Is Following Christ Compatible With Christianity?

[October's Autumn]

From then on, with the exception of one very highly qualified response, not a single person has been able to answer that question.

 

How sad, how very, very sad.

 

 

You misunderstand. It is not that people are "unable" to answer the question it is that no one sees the question as having any relevance. I could certainly tell you my opinion but it really doesn't matter.

 

BTW, your response to me made me chuckle.

[davidk]

You misunderstand. It is not that people are "unable" to answer the question it is that no one sees the question as having any relevance. I could certainly tell you my opinion but it really doesn't matter.

 

BTW, your response to me made me chuckle.

[davidk]

You misunderstand. It is not that people are "unable" to answer the question it is that no one sees the question as having any relevance. I could certainly tell you my opinion but it really doesn't matter.

 

BTW, your response to me made me chuckle.

 

The question wasn't meant to confuse anyone. It was simply to elicit a response from 2 John 1:7 to help nail down the terms Christian, Christ, and Christianity for the discussion. Trying to get something concrete we could agree (or disagree) on and debate the issue. I'm trying earnestly to answer questions in hopes my questions would be treated just as respectfully.

 

Giving your position on the question would mean a lot to me, whether you say 'yes' or 'no'. I will certainly try to provide you evidences for my position while you certainly try to provide me of yours. I want the exchange to be civil (I'm sure you would let me know if I weren't.)

[October's Autumn]

I think you are having problem with terminology. Christ is a title. Jesus is a name. Check out Greg Riley's book One Jesus, Many Christs

 

Prior to adulthood and education I used the words interchangeably, like a first and middle name "Jesus Christ" as it is often used in a church. Now I use them deliberately.

[davidk]

In 2 John 1:7 the phrase I paraphrased uses the Greek word 'Christos; the messiah, Greek epithet for Jesus: Jesus Christ.' The phrase was actually a statement which I rephrased into a question mistranslating the word into Christ. The proper English translation of the Greek is: 'Jesus Christ'.

The question properly phrased should be, "Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?" To seperate the names when translating from the Greek is improper. I actually had a Greek explain that to me.

[October's Autumn]

While "Jesus Christ" may be the correct translation of a specific text "Christ" is a title meaning "anointed one." (Literally it should be translated as Jesus, the anointed one) translations can also be "Christ Jesus" or just "Jesus" I don't recall specific places where it is just "Christ" but I only have worked on small parts of the New Testament as far as translation goes. But it seems it would be confusing just to say "the anointed one" when so many people were anointed. Which anointed one? It is not unique to Jesus. David, Saul, Solomon, and many prophets were anointed. Jesus is how we translate or transliterate Jesus' "given" name, if you will. So, was Jesus flesh? He appears to have been. I can't prove it but it seems likely to be. Did the anointed one "come in the flesh" well, actually the question is loaded because "in the flesh" is a Greek issue, not a Hebrew/Semitic one -- in the Greek dualism is there a "flesh" issue because some Greeks considered "the flesh" to be a bad thing in contrast to what God says at the creation that all material things are "good." So the question you are asking is really not a issue for those of us who recognize the creation as good as God proclaimed it. I'm not a dualist so I have no issues with flesh. I'm kind of attached to mine, it keeps my insides protected from all kinds of nasty stuff!

[davidk]

A number of people were anointed, some as kings, some priests, and some prophets. Even a Persian king was called a messiah. The difference lies in the useage of the terms ‘messiah’, ‘king’, or ‘anointed’.

 

For example: David was the anointed King of Israel; Jesus was the Anointed King.

Take another example. I am the father of Andrew; God is the Father. The word ‘father’ is the same, but the usage has very different connotations.

Usage differences may also be by the use of an article. Examples: ‘A’ King vs. ‘The’ King. The articles, ‘A’ and ‘The’, completely change the understanding of what kind of king; ‘A’ son of God vs. ‘The’ Son of God.

Jesus was described as: the Anointed One (as you wrote), the Anointed King, the Messiah, and the Son of God. If he is as described in Scripture, He supersedes all the lists.

The question actually is, “Did the anointed one "come in the flesh"?”

The ‘flesh’ meaning completely human. If that still remains ambiguous for you, we may need to go back further to find a common ground.

[October's Autumn]

Saying that he supercedes all others is a statement of belief, not fact. The terminology is the same. It is just a matter of looking at the Greek language vs. the Hebrew language.

[davidk]

Saying that he supercedes all others is a statement of belief,...

True, but that was not my statement. Try to read what I said. That is: If Jesus is as described in the Bible, He supercedes all the lists.

[October's Autumn]

True, but that was not my statement. Try to read what I said. That is: If Jesus is as described in the Bible, He supercedes all the lists.

 

 

Well, yeah...

[davidk]

Well, yeah...

 

Now that the terminology is agreed upon, giving us the picture of who Jesus Christ is in the Bible, we have to decide if we are going to believe it or not.

 

Jesus was described in the Bible as: The Anointed One (as you wrote), The Anointed King, Our King, The Christ, The Messiah, The Way, The Truth, The Light, The Son of God, Our Savior, God our Savior, The Deliverer, The Perfect Sacrifice, The Lord, Our Lord, The Beloved, The Rock, The Perfecter, The Author, The King of Kings, The Lord of Lords, The Word, The Apostle, The High Priest, The Mediator, the Bright and Morning Star, The Vine, The Arm of the Lord, Almighty, Creator of all things, The Door, The Foundation, The Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah, One and only Son of God, The Propitiation, and so on.

 

It was also written that, "... in the sight of God our Savior, Jesus Christ, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God the Father, and men, the man Christ Jesus."

"If we go on sinning after recieving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for our sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgement."

It is the believing on Jesus the Christ that we are saved. He did not offer Himself as 'a solution' to life, but as 'the One'; "I am the way, the truth, and the life." The Old Testament Scripture wrote of the personal Messiah that was to come. The New Testament says the woman at the well knew of Him, and Jesus replied to her, "I am He". Later, to the Pharisees; "... for unless you believe, I am He, you shall die in your sins."

Jesus also encouraged us with "If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believes in me as the Scripture said, 'from his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'."

 

John later wrote in 2 John 1:7; "For many decievers have gone out into this world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the one who is opposed to Christ."

 

Who is the Jesus you believe and from where, other than the Bible, do you get your knowledge?

[October's Autumn]

I'm a unitarian so this discussion is going to pretty much come to a dead stop.

[MOW]

Hi October:

 

The basic thing is that Liberal Chistians tend to get their impressions about the life and teachings about Jesus from the three synoptic Gospels. Conservative to Fundamentalist Christians focus mostly on the Gospel of John . I played piano and accopanied a choir in a conservative church for almost four years and the only thing they used out of the Synoptics were the birth and passion stories. The only parable was the "prodigal son". Everything else was The Gospel of John and Paul's letters and some of Revelations as far as the NT is concerned.

 

You'll notice that most of david's quote are coming form the Gospel of John. I think most Liberal's regard this Gospel with a high degree of suspicion and most liberal scholars doubt that Jesus said any of the things recorded in the Gospel of John.

 

 

MOW

[October's Autumn]

Hi October:

 

The basic thing is that Liberal Chistians tend to get their impressions about the life and teachings about Jesus from the three synoptic Gospels. Conservative to Fundamentalist Christians focus mostly on the Gospel of John . I played piano and accopanied a choir in a conservative church for almost four years and the only thing they used out of the Synoptics were the birth and passion stories. The only parable was the "prodigal son". Everything else was The Gospel of John and Paul's letters and some of Revelations as far as the NT is concerned.

 

You'll notice that most of david's quote are coming form the Gospel of John. I think most Liberal's regard this Gospel with a high degree of suspicion and most liberal scholars doubt that Jesus said any of the things recorded in the Gospel of John.

MOW

 

Now that you mention it, I've noticed that. Spong talks about his struggle with John in "Rescuing the Gospels". I think when someone can get beyond the a literal interpretation of John it has a lot to say about what was going on at that time (Mithraism) and what Christianity was competing with. There are also some intriguing writings. Like the woman who was hemorrhaging for 12 years and is interrupted by the 12 year old girl who died. The stories are put together for a purpose. I believe it is John which shows Jesus as being a feminist, although the other gospels have it, not to the same degree, though. A message is there, just not the ones some want it to be

[davidk]

Autumn:

So you are a good and faithful Unitarian, believing in the New Testament as all good Unitarians believe,... except John's Gospel.

Now I understand Unitarians deny Jesus as the Christ, yet... you couldn't bring yourself to confessing it, when you knew exactly what it was I was talking about.

Are you sure you're Unitarian?

 

Wasn't it you saying something about MY acting dumb.

 

Let me rephrase so you you won't think it personal: If one believes the Bible's New Testament is unreliable, from where does one get one's knowledge of Jesus? Be objective.

 

We're still in the 'IF' mode and you bail when the questions ask you to reason out an answer. I ask only that we be consistent with each other, by way of some simple non-prejudicial reasoning and basic logical thought. If you can't, I guess you are at a dead stop.

 

 

 

MOW:

Don't ignore the quotes from I Timothy and 2 John. Quoting John's Gospel does not make it unreliable.

 

The Liberal mindset will not accept Jesus as Christ regardless of which book you use. It would rather wade in diversion than rational reason.

 

Most Liberal 'Scholars' (LS) hold the whole of scripture as unreliable if it is said to be God's propositional truth communicated to man. Therefore, the LS is unreasonable. The LS says there are no absolute truths, yet somehow finds truths in the Bible. Therefore, the LS is rationally unreliable.

 

If you had read the Gospels, it would be a simple understanding behind the reasons for using the Gospel of John (One of the "Sons of Thunder"). They are: the stress he puts on the Diety of Jesus and His love by what He said rather than what He did. If you wish to review geneology, and how the Gospel relates to the Jews, how Jesus is Savior and King, perhaps Matthew would be best. If you want to see God's Son in action, primarily aimed at those outside of palestine, read Mark. Luke was a Gentile and he aimed at the Greek mind, portraying Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah of the Jews and Savior of all mankind.

 

I should have used more from 'Mark'.

---------------------

 

I guess we'll have to do some "basic logic" groundwork. If 'A' is 'A'; then, 'A' is not 'non-A'. That is: if A is true, then what is not A is not true. This is called 'antithesis'. The first step in logic, the foundation.

[October's Autumn]

Reread my post. I'm a unitarian not a Unitarian.

 

If you ever address me like that again I will put you on ignore.

[davidk]

Reread my post. I'm a unitarian not a Unitarian.

 

If you ever address me like that again I will put you on ignore.

 

Forgive me, I do not understand the subtlety. What is the difference?

If I was that far off track about unitatrian vs Unitarian, just ignore the last post through the "acting dumb" statement. So we can get back to identifying Christ and Christian.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

When identifying Christ as Christian is it necessary to have a Savior?

 

Would it not be more important to know the teachings of Jesus the Christ the Light of the world and the Bright Morning Star to be a guiding light in your Heart?

 

Why is the Bible wrong?

 

'IF" GOD is great and good, pure and holy the creator with a WORD to bring a World alive, then how is it that anyone or anything has to die for the sins of another? Can't this Great GOD just say with a word that you are mine? A keeper of all things good would save all things that could or can be made new but as the actions of people who love to cause pain they cover up the truth and create decay, division and destruction of that which could last a whole life long...

 

I believe in A GOD with an absolute truth one and only that Jesus can live in the Hearts of Many but we have only to look in order to see... The Bible has many flaws... One truth is Love...

[October's Autumn]

As a unitarian I don't follow a prescribed set of beliefs, hence I am a unitarian not a Unitarian. I've never found the concept of a trinity to fit in with being a monotheist. The two are contradictory no matter how insistent people are that they believe in the Trinity (a post-biblical concept) and are monotheist. The bible is not necessary for me know God. It doesn't not matter to my relationship with God if most of what is written in the bible about Jesus is historically true or not. I know God from my relationship with God. God is not contained in or by the bible.

 

 

Who Jesus was, we will never know. The bible gives us a hint of a person who this man was who was killed by the Roman's. But historically, who Jesus was will forever be obscured by the writing styles (midrash, hero stories) of the cultures at that time who had a more fluid view what is true and what is made up.

 

I am not interested in identifying "Christ" or "Christian."

[Wayseer]

October Autumn you have valid points. I reserve my criticism of the Church in not clearly identifying the difference between history and myth. However, myth is important for us humans. For some reason we humans seem to respond to myth a hold better and more constructively than history. History is dry bones, myth is the flesh that is added. The danger, as we have witnessed, is that myth often becomes history. Thus I see a difference between Jesus and Christianity. Jesus existed, perhaps, in a small but significant corner of the world where ideologies clashed. It appears that he challenged the contemporay powers of his day, Roman and Jewish, and go executed for his troubles. Not much to go on really. But I have sympathy for the Christian story - there is something in that story that provides us with the social mechanism to do more than 'consume, be silent, and die'. That story cannot be ignored - it has been a powerful influence on society, not always for the better but what we have now is a far cry form what peasant/serfs had to endue 2000 years ago.

 

That there are inconsistencies is to be expected - we are, after all, only human - we tend to gets things right or wrong with varying degrees of success. So I don't think you find some absolute truth - truth is relative. I know this raises more questions than it answers and I don't pretend to know the answers. I appreciate the point made in the film 'The Last Temptatiuon of Christ' when Jesus and Paul had thier argument. Paul ends up saying, "Jesus, I'm glad I met you. Now I can forget all about you'. In other words the 'story' of Jesus does not need a Jesus.

 

Davidk's question is legitimate and raises these several points. Perhaps you have resolved these points and that's your decision and it's a valid as anyone else's. However, the inherent problem with Davidk's thesis is that he has to fall back on the Bible to validate his 'story'. As the various Gospels were never written as 'history' but as 'myth' there is no way of verifying any historical connection between the two. Rather than trying to prove something exists where its existence is doubtful seems rather futile in the final analysis and helps no one.

 

Of course, this is not why Davidk raised the question. The silent question which he does not ask but infers - if there is a difference between Jesus and Christianity what does that say about the existence or otherwise of God? If Christianity is myth why not God? But by making this ideological leap DavidK ignores his own philophical base - his proving the existence of God by an improbable route - the historical inaccuracy of the Gospels. His got the cart before the horse.

[October's Autumn]

You make excellent points, Wayseer. Thank you.

[davidk]

Autumn:

The "Trinity" is a post Biblical term, but a Biblical concept since Genesis. By observing the universe the One 'Triune' God is observed.

OK, other than from unsubstantiated feelings and an 'unreliable' Bible, where does one get one's knowledge of God and Jesus?

 

The Bible is not God; but by it, He has verbally communicated to us, His truth.

 

Wayseer:

Thanks for legitimizing my question. And you seem to realize there is some substance to Biblical claims. But, liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything. There is no certainty of any reason to say what is right or wrong, reality or fantasy, love with any meaning; leaving only relative truths, and no 'absolutes'.

Any epistemology purporting a contradictory position to Biblical Christianity is silent, being purely hypothetical with no historical base, a nebulous concept. So in Liberal/Progressive epistemology we are surrounded in a sea of anti-philosphy, hopeless in the areas of ethics, values, and meaning, ending up with pure cynicism. Being bereft of any epistemological method or source strains even the most hardened liberal to back up his "religion" with more than just "listening to one's feelings". This is the leap of faith. Reducing the truth of scripture to myth is the liberal choice, because; "...myth being more true than factual accounts...."-(name withheld from another board)

 

It is outrageous to think that since Man 'needs' to believe in something, that a lie will do just as well.

 

If we observe the world about us, what do we see? How is it explained in such a manner as to fit the way it actually exists? In our observing the uniqueness of man, his morality, and the unity/complexity of the universe, the Biblical explanation is the only one sufficient enough to truly explain what we observe truly, reasonably understand, and rationally communicate to others.

 

TGWB:

"...the actions of people who love to cause pain they cover up the truth and create decay, division and destruction..."

You've found the dilemma of Man. How can Man be so noble (generous, loving, caring, honest, etc) and yet so horribly cruel? We observe it, but why is it so? Why can't we just all be machines? Where do we find sufficient answers to the questions we need to ask?

-------------------

 

If one believes the Bible is unreliable, from where does one get one's knowledge of God and Jesus?

Be objective.

[October's Autumn]

Autumn:

The "Trinity" is a post Biblical term, but a Biblical concept since Genesis. By observing the universe the One 'Triune' God is observed.

OK, other than from unsubstantiated feelings and an 'unreliable' Bible, where does one get one's knowledge of God and Jesus?

 

The Bible is not God; but by it, He has verbally communicated to us, His truth.

 

No, the Trinity is not present in Genesis. God can not be one and three. God can be one or there can be 2 or more gods. I am a monotheist and believe in one god. When I accepted the trinity I realized I was not a monotheist -- I was at least honest about it. I've already stated that my knowledge of God comes from my relationship with God. It does not come from the Bible, certainly. There is nothing I can say for sure I know about Jesus because I can not have a relationship with him any more than I can have one with Martin Luther King, Jr. or Christopher Columbus. I can infer some things about Jesus based what I read in the four gospels. But one cannot, factuallyknow anything.

 

 

The bible is a long history of what people have believed about God. All truth comes from God, regardless of the source. Not everything in the bible is true - the earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth, humans were not created on the first and sixth day of creation, etc. It goes on and on. There are a multitude of contradictions in the bible if one is to take literally. The books in the bible were never intended to be historical in the sense modern humans think of history. It was never intended to be a science book. Those who insist on taking it as such seriously undermine its literary and historical value.

[October's Autumn]

So in Liberal/Progressive epistemology we are surrounded in a sea of anti-philosphy, hopeless in the areas of ethics, values, and meaning, ending up with pure cynicism.

 

 

Really? I don't think whoever wrote this has any clue about what they are talking about. I see much stronger ethics, values, and meaning in Liberal and Progressive Christianity than in Fundamentalism and Conservative Christianity. Having full participated in all I am in a much better position than many to make such statements.

[Wayseer]

I have to agree with OA here. Davidk is using words which he does not understand. His ignorance of such matters is demonstrated when he writes -

 

It is outrageous to think that since Man 'needs' to believe in something, that a lie will do just as well.

Outrageous? Why? We do it all the time. We believed the sun rotated around the earth. People tell the children about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy. I even understand that some people still think the world is flat and that Armstrong never landed on the moon - it was all a hollywood stunt. So, Davidk, what is the lie that we believe? From what you posts tell me you do not accept what scientists are telling us - that perhaps they are to part of your conspiracy theory.

 

DavidK finds it difficult in 'not knowing'.

 

So in Liberal/Progressive epistemology we are surrounded in a sea of anti-philosphy, hopeless in the areas of ethics, values, and meaning, ending up with pure cynicism.

 

Well, from an epistemological position cynicism is a legitimate way of knowing. Jesus was a cynic par excellence. Besides, what you are inferring here is that anying other than what you believe in (Exactly what do you believe in anyway?) is a load of old rubbish. Buddhism, Doa, Islam, Judiaism are all stranded hopless without any ethical base. Really? That is not only a narrow view but it also ignores the fact that across religion the ethics and morals contained therein are remarkably similiar to Christianity.

 

I am finishing any further discussion. It is more than obvious you have no wish to discuss - you are more into baiting. I find that questionable ethics and displays a dishonesty which I reject.