Was Jesus a christian?What is a christian?

It should be easy for those who are christians.

Jesus is not a Christian.

Being Christian means to be a person who has accepted Him as Our Savior. Thats what it means to be a Christian. This specifially excludes Christ!

Jesus was a very good con artist and sleight of hand magician.

Shit, Astral. I didn’t know you ran the selection process.

There is no definition you can offer up that will match Jesus as Being Christian. Feel free to post any you think are valid and I will be happy to shoot them full of holes for you.

Allot of the new testimate consists of the teachings of Paul.

I considered christendom to be Roman Paulianism; a new version of religious Jewish ideology.

exactly. It is the baptism in the name of jesus christ. That is the beginning. Recieving the holy spirit. But instead they replace holy spirit into something into a form, christian.

Hi Dan. You asked if Jesus is a christian and, what is a christian?

Jesus is a Christian in the spiritual sense that he is the head of the body of Christ (Christianity) where each believer is pictured as being a bodily member within the body of Christ (Eph. 5:23, Col. 1:18, 1 Cor. 12:12-14, and verse 27, Eph. 1:22).

However, in the corporate or historical context, the term “Christian” was not in use until after the Cross; the word “Christian” first being used at Antioch which is in modern day Syria (Acts 11:26).

Now, as to “what is a Christian”: a true Christian is an individual person who has been shown directly by God that the truths revealed in the inerrant Bible are real and substantive. As a result, such an individual becomes mortified and self-convinced of the damage his sin yields; he becomes acutely aware of his own inadequacy at measuring up to God’s perfection. Simultaneously, while this is underway, this same individual experiences despair and broken-heartedness (Psa. 34:18, Psa. 51:17, Luke 18:10-14). God, in his mercy, gives to such an individual a humble spirit and the forgiveness of his sins.

In the historical context, after experiencing God’s grace, the true Christian will show evidence that he is truly “one of God’s” by his fruits (Matt. 7:15-17) – for there are many who claim to be Christian who are not (Matt. 7:22-23). These “fruits” are behaviors and personality dynamics which are described as: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). Therefore, any person who is a true Christian will clearly show evidence that such “fruit” is active in his/her personality and life. By contrast, the bitter, angry, judgmental individuals who claim to be Christians, are therefore more like the Pharisee’s who appear pious and holy but who are anything but (Matt. 23:27, Matt. 5:20). passion

I would like to believe what you said. But something I feel that is so strange, that when a person quotes from the bible is either an advocate, therefore, having no way of thinking for himself and neither free, but a slave to tradition. In the bible it has many good teachings, but it cannot help one be Christ like, but almost christ like.

“You have seen enlightenment, but you have not yet entered it.”

It is good that you preach the bible, for it makes one reflect of his past doings and consequences, but, after of such reflections, one goes through many transformations, in the mind, therefore a yearning to break the cycle of the same old way of thinking and full of questions.

I think we have just found out, why many churches and brands of christianty formed. =D>

What is a doctor? A doctor is one who has proved their proficiency in understanding what has been deemed necessary to practicing medicine. Before receiving their degree a person is a student of medicine.

What is a lawyer? A lawyer is one who has proved their proficiency in understanding what has been deemed necessary to practicing Law. Before receiving their degree a person is a student of law.

Both of the above refer to the external man. christianity refers to the inner man.

What is a Christian? A Christian is one who has proven their proficiency in understanding what has been deemed necessary for Christianity by being able to live in accordance with Christ’s precepts. As we are, our inner wcattered nature, we cannot do this so cannot be considered Christian. Christ says to love your enemies but we cannot even love our friends so a person has a ways to go before becoming a Christian. Just like before receiving their degree a person is a student of medicine or the law, before being able to live in accordance with Christ’s precepts, a person is a “pre-Christian.” This is someone who aspires to be Christian but is unable as of yet…

Hi Dan. Thank you for your comments. You said, ”But something I feel that is so strange, that when a person quotes from the bible…”

I understand your concern Dan. Yet, in the context of responding to a question that asks, “What is a Christian”; quoting Biblical chapter/verse and citing hermeneutical evidence is simply a device for academic reference and to provide exegetic support for answering the question. Citing Biblical references is no different than citing, say, Plato or Hobbes to illustrate some philosophical point.

You said, ”…is either an advocate, therefore, having no way of thinking for himself and neither free,…”

But then this would also mean that a philosopher is not thinking for himself, nor is he “free,” when he draws upon, say, Aristotle, Epictetus, Kierkegaard or any other philosopher when approaching philosophical questions. Yet philosophers and thinkers do this all the time when trying to answer the questions of life.

You said, ”…but a slave to tradition.”

To avoid becoming a slave to a tradition, one must by definition seek answers independent of the tradition. It is especially for this reason that sound Biblical exegesis is required by an individual so that he can: arrive at truth or, become convinced that the tradition is accurate after all or, so that he can debunk with hard evidence the very traditions that you indicate make some “slaves to the tradition.” How else can a slave become liberated unless he understands the mechanism of his slavery? How else can he free himself unless he has the evidence in hand to do so?

You said, ”… therefore a yearning to break the cycle of the same old way of thinking and full of questions.”

Life will always be filled with questions. This is true for the Christian as well as for every other human being. All the study in the world, philosophical or otherwise, will only tend to raise more questions not less. The search for truth should be unfettered with all perspectives considered, studied, and then either rejected or accepted based upon the analysis. John Stuart Mill wisely suggested this. One cannot derive truth soley from one’s internal opinions. In order to go beyond mere speculations (and often pure nonsense), opinions and ideas must be backed up with support, evidence, and sound exegetic wisdom. Otherwise internal ideas without evidence are typically nothing more than noise (though not always).

Interestingly, the Bible itself shows that the most noble men are the ones who diligently search things out in an attempt to determine if things be or not be (Acts 17:10-11). Socrates (Plato) did this elegantly in “Euthyphro” (“what is piety and what is impiety?”) as he also did beautifully in “Crito.” Socrates demanded evidence from his interlocutors. The best ones were able to provide it. Thank you again for your thoughts Dan. I appreciate it. passion

Hi Nick_A. You said, ” A Christian is one who has proven their proficiency in understanding what has been deemed necessary for Christianity by being able to live in accordance with Christ’s precepts.”

I hear you. However, it is evident that no person ever has been able to live in accordance with Christ’s precepts (Rom. 3:10-12). Therefore, the true Christian will rely upon Christ’s perfect keeping of those precepts rather than his own incapable human efforts to meet the standard (Eph. 2:4-9).

You said, ” Christ says to love your enemies but we cannot even love our friends so a person has a ways to go before becoming a Christian.”

Yes, true in a sense. Yet, no matter how much time passes, no matter how wise one becomes as a Christian, he will still fail to love his enemies perfectly as the precept demands. As I see it, one does not become a Christian “piece meal” over time as you seem to be suggesting. Rather, one becomes a true Christian instantaneously by a Divine act of mercy from God towards the individual. For example, the “thief on the cross” instantaneously became a true believer only moments before his death. He did not have the requisite time or opportunities to “grow in grace” over the course of time in “piece meal” fashion (Luke 23: 39-43).

You said, ”Just like before receiving their degree a person is a student of medicine or the law, before being able to live in accordance with Christ’s precepts, a person is a "pre-Christian."”

My comment above responds to this. As I see it, there is no such thing as a “pre-Christian.” A person either is by virtue of grace, or isn’t by the lack of it (Eph. 2: 8-9).

You said, ” This is someone who aspires to be Christian but is unable as of yet…”

Yet they will completely fail to become a true Christian if they are depending upon their own “behavior” or works to get there (Eph. 2: 4-9). Only God’s grace alone can accomplish this. The good works or the “fruit” behavior (Gal. 5:22-23) of an individual is at best an evidence that this his salvation has already occurred - not that it will occur in some future event. Thank you for your comments Nick_A. passion

No, citing a biblical reference is very different from citing Plato or any philosopher for that matter. Because

1. Plato or any other philosopher would not use a supernatural entity to explain some thing. But the bible authors do.

2. If a Philosopher propose something as an answer, he/she has to explain the reason for doing so and has to to back up their reason with evidence. In bible, you do not need to do so. Everything is self-evident

3. A Philosopher cannot make assumptions that flies in the face of known phenomenon or events. Things in bible can defy gravity, genetics, cosmology and many other known facts.

I am sure the others here would give even better reasons. Please do not refer to bible if you want to be taken seriously.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts”

• Bertrand Russell

Hi robo_sapien. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. You said, ” Plato or any other philosopher would not use a supernatural entity to explain some thing. But the bible authors do.”

I respectfully disagree. Most of the known philosophers repeatedly referenced “God” including but not limited to: Plato (Socrates), Aristotle, Seneca, Epictetus, Augustine of Hippo, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, (etc). Liebniz and Hegel were “religious” in their philosophies. George Berkeley relied heavily upon “supernatural” ideas even though he was an empiricist and an extreme empiricist at that! Later philosophers ideas flowed from all of these.

Even atheist philosophers such as Sartre and Nietzsche repeatedly referenced God – actually required God - in order to build their philosophies (especially Nietzsche) and even Sartre’s brilliant concept of facticity, bad faith, and transcendence required a “god,” though a false one - man himself! And what could be more “supernatural” than Sartre’s “nothingness,” Descarte’s “pineal gland” explanation, Nietzsche’s “ubermann,” the ancient’s “zeus,” and well, you get the idea.

You said, ” If a Philosopher propose something as an answer, he/she has to explain the reason for doing so and has to to back up their reason with evidence…”

Not really, not always. Many philosophers just say things, what they “believe” without offering specific evidence; unless you believe that opinion is evidence (which in matters of philosophy can be).

You said, ” In bible, you do not need to do so. Everything is self-evident.”

I don’t think the Bible is self-evident at all. If it were, there would not be so many different and opposing doctrines, sects, sub-sects, and denominations derived from it. Rather, the pursuit of understanding the Bible requires extraordinary intellectual effort, timeless study, intense Biblical hermeneutical cross-referencing, understanding at various levels outside and opposing views to it, and (as Christians believe) the understanding of the Bible especially requires God’s mercy upon the student. Even non-Christian students of the Bible recognize the depth and richness of the Biblical text and the intellectual vigor necessary to search it out.

You said, ” A Philosopher cannot make assumptions that flies in the face of known phenomenon or events…”

But of course philosophers makes assumptions all the time (see my above comment). That is why there are so many different and opposing schools and thoughts within philosophy. Even within agreed upon “schools of thought” there are vast differences and conflicts in “known phenomenon or events” (Existentialism for example). Consider that Kierkegaard the unmitigated inventor of existentialism was solidly Christian, while Nietzsche who copied and mimicked Kierkegaard, removed God from Kierkegaard’s philosophy and replaced him with the so-called “ubermann” (man as false god). Yet, both of these men were existentialists.

You said, ” Things in bible can defy gravity, genetics, cosmology and many other known facts.”

I hear you robo. Yet, all of the things you mention are “known facts” only in the most simple of terms. Surely, knowledge is very incomplete (and often flawed in any event). Regardless, consider that gravity can be defied by man (as I recall by simply playing with deficiencies in mass - as the NASA experimenters do all the time). Man can explore genetics and he learns more about it all the time, and man has long known much about cosmology even in the relatively ancient times of Newton (a solid Christian and Creationist by the way). If man can figure out these things, and even defy them (as in gravity for example) or exploit them, then there is nothing so surprising about such things being denied or exploited in the Bible. Thank you again for your thoughts robo_sapien. I appreciate them. passion.

Hi passion

Just a few things so as not to derail the thread.

I find it more logical to say that there are no Christians before re-birth. The fallen condition does not allow us to “understand” Christianity. So I agree that we need the help from above through the Holy spirit to make the transition known as re-birth.

I agree that grace often appears as mercy but just the appearance doesn’t make one a Christian. Its effects can easily be lost and Paul describes those that have gone out from the body.

Its loss can be dangerous as well.

I believe a lot of modern Christendom with the negativity that has entered its preaching is causing this to happen to many having their first experience of grace. The sad thing is that minds have become so closed that they cannot see it even theoretically making the situation almost unavoidable.

The thief on the cross is an interesting question. Though a thief by cultural standards, perhaps he was well studied in religious psychology. How else could he be as calm in comparison with the other thief? He “understood.” Jesus carried his cross and was now on it and the thief was also on his cross perhaps learning how to spiritually profit from the physical death. I agree that time isn’t aas important as quality of expossure.

Judging by what I’ve seen, very few belong to Christ and not too much has been crucified by these standards.

It would be much less pressure to defend being Christian if one just admits to being pre-Christian. Much less a temptation to pervert it in order to “look good” which can only destroy its value.

Salvation or being asleep in the body is one thing and comes to the good and humble person aware of their misgivings and without the need to develop such a thick coating of inner lies that the spirit is blocked and salvation becomes impossible.

To inherit the kingdom is to achieve re-birth and serve in the mediating effort for "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

I am suggesting that there is a lot more to Christianity then is normally presumed and being Christian is not so easy to define…

Hi Nick_A. Thank you for your follow up comments. I appreciate it. I have just a few follow up thoughts. I believe the Matt. 12: 43-45 verses you quoted are describing individuals who were never “saved” in the first place. They thought they were, but they weren’t, and as result their latter state was worse than their first (Matt. 7:22-23). I believe that genuine salvation, once obtained, cannot be “lost” (Heb. 13:5, John 17:12).

You said, ”Though a thief by cultural standards, perhaps he was well studied in religious psychology…”

The answer to this can be found in Matt. 27:44 and Mark. 15:32. There, it is shown that both of these thieves reviled Christ at first. This indicates that both of them were unsaved at the time. However later one of them repented (the “good” thief on the cross) indicating that he became “saved” literally while on the cross! I quote Mark 15: 32 for your review (KJV):

“Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.” (Mark 15:32) KJV Bold and italics are mine.

You said, ”How else could he be as calm in comparison with the other thief?

Initially, he was not calm. He also reviled Christ himself from the cross. But as death was approaching, God in his mercy saved the one reviling thief only moments before his death. His “calm” came only after he was saved. Only moments earlier, he was reviling – he was not calm at all at that point.

Referring to Galatians 5: 22-23 (the fruit of the Spirit) you said, ” Judging by what I’ve seen, very few belong to Christ and not too much has been crucified by these standards.”

Yes Nick_A, sadly this seems to very true. Many Christians do not show evidence of these fruits in their lives or personal behavior: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These behaviors were far more prevalent among Christians in times past but seemingly far less so these days. I hope I’m wrong.

I believe that the Galatians 5 fruits are a legitimate litmus test; not for salvation per se but for the evidence that salvation has already occurred. Consider that these fruits tend to occur spontaneously in an individual once true salvation (grace) occurs. For example, the “thief on the cross” was reviling Christ one moment (Mark 15:32) and then after salvation he promptly and without any “practice” displayed these fruits (Luke 23: 39-43) - an instantaneous “about face.” Thank you again for your comments Nick_A. I appreciate it. passion

I am at a lost.

Passion ~
due to your full report comments, I commend you. =D>
But everytime when I see so much words I have a huge headache.

Simplicity , reduce everything into simplest form, if you can.

cheers ,
dano

Hi passion

I salute your conviction. I appreciate that you aren’t insulted by my observations.

I don’t believe that it is God that abandons man but man that through temptation that cannot retain the relationship. Nothing in the verses provided seems to refute this.

We will have to agree to disagree as to loss of salvation.

I didn’t mean to imply that the thief was a disciple or follower of Jesus but just that on the cross he felt his presence and realized who he was.

I think that paradise here means that aspect of earth or Hades where certain beings were in Abraham’s bosom as opposed to Gehenna (hell) as described in Luke 16. Jesus first descent was into hell.

But the bottom line is that without being baptized something was worthy of being saved in this thief. It would be hard for me to believe that a being worthy of salvation was utterly closed off before. Even Simone Weil who was an Atheist Marxist before her conversion to a Christian mystic knew she was born on the inside. The other thief never felt Jesus’ presence.

As far as what a Christian is, I believe that 2cor 12 describes a Christian we could have no conception of:

Having respect for Christianity, I am cautious about to easily describing people as Christian. I prefer naming the sect like Catholic or Protestant for example but Christian is a special word describing something almost beyond our comprehension.

Hi Nick_A. Thank you for your follow up. I appreciate it. You said, ” I appreciate that you aren’t insulted by my observations.”

Nick_A I’m very thankful for your excellent observations as well as the comments of all the board members. Open and unfettered dialogue is the only way to arrive at truth.

You said, ” I think that paradise here means that aspect of earth or Hades where certain beings were in Abraham’s bosom as opposed to Gehenna (hell) as described in Luke 16.”

Just a few thoughts on this: the moment of a person’s physical death means that the physical body goes to the ground and the soul goes back to God who gave it (Ecc. 12: 7). God resides in heaven. Therefore, the soul of man, upon physical death, must go back to heaven where God resides (Ecc. 12:7).

In Rev. 2:7, the word “paradise” (Greek “paradeiso”) is shown to be a place where the believer has ”overcome” which is an idea that seems to be associated with heaven (or salvation) itself. The “tree of life” as described in this verse cannot logically be located in “Abraham’s bosom” or some other place other than heaven itself. I quote Rev. 2:7 for your review:

”He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” Rev. 2:7 – bold & italics are mine.

Romans 8:1 shows that those who are truly Christian (in Christ Jesus, saved) have already been fully judged. As a result, there is [u]no more [/u]condemnation (judgment), suffering, or cleansing necessary or required of them. Therefore, once a person becomes saved (in Christ Jesus) their salvation is completed and the next stop for them beyond this world is directly to heaven (i.e. paradise) because they have already been judged at the cross (Gal. 2: 20-21, Eph. 2:16, Gal. 6:14, Col. 1:20, etc).

You said, ”…I prefer naming the sect like Catholic or Protestant for example but Christian is a special word describing something almost beyond our comprehension.”

Yes, I hear you Nick_A. Often, those professing the faith can be identified more closely by measure of their denomination than by the word “Christian” itself. Thank you again for your thoughts Nick_A. I appreciate it. passion