What is Christianity.

[Desert Snake]

Sorry but is not saying a relationship a bit weak? I can hate Jesus and despise him but have a relationship with him , I think it needs more.

True, I agree.

Btw, are you a Christian? Just curious so I know what/how to discuss subjects

cheers

 

[Shermana]

Where did you get those ideas of what Christianity is, that's not what is in the Bible

Umm, you're saying that being humble and striving to do good things and helping people isn't in the Bible?

I have to seriously question your familiarity with the Bible.

 

[Hammond]

No I am not a Christian, I am an atheist.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

WOW WOW WOW WOW hang on there, I thought a Christian is a follower of Jesus' teachings, how has it transformed into a bleeding organization?? seems like bull to me.

The question in the OP is "what is Christianity?"
Not what is a Christian?

One requires a collective answer. ( in this case a collective of Christians)
The other the attributes of a class of person.

However I was aiming my answer to your post #11 which doubted the need for popes and leaders.
and I pointed out that Jesus selected St Peter for this role, so leadership was certainly a requirement in his own mind.
a pope is simply what the Roman church (and other churches) call their leader.
Christianity is not an anarchy, though some Christians might like it to be.

 

[Pegg]

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)?

Christianity represents the teachings of Christ as laid out in the Greek Scriptures by the Apostles. And those who live by those teachings and put their faith in Christ are said to be 'Christians'

But the catch is simple....if a person does not actively put those teachings to work in their life, ie 'practice them', then in Gods view, that person is not a 'true' follower of Jesus. So while they may call themselves a christian, their actions prove otherwise.

 

[Hammond]

The question in the OP is "what is Christianity?"
Not what is a Christian?

One requires a collective answer. ( in this case a collective of Christians)
The other the attributes of a class of person.

However I was aiming my answer to your post #11 which doubted the need for popes and leaders.
and I pointed out that Jesus selected St Peter for this role, so leadership was certainly a requirement in his own mind.
a pope is simply what the Roman church (and other churches) call their leader.
Christianity is not an anarchy, though some Christians might like it to be.

From what some of the others say a Christian is someone who follows Jesus' teaching but there is nothing Christian about a collective Church, it seems a personal thing and has no need for a group or collective in fact it has nothing to do with it at all it seems made up from non Christian reasoning.

 

[Pegg]

From what some of the others say a Christian is someone who follows Jesus' teaching but there is nothing Christian about a collective Church, it seems a personal thing and has no need for a group or collective in fact it has nothing to do with it at all it seems made up from non Christian reasoning.

i know im butting in here, but part of Christs teaching is that his disciples should work together, they should meet together, pray together and support each other.

the early christians formed congregations...groups of chrsitians met in the homes of believers and all those meeting there became a congregation.

So forming together into a group was imperative for the congregation to remain stable and constant. without meeting together, there would never have been any christian congregations....or eventually 'churches'

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

From what some of the others say a Christian is someone who follows Jesus' teaching but there is nothing Christian about a collective Church, it seems a personal thing and has no need for a group or collective in fact it has nothing to do with it at all it seems made up from non Christian reasoning.

Read the Didache and see how important support and forming congregations were to the earliest Judo-Christian church, at a time when it was little more than a Jewish "Jesus" movement.
Were it not for the work and sacrifice of the Apostles, and the numerous churches they formed, Christianity would not exist.

You might wish that Christianity could exist in a vacuum, but it can not.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

i know im butting in here, but part of Christs teaching is that his disciples should work together, they should meet together, pray together and support each other.

the early christians formed congregations...groups of chrsitians met in the homes of believers and all those meeting there became a congregation.

So forming together into a group was imperative for the congregation to remain stable and constant. without meeting together, there would never have been any christian congregations....or eventually 'churches'

Very True
You and I belong to very different parts of the "universal church" and read the "Bible" quite differently. however neither of us could have become Christian with out a "Church".

We could have "independently" developed some or all of the personal attributes associated with Christianity and lived a good life, as do people following many other religions. It would not and can not, of it self, make them or us Christian.

 

[ChristineES]

If you set any rules about what makes a Christian, most other Christians will fall outside that bracket.

All Christians worship God. Any thing else you believe is a personal choice, Or a choice of which ever "club" you have chosen to join.

I certainly agree with that. I keep making my definition of being a Christian very simple for just that reason.

 

[Desert Snake]

Read the Didache and see how important support and forming congregations were to the earliest Judo-Christian church, at a time when it was little more than a Jewish "Jesus" movement.
Were it not for the work and sacrifice of the Apostles, and the numerous churches they formed, Christianity would not exist.

You might wish that Christianity could exist in a vacuum, but it can not.

Agreed.

 

[Desert Snake]

Umm, you're saying that being humble and striving to do good things and helping people isn't in the Bible?

I have to seriously question your familiarity with the Bible.

Wonderful. You might try clearing up the contradictions in your own quasi-compiled canon before focusing on critisizing the major Bibles, though

 

[Shermana]

Wonderful. You might try clearing up the contradictions in your own quasi-compiled canon before focusing on critisizing the major Bibles, though

Explain what you mean, thanks.What contradictions our in my own "Quasi-compiled canon" exactly? Obviously you must have some examples in mind.

You keep on bringing up this idea that I'm not allowed to criticize "The major bibles" because I have my own idea of what should be Canonical (like Iraneus and Clement and others), and each time you are asked to explain yourself, you run away.

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 or I will continue to demonstrate how ridiculous it is and you will continue to run away when you are pressed. You're under the idea that you can keep repeating this claim as if it somehow is a rebuttal to anything I said, and that you don't have to answer for it when you are pressed. As others have pointed out, it seems you're not here for honest debate.

I think you're looking for the DIRs, since you don't want to actually debate, as you've stated yourself. I suggest you stick to those.

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 say. At least stick to what I actually say next time instead of taking into a tangent that you can't support as an attempt to dodge out.

 

[Shermana]

Very True
You and I belong to very different parts of the "universal church" and read the "Bible" quite differently. however neither of us could have become Christian with out a "Church".

We could have "independently" developed some or all of the personal attributes associated with Christianity and lived a good life, as do people following many other religions. It would not and can not, of it self, make them or us Christian.

How is it possible for there to be different parts of "The Universal Church" that have directly clashing, contradictory doctrines?

 

[Desert Snake]

Explain what you mean, thanks.

You criticize Bibles that are already canonized, yes yes, the Ethiopian canon, but there is a reason why those books in the KJV are included in scripture while others were left out, one reason is that there are contradictions once you start trying to pick & choose verses to suit your own ideas.... trust me, there are reasons why Christianity has the canon it does (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).
Anyways, what exactly are non-Jewish Christians supposed to follow according to your speculations, I'm being serious here, because if according to you they have to follow the Nazarene creed to be part of the true church, but aren't under obligation to follow the OT laws, where exactly does that leave non-Nazoretic Christianity

 

[Shermana]

You criticize Bibles that are already canonized, yes yes, the Ethiopian canon, but there is a reason why those books in the KJV are included in scripture while others were left out, one reason is that there are contradictions once you start trying to pick & choose verses to suit your own ideas....

What are these contradictions exactly? So only the orthodox church is allowed to decide what a contradiction is and what isn't?

Basically you're trying to say that anyone who disagrees with the orthodox interpretation isn't allowed to criticize the orthodox interpretation. And that scholarly textual and higher criticism is not allowed. It's as if you're completely ignorant about the world of scholarship to begin with.

You think that if I choose books which I believe are authentic to "Suit my own ideas" that it's somehow bad for some reason, but the orthodox church has "reasons" for their selections which are beyond criticism or dispute.

I hope you realize just how ridiculous and dishonest this position is.

I don't see any contradictions in the Apocrypha. What I see is that it contradicts Protestant-Luther doctrine.

trust me, there are reasons why Christianity has the canon it does (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).

Oh really? I'd bet you have absolutely no idea how the canon was formed in the first place. Those reasons are up to dispute, and it seems you want to shoot down any attempt to even discuss those reasons.

Anyways, what exactly are non-Jewish Christians supposed to follow according to your speculations, I'm being serious here, because if according to you they have to follow the Nazarene creed to be part of the true church, but aren't under obligation to follow the OT laws, where exactly does that leave non-Nazoretic Christianity

[/quote]

By all means, where did you get the idea that I said they aren't under the obligation to follow the OT Laws?

The only possibility I can think of is that you have a very bad memory, or you're deliberately putting words in my mouth that I never said. So which one is it?

Non-Jewish Christians, in my belief, must live like Jews do, and the verses which indicate otherwise are in fact interpolations. The only OT laws that they don't have to follow are the ones that JEWS TODAY CAN'T FOLLOW EITHER. Like temple sacrifices because THERE IS NO TEMPLE OR PRIESTHOOD. And neither did the Babylonian exiles have to follow them. Everything else that CAN be done still applies.

As to where that leaves "Non-Nazoretic Christianity", read Matthew 7:22-23, that's where it leaves them.

And don't forget: "Those who break and teach to break the least of these commandments......."

 

[Desert Snake]

Non-Jewish Christians, in my belief, must live like Jews do, and the verses which indicate otherwise are in fact interpolations.

Great. And that is for you to prove, not everyone else following regular canon to prove otherwise

 

[Shermana]

Great. And that is for you to prove, not everyone else following regular canon to prove otherwise

Yes, and I've proven that on many threads.

You simply ignore everything I say, call me "Extreme", and say "I'm not going to argue" whenever I demonstrate how.

You're under the idea that "Regular canon" somehow changes the intent and belief of what the Gospels themselves say or what the Jewish concept of Messiah was in the first place, or changes the entire historicity of the early 1st century Nazarene Church.

You must be completely unaware of the dispute on Paul's epistles.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How is it possible for there to be different parts of "The Universal Church" that have directly clashing, contradictory doctrines?

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.

 

[Lintfelmy]

That's ridiculous, completely unsubstantiated by scripture, in fact counter to what is taught.

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. To me that means do as I do and you will experience heaven. He was teaching people how to be human and not caught up in worldly things. But you can interpret it however you want to, you do have free will to do anything you want. You can grow and nurture your self any way that you see fit. You reap what you sow, in other words it is karma, or cause and effect. JC knew all of this and was trying to teach and show people the way. Not even his disciples understood, as he clearly states.