Where does Christianity begin and end?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For Baha'is, and some others, there is no line where Christianity begins and ends.

If that were true, Baha'is would call thenselves Christians and not Baha'i.

 

[Vee]

So what does it mean to be a Christian or non-Christian. .

By definition, a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, to be a Christian one needs a lot more than a mere confession of faith. That belief needs to be backed by works, as mentioned in James 2:17 "faith by itself, without works, is dead".
Christians are required to strip off old personalities and live their lives in accord with bible principles. (Ga. 5:22,23, Col 3:12-14)
The main identifying quality by which true Christians are recognized is the love they have toward one another. “By this,” Jesus said, “all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” ( Joh 13:34, 35 )

 

[Dawnofhope]

Words are so important and I'm probably at the top in "i wish I would have said it differently".

You are right, it should have been the "Baha'i perspective" in that forum.

A Christian is simply one who has trusted and given his heart to Jesus Christ (thus Christian) - as the Messiah, Savior and Lord. A follower of Christ.

Thanks for understanding the issue. I don't for a minute deny the right for Christians to define for themselves who is Christian and who is not. However it is a delicate matter that needs careful consideration on a case by case basis.

Baha'is sometimes refer to themselves as Baha'is and those who are not Baha'is as 'non-Baha'i. I tend to avoid the term 'non-Baha'i' as often those who are not members of my faith community better exemplify our ideals than those who are.

The phrase 'non-Christian' is somewhat problematic when applied to Muslims and Baha'is as both religions identity the Divine origins of the Gospel of Christ and revere Christ as a Messenger and Prophet of Christ. Baha'is take it a step further and recognize His Divinity and Sonship. Of course, many Christians would deny Muslims and Baha'is as being 'Christian' as they follow false prophets.

It is best to circumvent these complex issues, especially in an interfaith setting, by simply identifying people by their name or identified religion rather than making Christianity centre stage and identifying who is Christian or non-Christian.

More generally identifying who is and isn't Christian has been problematic among Christians, with some denominations either proclaiming themselves 'true' Christians or disparging other groups within Christianity by denying they are Christian at all.

 

[Colt]

As a non-religious atheist, I don't want to necessarily define the religion of other people for them. I think that should be up to those who identify with it.

However, I think there is something fundamentally intriguing about the label "Christian," because it's usually used in a very exclusive way to refer specifically to those who hold Jesus in high-esteem and follow the Nicene Creed.

Even more specifically, it's often used in a narrow sense to refer to someone who is a Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic. You also see, within these denominations, Protestants who say Catholics aren't Christian, for instance.

Movements like Rosicrucianism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Rastafarianism are also often excluded on this basis, even if members of these groups self-identify as Christian.

Since I don't really have a horse in the race, being a non-religious atheist who does not hold favorable views towards the teachings attributed to Jesus, I usually just take people at their word. If they say they're a Christian, then that's okay with me.

I don't think it's a very useful label, because it tends to not really tell you much about the person who uses it. I can't think of a single belief or cause that every single person who self-identifies as a Christian supports.

There was the religion of Jesus, his Gospel, which he called the Gospel of the kingdom of Heaven. It was inevitable that a religion about Jesus would develop which went in a compromised direction and split into many sects. Within the general Christian religion, a new "chosen people" arrogance emerged which they see as a continuation or grafting on to the chosen people claim of Israelites.

Specifically, the exclusivity of Christain doctrine focuses on Jesus' statement "no one gets to the Father except through me" or "I am the way, the truth and the life". If that is true it can be understood in different ways.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I wish to explore what it means to be a Christian and follower of Christ. What does it mean to identity as Christian and non-Christian.

I attended an interfaith gathering recently and initially there were six Christians, one Buddhist and a Baha'i. The theme was 'hope' and we were sharing from our respective faith traditions what that meant. The Christians certainly had a great deal to say and then I offered to share a perspective from outside of Christianity. I shared a story about Muhammed and the circumstances leading to the Muslims flight to Ethiopia to escape the persecution from the Qureshi.

The Christian chair thanked me for sharing a 'non-Christian' perspective. In hindsight I felt uncomfortable with the words non-Christian and felt a better phrase would have simply call it a Baha'i perspective.

So what does it mean to be a Christian or non-Christian. At what point are these labels helpful and when do they simply fuel division and tribalism?

Thoughts? Questions? Thanks in advance for sharing.

Christianity begins and ends with the Bible... If you're sharing something that is counter to scripture, it is counter to Christianity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

For Baha'is, and some others, there is no line where Christianity begins and ends. Since you believe all the major religions, even the Dharmic ones, all come from the same source, the one true God. However, to those of us who see the great differences in beliefs between the different religions, we need those labels. But, if people can ever put aside their religious differences, then who needs those labels. And some already have.

Yet, people that follow Baha'u'llah, and believe all religions are one, still call themselves Baha'i. So, even Baha'is need a label to differentiate themselves from the other religions that have very different beliefs and doctrines.

As said to another, I have no problem with labels and it is necessary for Baha'is for enrolment purposes and to determine who can vote in electing our Assemblies. Same deal for Christians and any other faith community. However there nuances and complexies in determining who is and isn't a member of a Faith community. Its important to avoid making assumptions.

 

[blü 2]

I wish to explore what it means to be a Christian and follower of Christ. What does it mean to identity as Christian and non-Christian.

I attended an interfaith gathering recently and initially there were six Christians, one Buddhist and a Baha'i. The theme was 'hope' and we were sharing from our respective faith traditions what that meant. The Christians certainly had a great deal to say and then I offered to share a perspective from outside of Christianity. I shared a story about Muhammed and the circumstances leading to the Muslims flight to Ethiopia to escape the persecution from the Qureshi.

The Christian chair thanked me for sharing a 'non-Christian' perspective. In hindsight I felt uncomfortable with the words non-Christian and felt a better phrase would have simply call it a Baha'i perspective.

So what does it mean to be a Christian or non-Christian. At what point are these labels helpful and when do they simply fuel division and tribalism?

Thoughts? Questions? Thanks in advance for sharing.

I was told it was very simple.

If you believe Jesus is your savior then you're a Christian. Otherwise you ain't.

Seems about right.

 

[Five Solas]

I wish to explore what it means to be a Christian and follower of Christ. What does it mean to identity as Christian and non-Christian.

I attended an interfaith gathering recently and initially there were six Christians, one Buddhist and a Baha'i. The theme was 'hope' and we were sharing from our respective faith traditions what that meant. The Christians certainly had a great deal to say and then I offered to share a perspective from outside of Christianity. I shared a story about Muhammed and the circumstances leading to the Muslims flight to Ethiopia to escape the persecution from the Qureshi.

The Christian chair thanked me for sharing a 'non-Christian' perspective. In hindsight I felt uncomfortable with the words non-Christian and felt a better phrase would have simply call it a Baha'i perspective.

So what does it mean to be a Christian or non-Christian. At what point are these labels helpful and when do they simply fuel division and tribalism?

Thoughts? Questions? Thanks in advance for sharing.

Christianity had been defined almost since the beginning of the church. Salvation is all about faith in God as was summarised in these words:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,

By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father (and the Son)
Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
Who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

 

[natasha levchenko]

I would start from scratch….what Christianity really is.

Speaking for true Christians, the apostle Paul stated: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) True Christianity means united worship of the one God, the Father, Jehovah, through the one Lord, Jesus Christ. Jesus told his disciples: “Your Leader is one, the Christ.”—Matthew 23:10.
Christianity was founded at Pentecost 33 C.E., there was not a single follower of Christ in Rome. The first headquarters of the Christian congregation was unquestionably Jerusalem. True, Jews and proselytes from Rome were present in Jerusalem during Pentecost, and some of them no doubt became Christians and returned to Rome, there to found a Christian congregation.
If you trust the Bible as the Word of God everything is quite understandable. If you rely on people’s understandings it is hard to find the truth. People would always claim they are true Christians due to their views.

.

 

[rational experiences]

I always considered Christianity was to be spiritual.

Then I learnt natural life human was always naturally spiritual.

Sometimes a brother or sister heals before others. Thinks it's special. To be healed very loving and advised. When they forgot it's natural. Always was. Before science natural living status.

Aware of all things to survive or heal life body.

So wrote what was re realised in Christianity. Life was hurt again by the same science causes.

Reasons. Updates by human made aware...consciousness.

Said in Christianity I remembered don't self idolise. As we had been self idolising. Losing life then getting a large memory review which advised us.

Sacrificed population again.

Called being psychic. Told by deceased human enmasse who had died sacrificed from early age death.

So it was updated human only reviews about natural life and self aware.

As hope was about family remembering about our healing returned to mind body. It is before self allowance of our own human chosen self destruction. By breaking gods earth all laws.

Which is fission.

To react what space law as God owned. Body presence.

So my brother did self idolise. Even today he says I use teach use of false symbols. Stories theories codes and symbols that only are symbolic..not scientific maths.... just causes.

Yet if no human lived there is no secondary human only inferred symbolisms either.

He doesn't seem to even reason.

As how can a humans symbolism be expressed as created creation? Or in created creation when no human existed.

He's so possessed of his greatness as a man he ignores any advice. Scientist theist stories.

So he said one God only and it's not man.

Yet man theories he's a God first that became a man.

Rather than always ever just being the man or a man first and only. He won't agree. One man only he says to himself about self and brothers ...
all the same.

That same thinker puts his man living position in thesis every where except with self.

So Christian realisation just made some particular new reviews. Yet as human temple science was involved. Most causes to human life occurred before also. Very similar in review stated.

As proof men of science did it to their selves. Temple with pyramid the technology. Digging up the mass himself always involved...converting.

 

[1213]

...
So what does it mean to be a Christian....

I think it means one is a disciple of Jesus and remain in the word of Jesus, because:

It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

 

[Windwalker]

I'm not sure the two are congruent. If they are wolves in sheep's clothing, they may simply have the form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that wolves in sheep's clothing, while they may make use of all the trappings of a religious faith; quoting verses, bumper stickers, flags with crosses on them, etc., that they are actually walking by the Spirit, just yet unbeknownst to them?

I would see that view you speak of as applying more to "babes", who don't yet understand the depths of Spirit, while they are sincerely trying to conform themselves to the forms. Whereas as I'm reading it, that verse you quote from in 2 Tim. 3:5 is actually talking about posers in that chapter. I don't see that as a matter of "simply" or a "just" having the form but missing the mark. It's a description of actual wolves hiding their true wolf natures in sheep's clothing or the "form of godliness".

The "form of godliness but denying the power" is them actually rejecting the spiritual transformative power of the forms, because their goal or motivation is not actually Spirit or God, but their own gains of power. It's simply adopting the forms for person gain, for personal power centered around themselves and their own desires, rather than seeking them as a means to grow as a spiritual being. "Denying the power", in other words is "rejecting the Holy Spirit". It's a rejection because the focus is on themselves and their own personal gains.

But, regardless, you do know the tree by his fruits.

Yes, trying to assess whether or not someone is genuine in their faith by their theological views or beliefs is not the true measure of the validity of one's faith. Their fruits are. Too many Christians think it's about correct beliefs. I see that as nothing but a distraction from the main attraction, which is the fruits of one's faith. And no, "correct beliefs" is not one of the fruits of the Spirit. (I've had someone try to claim that to me. )

Why do you assume that Christian Nationalism = violence? Not saying there aren't those who do, but why the global application?

I'm intending to start a thread on this shortly. I can explain more in there. But for here, I'll lay out a couple points. First of all, we need to make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Most everyone, whether liberal or conservative, democrats or republicans, have a sense of patriotism. But Nationalism is a distortion of patriotism, and is "violent" in nature by seeking power over others, excluding others, focusing on the self only, etc.

By definition, Nationalism is:

loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups​

That attitude in and of itself is the opposite of Christian values. Since when is Christianity supposed to be about exalting themselves above all others and placing primary emphasis on the promotion of their views and interest in opposition to others? That is not a Christian. Let alone placing devotion to country as the focus of faith? A Christian is devoted to God, not country, nor "God and Country" as if they are equals. That is actually "a form of godliness but rejecting the power of it". It is rejecting the inclusive, invitational, open doors of Love. It is about self-interest only.

It is "violent" in that it seeks to force its views upon others. Force is violence. That violence of using and manipulating politics in order to force its views upon others (not a Christian attitude, not motivated by the Spirit of Love in any sense, IMHO), demonstrable can and does manifest itself a physical violence, where God is used to justify bashing in the heads of police officers in order to secure the Capitol for Christ on January 6, for instance.

That is fruit of the tree of Christian Nationalism. It is not fruit of the tree from the Spirit of Love. It is the fruit of violence, from a tree of violence.

And exactly what is Christian Nationalism?

This is a very good article from Christianity Today I would recommend your reading through. I agree with everything it says about the differences between Christian faith and Christian Nationalism. I just found this article now in looking for a source you might feel comfortable with trusting. They are spot on, and it's most everything I would say.

It was this Christian Nationalism rearing its head within Christianity that sullied and spoiled my experience in the faith back when I was young and in bible college. It's refreshing that they are seeing and saying the same things that ruined Christianity for me back then.

What Is Christian Nationalism?

Was the US Revolution a type of Christian Nationalism?

Absolutely not. The US Revolution was not stoked by Christian Nationalism. I'll explain more in that other thread.

That is true too. I don't particularly like labels. But, many times, it does help. If I label myself as a Christian, it does give somewhat of an understanding.

For me, Christian Nationalism has so sullied the name Christian, that I think for many, even though they are Christian at heart, do not wish to identify as Christians. Personally, I don't believe Christianity was ever meant to be a separate religion at all, but an attitude, a spiritual philosophy and way of life that transcends religious affiliations. "There is neither Greek nor Jew but all are One in Christ". That right there busts down this us vs. them religious divides. Doesn't it?

I like that!!

Excellent. We find agreement.

 

[CG Didymus]

If that were true, Baha'is would call thenselves Christians and not Baha'i.

Of course, it's not true, especially to most Christians. But, since Baha'is believe in Jesus, it puts them in a special category... Not "Christian" but believers in Jesus. Except they have they own beliefs about Jesus that contradict many Christian sects of Christianity.

 

[CG Didymus]

Christianity begins and ends with the Bible... If you're sharing something that is counter to scripture, it is counter to Christianity.

Christians are in a similar situation. They believe in the Bible and in Moses, but they don't call themselves Jewish. Jesus has been added on and makes them followers of Christ. For Baha'i, they believe in Moses and Jesus but have added their prophet Baha'u'llah on. So, they are followers of Baha'u'llah, or Baha'is. To Jews, Christians aren't following the Bible correctly. And to Christians, Baha'is aren't following the Bible nor the NT correctly.

 

[Windwalker]

Christianity begins and ends with the Bible...

You mean the books of the Old Testament, ending in Malachi? When Christianity began, that is the only "bible" that existed for them. So why are you deviating with all these other books then? Are you instead actually referring to Bibleanity?

If you're sharing something that is counter to scripture, it is counter to Christianity.

Counter to whose interpretation of scripture, is actually the question to ask, isn't it? Counter to whose understanding of scripture are we really talking about here?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Christians are in a similar situation. They believe in the Bible and in Moses, but they don't call themselves Jewish. Jesus has been added on and makes them followers of Christ. For Baha'i, they believe in Moses and Jesus but have added their prophet Baha'u'llah on. So, they are followers of Baha'u'llah, or Baha'is. To Jews, Christians aren't following the Bible correctly. And to Christians, Baha'is aren't following the Bible nor the NT correctly.

No, as I said Christianity begins and ends with the Bible...bahai take some things from the Bible that they have other holy writings.
And Judaism begins and ends with the Torah.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You mean the books of the Old Testament, ending in Malachi? When Christianity began, that is the only "bible" that existed for them. So why are you deviating with all these other books then?

It's not deviating... I said the Bible not the Torah.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, it's not true, especially to most Christians. But, since Baha'is believe in Jesus, it puts them in a special category... Not "Christian" but believers in Jesus. Except they have they own beliefs about Jesus that contradict many Christian sects of Christianity.

That category also includes Muslims, Druze, Raëlians, and Scientologists, among others. I'm not sure how special the category is.

 

[Windwalker]

It's not deviating... I said the Bible not the Torah.

What did the Christians use for scriptures in the early church? Was it the same Bible you have today? How many books of the New Testament did they have? All 27 that you have? How many gospels did they have in their NT? Was it four, or was it zero?

In other words, which Bible did the Apostles use? The King James Bible? So, no, Christianity did not begin with the Bible. It didn't exist yet. Unless you just want to call the books of the Old Testament the Bible and leave out the NT?

The correct answer, BTW, is that Christianity began with the followers of Jesus.

 

[RabbiO]

And Judaism begins and ends with the Torah.

By Torah you mean what?