the scriptures yourself.
Welcome to The Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland

 

[Falvlun]

And your reasoning is because you want there to be a "Universalist" style church whereas I would be suspicious of verses that promote a non-exclusivist, non-Jewish context.

Personally I think it's completely unreasonable to call those verses "unChrist-like", and in fact think they are quite the opposite. They are completely in line with what the Jewish "Christ" Would say and nothing less.

I assume you'd also think "I have not come for anyone but the lost sheep of the House of Israel" was interpolated by Nazarene Jews who didn't like Universalism?

Ummm, Jesus was all about exclusivity. Who are the unchosen exactly? What do you think was the intention of whoever you think interpolated that verse? Can you imagine why he'd want exclusivity? I guess you think any verse that talks about separating yourselves from other people, like disbelieving family members were interpolated by power-hungry early church members?

Like most theological points in the Bible, it is not so clear cut or consistent.

Matt 28:18-19 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

and

John 10:16 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Both indicate that Jesus intended his message to reach a broader audience. It often truly does come down to which message you prefer.

 

[CG Didymus]

I recently read it and already forgot it, but the early Church fathers had their councils and came up with creeds to define Christianity didn't they? I know it was difficult for them to come up with a consensus as to whether Jesus was God or not and which books got into the canon. Through those early centuries what developed into a "universal" church didn't turn out so well. I think they have done "damage control" and have made changes for the better, but where are they in this conversation? Without the Catholic Church would Christianity have been so "successful" in spreading through out the world? And, without them, in the negative sense, where would Protestant Christianity be? What Christianity was and how it was defined in the past was sometimes a scary thing. I"m glad there was a reformation and I'm glad for modern Christians who are still redefining what "true" Christianity is.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I recently read it and already forgot it, but the early Church fathers had their councils and came up with creeds to define Christianity didn't they? I know it was difficult for them to come up with a consensus as to whether Jesus was God or not and which books got into the canon. Through those early centuries what developed into a "universal" church didn't turn out so well. I think they have done "damage control" and have made changes for the better, but where are they in this conversation? Without the Catholic Church would Christianity have been so "successful" in spreading through out the world? And, without them, in the negative sense, where would Protestant Christianity be? What Christianity was and how it was defined in the past was sometimes a scary thing. I"m glad there was a reformation and I'm glad for modern Christians who are still redefining what "true" Christianity is.

Christianity had spread to most of the known world, well before it was accepted By Rome as a state religion.

Most regions had trading links long before Christianity or the Roman empire. Christians were very quick to take advantage of them.
The Romans never got as far as Ireland But the Celtic church spread from there to west and norther England, again before the Romans. It is true that in the Roman West, the Churches became largely "Romanised" thereafter.

 

[CG Didymus]

Christianity had spread to most of the known world, well before it was accepted By Rome as a state religion.

Most regions had trading links long before Christianity or the Roman empire. Christians were very quick to take advantage of them.
The Romans never got as far as Ireland But the Celtic church spread from there to west and norther England, again before the Romans. It is true that in the Roman West, the Churches became largely "Romanised" thereafter.

Did the Celtic Church have different beliefs than the Roman/Catholic Church? And, what happen when Catholics became the "one true Church?"