Your definitions of ''Christian'', and ''follower of Christ''

[Unification]

That is a very good question, e.g. what is "your" definition of Christian and a "follower of Christ".

Since this is in the Religious Debates section, I believe then that I am allowed to give my definition even though I am a Hindu.

In fact, the very fact that I am not a Christian may make my response even more interesting to Christians. In one way, I am responding without any bias but simply from my "world view" - exactly opposite some would assume who might claim "well, you are not a Christian therefore you will be biased against Christians". Actually, because I am not, I think I have a view of less bias than those who belong to this or that Christian sect, which often highlight their doctrinarian bias over others and actually are more bias than I am in general.

My view comes from an outside looking in, I am no expert in Christianity and in one way those who say they are sometimes overlook a basic, perhaps obvious, understanding from a "common viewpoint" of someone like me who is simply an observer and not an expert.

To me, the key to "my" definition centers on my understanding of the word Christ.

I have always understood this word as coming from the Greek wurd Christos, literally, which means the anointed.

To me, that means the use of an oil that is part of a ceremony to initiate or mark a human or thing as "official", or "initiated", or "graduated", or "chosen", and is a very specific "ceremony" or ritual.

For example, to mark a person officially as King, or as Ruyalty or some Ruyal officer, then an oil is used to anoint the chosen as King or Hierophant or High Priest, and so on, the application of the oil(s) as part of a ritual that may include - typically always includes - a religious officiant to apply the oil, but this can also be simply an elder chief or even some "caste" whose only function is to officiate the "anointing".

So now, in context of Jesus (or Isa), my understanding is he was a Royal, of Royal blood, albeit a disenfranchised Jewish Royal, disenfranchised hy the Roman authorities.

But he was anointed at the proper age, nevertheless. Thus he was if the title Chistian or "anointed one" who is "chosen by God" since his position as a Jewish Prince was not an elected position but hereditary and thus not chosen by the people but chosen by God.

However, Jesus also had a lot of support of many of the people, not just opposition. As a once (meaning forefathers) and future (the rightful to the Throne) King, he saw these people as his children as such Once and Future Kings do, and all children are future inheritance to the Kingdom. Since this Kingdom was a Religious Mandate of God then the inheditance is the Kingdom of God which is not the same as the Kingdom of Heavan.

The Kingdom of God is the King and all children of God and not "a place". Heaven is a place. But the Kingdom of God is not a place but a collective of people and can move about here and there - it can even be in Hell if need so.

Now today, my definition of a Christian, the actual definition and not sectarian hopes, is those who have also been given an anointment, but using a lesser charge than the oils - in this case water is used - so they are not anointed as the Chiosen One (by God or the collective uf God's children which is the Kingdom itself and not a place). Rather they are Christ by anointment uf wster which makes them not The King, not a Royal, but the Children of the Kingdom of God in an official manner. Both the King is Christ, but the Children are also Christian (becoming Christ).

Christian is them, they are "of the anointed". "The Christ" is the Prince and the Once and Future King. They follow this Prince. He will soon take the Throne.

The one on the path to this Throne is a Messiah, if the path is full of struggle. Only after being anointed can one sit on the Throne. One does not sit on the Throne first, then get anointed. So you are anointed when a Prince. Then when you sit on the Throne, you are the King.

But not any Throne will do. Not any chair.

The Throne itself needs to be anointed before. It is also Chosen. It has it's own ritual and sacrifice. Because it is from that Throne is where The Law is dispensed. So it must be official. Not just any chair. It is an Authority in itself and represents The Laws.

In fact Laws may be written directly on The Throne - at least the very important ones.

That is my understanding.

Could the Christ be that substance/oil within a human beings body? A particular substance/oil that transforms ones conscious mind, and nature by its release through a human body's blood/water stream?

 

[Riverwolf]

This has occurred to me. I'm not sure if one could separate the ideas, Biblically.

I don't really think about it in Biblical terms.

Empathy, or "excessive/hyper" empathy wasn't in the description.

How would you describe a "colloquial child at heart?

Empathy leads to the exact sorts of things you described, at least as I understood. Love, compassion, humility, equality, come from empathy. Being a colloquial child-at-heart means being, well, more or less what you described: full of joy, awareness, and "purity" of heart and mind (children are often described thus).

Do terms like empathy or "child-at-heart" have negative implications for you? I meant them in the best way possible.

 

[Zardoz]

Present your definitions for:
''Christian''
&
''Follower of Christ''

Christian: Those who let others define.

Follower: Those who listen for themselves.

 

[wizanda]

Present your definitions for:

''Christian'' = A follower of Paul, Simon the stone, and John (Pharisees); who believe that he came to die as a sin sacrifice for everyone, and was then resurrected.
&
''Follower of Christ'' = Someone who does what Yeshua was saying, by doing the work of God, and trying to live a life being a good example to others.

 

[Desert Snake]

That is a very good question, e.g. what is "your" definition of Christian and a "follower of Christ".

Since this is in the Religious Debates section, I believe then that I am allowed to give my definition even though I am a Hindu.

In fact, the very fact that I am not a Christian may make my response even more interesting to Christians. In one way, I am responding without any bias but simply from my "world view" - exactly opposite some would assume who might claim "well, you are not a Christian therefore you will be biased against Christians". Actually, because I am not, I think I have a view of less bias than those who belong to this or that Christian sect, which often highlight their doctrinarian bias over others and actually are more biased than I am in general.

My view comes from an outside looking in, I am no expert in Christianity and in one way those who say they are sometimes overlook a basic, perhaps obvious, understanding from a "common viewpoint" of someone like me who is simply an observer and not an expert.

To me, the key to "my" definition centers on my understanding of the word Christ.

I have always understood this word as coming from the Greek word Christos, literally, which means the anointed.

To me, that means the use of an oil that is part of a ceremony to initiate or mark a human or thing as "official", or "initiated", or "graduated", or "chosen", and is a very specific "ceremony" or ritual.

For example, to mark a person officially as King, or as Royalty or some Royal officer, then an oil is used to anoint the chosen as King or Hierophant or High Priest, and so on, the application of the oil(s) as part of a ritual that may include - typically always includes - a religious officiant to apply the oil, but this can also be simply an elder chief or even some "caste" whose only function is to officiate the "anointing".

So now, in context of Jesus (or Isa), my understanding is he was a Royal, of Royal blood, albeit a disenfranchised Jewish Royal, disenfranchised by the Roman authorities.

But he was anointed at the proper age, nevertheless. Thus he was of the title Chistian or "anointed one" who is "chosen by God" since his position as a Jewish Prince was not an elected position but hereditary and thus not chosen by the people but chosen by God.

However, Jesus also had a lot of support of many of the people, not just opposition. As a once (meaning forefathers) and future (the rightful to the Throne) King, he saw these people as his children as such Once and Future Kings do, and all children are future inheritance to the Kingdom. Since this Kingdom was a Religious Mandate of God then the inheditance is the Kingdom of God which is not the same as the Kingdom of Heavan.

The Kingdom of God is the King and all children of God and not "a place". Heaven is a place. But the Kingdom of God is not a place but a collective of people and can move about here and there - it can even be in Hell if need so.

Now today, my definition of a Christian, the actual definition and not sectarian hopes, is those who have also been given an anointment, but using a lesser charge than the oils - in this case water is used - so they are not anointed as the Chiosen One (by God or the collective uf God's children which is the Kingdom itself and not a place). Rather they are Christ by anointment uf wster which makes them not The King, not a Royal, but the Children of the Kingdom of God in an official manner. Both the King is Christ, but the Children are also Christian (becoming Christ).

Christian is them, they are "of the anointed". "The Christ" is the Prince and the Once and Future King. They follow this Prince. He will soon take the Throne.

The one on the path to this Throne is a Messiah, if the path is full of struggle. Only after being anointed can one sit on the Throne. One does not sit on the Throne first, then get anointed. So you are anointed when a Prince. Then when you sit on the Throne, you are the King.

But not any Throne will do. Not any chair.

The Throne itself needs to be anointed before. It is also Chosen. It has it's own ritual and sacrifice. Because it is from that Throne is where The Law is dispensed. So it must be official. Not just any chair. It is an Authority in itself and represents The Laws.


The children follow the Laws. So they are followers of The Christ.

In fact Laws may be written directly on The Throne - at least the very important ones.

That is my understanding.

Very interesting.

 

[Augustus]

Christian relates to (self)identity. Usually a believer in Jesus Christ as the messiah, but someone can be culturally Christian without really being a believer.

Follower is related to conscious behaviour reflecting the perceived qualities of Jesus.

 

[Unification]

I don't really think about it in Biblical terms.



Empathy leads to the exact sorts of things you described, at least as I understood. Love, compassion, humility, equality, come from empathy. Being a colloquial child-at-heart means being, well, more or less what you described: full of joy, awareness, and "purity" of heart and mind (children are often described thus).

Do terms like empathy or "child-at-heart" have negative implications for you? I meant them in the best way possible.

No, friend. That's why I asked.

Hyper-empathy is commonly perceived as a disease, and there are many negative and harmful ways of empathy also. Positive ways, of empathy sure... One would just have to have natural strong awareness of them both.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, friend. That's why I asked.

Hyper-empathy is commonly perceived as a disease, and there are many negative and harmful ways of empathy also. Positive ways, of empathy sure... One would just have to have natural strong awareness of them both.

Oh, okay. Just making sure.

 

[LeannaBard]

I would define a Christian as someone who believes in at least the Bible as some facet of truth, whether literal or figurative; who believes Jesus existed and was either the son of God, an avatar of God; or as a prophet of God; who believes that other religions do not offer the true path to God; and who are followers of Christ. There may be people who meet only some of that criteria but I would still believe that they are Christians.

A follower of Christ is someone who has sincere intentions to emulate Jesus as portrayed in the Bible in actions, thought, demeanor, etc.. The intention is all that I think matters whether or not they are successful.

 

[Sonofason]

By definition, a Christian is a follower of Christ.
Regardless what a person claims to be, if they are not following Christ; that is, if they are not being and acting in accordance with Christ, and if they are not living in obedience to Christ and His teachings, that person is not a Christian. To be a Christian, one must follow Christ.

 

[peacecrusader888]

I am a non-denominational Christian, a plain follower of Jesus Christ. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe that the true God became a human being in the person of Jesus Christ. I do not belong to any denomination because it does not guarantee my salvation. My salvation depends upon my work AND belief in the true God. I believe that the Holy Bible comes from the true God.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Present your definitions for:
''Christian''
&
''Follower of Christ''

Christians should be followers of Christ, in that they act like he did. He did teach his followers to do what he did, he said they would do even better things than he did. He did not ask for worship. We are to bring about heaven on earth.

 

[Muffled]

Present your definitions for:
''Christian''
&
''Follower of Christ''

I believe "Christian" means anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.

I believe follower of Christ means anyone who believes in obeying the commands of Jesus.

IMO neither express the true meaning of Christianity so the term "born again" is usually added to Christian to distinguish the two. The born again person follows Christ through the Spirit and is not the same as someone following by keeping commands.

 

[goofball]

Present your definitions for:
''Christian''
&
''Follower of Christ''

Christian - someone who follows a misquoted/mistranslated/ unvalidated book.
Follower of Christ - there are none. He left planet Earth some 2,000 years ago so no one can follow him - if he was not a fictional character.

 

[Muffled]

Christian - someone who follows a misquoted/mistranslated/ unvalidated book.
Follower of Christ - there are none. He left planet Earth some 2,000 years ago so no one can follow him - if he was not a fictional character.

I believe you are incorrect in your assessment.

Jesus is God in the flesh and God is everywhere so when a person calls upon Jesus it is not the physical body of Jesus speaking but the Spirit of God.

 

[goofball]

I believe you are incorrect in your assessment.

Jesus is God in the flesh and God is everywhere so when a person calls upon Jesus it is not the physical body of Jesus speaking but the Spirit of God.

Muffled, these are your unsubstantiated beliefs. I read the bible allegorically and not literally as it makes more sense.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

To Christians, can one be a Christian without believing in the Bible as the word of God? References to the scholars/priests/texts of your denomination, which guide you in this belief. So, for example a Catholic can quote the Pope or sacred texts on what makes a Christian.

The reason I ask is because I have come across many modern Christians who do not believe in the Bible as the word of God. So, I was wondering about their basis of Christianity.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, these are your unsubstantiated beliefs. I read the bible allegorically and not literally as it makes more sense.

I believe reading the Bible as allegory makes no sense whatsoever so you will have to explain why you think it does.

As for substantiation I believe my life stands as a witness that the beliefs are substantiated.

 

[Muffled]

To Christians, can one be a Christian without believing in the Bible as the word of God? References to the scholars/priests/texts of your denomination, which guide you in this belief. So, for example a Catholic can quote the Pope or sacred texts on what makes a Christian.

The reason I ask is because I have come across many modern Christians who do not believe in the Bible as the word of God. So, I was wondering about their basis of Christianity.

I believe I don't see how it would be possible. I imagine the people are only following a tradition, which pretty much makes them Christian in name only.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I believe I don't see how it would be possible. I imagine the people are only following a tradition, which pretty much makes them Christian in name only.

What do you believe? Sorry, that was a bit confusing or I'm just slow today lol