What does it mean to be a Christian?

I've never heard that before, i honestly thought Jesus was only man ever named Jesus. I never really considered the possiblity that others had that name. No,i'm not being sarcastic. Just never really even thought about it.

But it's hard for me to believe the actual Jesus we are discussing didn't exist as a man at least.

 

Apply that reasoning to Mithras, cydonia.

Was there a historical Mithras?

 

Ender-

I'm fully aware that hearsay doesn't constitute evidence. I'm not even making the claim that the Jesus of the Christian Bible is the same Jesus mentioned in the documents. Since I wasn't there, I have no means of knowing whether there was one Jesus with a bunch of followers or a hundred Jesi with followers. My only argument is that there is independent existence of someone named Jesus who happened to be alive at that time, who happened to have a following, and who happened to have been mentioned in documents of that era. I'm making the leap between that Jesus and the Jesus worshipped in Christianity on my own here, but I don't think that it is implausible.

Ockham's Razor suggests that agents of causality ought not to be multiplied. In light of that, what makes sense to me is there happened to be someone named Jesus who amassed a following and was mentioned by non-believers. That's it.

Besides, aren't you the one making both the claim that the historical Jesus might not have existed, even though Jesus was a common name?

Erm... something in that argument doesn't quite follow...

Regardless, were on the same side here. We'll agree to disagree on this one.

 

cydonia
No, of course Jesus wasn't the only person they crucified. What's the point? He still suffered.


Also, as to the Jesus name thing - Jesus in Hebrew is a variation of Joshua, or Yeshua, which I would assume was a fairly common name.

 

I assumed the Jesus we were talking about was the biblical one as this is a thread about what it means to be Christian. He really isn't Jesus then if he isn't the son of god. He's just a person like Ghandi.

I have no problem with that.

Anyway, like you said we'll agree to disagree.

 

Well, that's a first for me. Must be a childhood thing, i remember my family telling me that after jesus died, no one else ever took the name, and that's why the spanish name is prononounced differently, out of reverence. Anyway, that's where i'm coming from.

I read that article, and i've read many other things that have the same info. My point is that some guy may or may not have been crucified (ender). It was only after almost a century the first accounts were recorded, and possibly a massive game of telephone had been played that led up to that. There were no journalists covering the jesus execution back then, so no one knows what happened. The NT itself just doesn't cut it for historical accuracy. That's why it's a leap of faith to believe it. That's also why it's very difficult for a 21st Century mind to accept it as verified fact.

 

cydonia: thread killer.

I was thinking earlier today, that since the christian idea is that when jesus "said" the only way to the father is thru me, isn't there more than one way to read that? What if he meant by following his example, not actually calling him the creator of the world? I'd probably be that sort of christian.

 

That makes sense.

 

There is an interesting book to that effect. William Spohn wrote a text called Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics. It's an interesting read. I don't necessarily agree with the theological roots, but methodologically it makes sense. Essentially it argues from a virtue ethics perspective that the best means by which Christians should approach social ethics is to return to Scripture to discern the social practices of Jesus, recognize instances of applicability in everyday life, and act in the manner he would.

Basically its a more thought out version of "What Would Jesus Do?"

Again, it's worth picking up. I'm an atheist and I found it compelling.

 

That sounds like an interesting book. I really am interested in Jesus, but in my own way i guess. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. It just seems to me the preoccupation with accepting him as a savior, drinking his blood, etc. kind of gets in the way of the more fundamental truths behind the whole thing.

 

I'm not sure why people think the guy is so ethical though with him giving orders such as this in the bible:

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over
them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

And this one:

And I will kill her children with death...

-Revelation 2:23 (KJV)


Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.

-Matthew 10:34 (KJV)

 

Ender-

There is a book you might like. George Smith wrote a book called Atheism: The Case Against God. One of the chapters therein examines both the message and originality of Jesus' teachings. He argues that all he really did was rehash Jewish Scripture, rather than establishing any real innovation.

Another interesting read that made my library.

 

cydonia:
Christians definitely need to follow Jesus' example, but that belief is also required. Why only deeds doesn't work from a Christian POV

Matthew 1:21 (NASB) "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

John 4:13-14 "Jesus answered and said to her, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.'"

John 7:38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'"

John 11:25-26 "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.'"


etc. etc.

As you can see, Jesus says numerous times that to gain eternal life, belief in Him is required, not just following His example.

 

Quixotic-Sith: I've heard of it. I'll check it out, thanks!

 

Ender, I'm sure we've gone over this in another thread. Why do you insist on quoting the Bible out of context?

Luke 19:27 is a parable.

Revelation 2:23 deals with the end times. Take it in context:

Revelation 2:20-23 (NASB)
20
"But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
21
I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.
22
Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.
23
And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds."

Matthew 10:34
Again, take this one in context:
Matthew 10:33-37
"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
34
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35
For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
36
and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.
37
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

This verse deals with placing members of your family above Christ. Jesus says that we are to hold Him in esteem above our family - you obey your mother and father, but you draw the line when they contradict Him.

 

Everything bad in the bible is a parable and everything good isn't right? I think I understand the Christian mind now.

Doesn't look out of context to me. Looks like the guy is making threats.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

-Samuel 15:3 (KJV)

What does god mean here? I need a Christian to interpret it properly.

 

Everything bad in the bible is a parable and everything good isn't right? I think I understand the Christian mind now.

Don't presume. Please. When Jesus speaks in parables, you need to look at who is speaking. In the case of Luke 19:27, a "man of noble birth" is speaking, not Jesus.


What does god mean here? I need a Christian to interpret it properly.

You're not very amusing, Ender.

I Samuel 15:2-3 (NASB)
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

God means exactly that. It's called justice.

 

Killing babies is justice? Interesting!

 

Destroying all family and possessions of a man who sinned against God's people is justice. Interesting indeed.

 

He is God, he gave life, he can take it. Furthermore he knows in advance what will come from our existance. For all we know those children may have grown up to be murderers and rapists. God saw a reason, we may not see it, but that doesn't mean a logical reason isn't there.

 

He is God, he gave life, he can take it. Furthermore he knows in advance what will come from our existance. For all we know those children may have grown up to be murderers and rapists. God saw a reason, we may not see it, but that doesn't mean a logical reason isn't there.


Why didn't he get rid of Hitler and Stalin then?

 

Why didn't he get rid of Hitler and Stalin then?

Ok... let's play God now. We say who stays and who goes. *rolleyes*

He didn't get rid of Hitler and Stalin because He chooses whom He wishes to rule over the earth. There's a verse in Romans I think that says that, but I can't quote it off the top of my head. Anyway, His will has purpose, but we may not know it.

 

I'm not playing god. I'm using my brain. Sorry you guys are ok with a god that kills babies but lets scum like Hitler and Stalin take the lives of millions of innocent people and doesn't do anything.

I can see this is going to go nowhere. I'm outta here.

 

"Why didn't he get rid of Hitler and Stalin then?"

That's a really good question, and I kinda wish I had the answer. Maybe they came to pass to show the world that evil does exist even in our "great advanced era". Maybe it stems off of the whole free will idea. I really don't have a good answer. I'm not saying there isn't a answer, I just don't have a clue what it is.

 

"As you can see, Jesus says numerous times that to gain eternal life, belief in Him is required, not just following His example."

Where my Faith Differs from most Christians is in this very idea. Jesus was saying IF you believe in me you will get in... i.e.,. Those who believe in me and follow my teachings will find a place for them in heaven. I do not believe he was saying ONLY IF. I hope that is clear. I believe Jesus was showing us a way, I just question if it is the only way. I may be wrong sure. I am not God. Things just make more sense to me that way.


As far as Hitler and Stalin.. God gave us free will. Some use it for good others use it for evil. If God stepped in and changed things everytime we used it the wrong way it really wouldn't be free will. would it? Plus do you also think maybe Satan had his hand in those doings?