What is a Christian?

[Nate]

On belief in Trinty/being a Christian: I say belief in the veracity of the Bible is necessary to be considered a Christian.

I would agree, but interpretation goes a long way and influences what you believe is true. That's why there's so many Christian denominations, and each believe the Bible is true, but they believe it's true in different ways because they interpret it differently. While they may disagree on doctrine, I don't think that they believe that another denomination is non-Christian because, say, they believe that women can be pastors, or that smoking is a sin. So why would the Trinity be any different?

Anyway there was a thread on here recently that dealt with the Trinity, and you can probably look that up and see what people have said. It's in General and TopazRaven made it and the title is "Are God and Jesus the same?" It's locked, but you can still read it and see what people have said.

[Radical Dreamer]

Being one of those Christians (or at least one who's still working on the issue), I'd have to agree with this one. And having a couple more "heretical" beliefs besides that one, I'd have to once again reiterate that the only qualifier you need to be a Christian is the pursuit of Jesus and the desire to become more like Him. The fruit of that choice: that is, everything that marks us as Christians, such as good works, a love for others, a prayer life, etc., will stem from that trust in Jesus and a daily striving for that. The thief on the cross didn't have any of that fruit, but he had the prerequisite for it, and that's what apparently saved him.

I agree with this. I think one thing that hasn't been directly said in this thread (though it was largely hinted at in this post and may be somewhere else that I just missed somehow XD) is that it's important to remember that Christianity is really a journey. While I believed we are saved as soon as we realize our sinful nature, our need for Jesus as our savior, and our submission to Him and declaration of Him as Lord, I also believe that, as you said, the fruits don't always show up immediately. And when you think about it, how can they? Life takes time, and Christianity in its truest form requires a lot of growth from everyone involved.

We come to God as we are through Christ, and from there, He molds us into who He wants us to be (if we submit to Him). I believe that that includes our doctrines, our philosophies, our actions, the way we view other people, etc., until we're more like Him. It doesn't happen all at once, and not everyone comes to the same conclusions, but I think it's important to remember that we are all following Christ as well as we know how to, and we're all at different stages in that journey.

Anyways, there's my two cents on the subject, and they are only slightly related to the OP. XD I'd like to make a more in-depth post with references to various scriptures, but unfortunately I don't have the time right now. XD Hopefully this post will encourage us to better understand one another, though. XD

[SnoringFrog]

I don't think that they believe that another denomination is non-Christian because, say, they believe that women can be pastors, or that smoking is a sin. So why would the Trinity be any different?

The only reason I think the Trinity would be different is because that seems to be one of the more "major/vital" doctrines. At the moment, I can't think of anything to back that up, so it's not a point I'm going to try much to fight for, but I am fairly sure that in the past I have had an answer as to why it's essential. I just haven't needed in it a while and kinda forgot. I know this is a horrible type of point for a debate ("I have no backup because I forgot it all, but I did have it!" XD) but that's where I'm at for now. It's definitely something I'll be looking into soon though, because I'd rather not believe that "just cause".

So, until I do that, the best answer I've got for you is what I think I tried to put into an earlier post. It doesn't seem like the Trinity is necessary for salvation itself, but the qualities that are necessary for salvation also lead to a belief in the Trinity, as I see it. That's what I have that's concrete for me. I still feel like it's necessary for salvation, but I can't back that up right now and I know that a feeling is kinda pointless for discussion like this.

I've really enjoyed this dicussion though, thanks for helping point out to me that I inadvertently dropped into believing at least that bit without having a reason or a why to. Better to have that shown to me by a fellow Christian than appear hypocritical or just spiritually idiotic to a non-Christian, I'd say.

[Nate]

The only reason I think the Trinity would be different is because that seems to be one of the more "major/vital" doctrines.

Hmm, I don't know about that. The churches that deny women pastors do so because of Paul's words about Eve being tricked first, then Adam, and as such women should have no authority over men. I also remember reading, I think Corrie posted it on her LJ, someone on Facebook saying how "Man no wonder that church is so screwed up and lost and believes heretical things because they have a woman pastor and that's a great sin against God" and all this other mess.

As for smoking, some denominations equate it to "destroying and profaning the temple of God" so I don't think you can say these doctrines are somehow less vital than that of the trilogy to those who subscribe to those beliefs. You may see them as minor, but they are not to those who put their faith in them.

the qualities that are necessary for salvation also lead to a belief in the Trinity, as I see it

That statement is a dangerous thing, as I have already said that I have many doubts about the truth of the Trinity, and Davidizer and Cadence have also expressed that they do not believe in the Trinity either. A statement like that would imply "You guys aren't saved." I know you're not trying to say that, but when you make a statement like that it can be interpreted as very judgmental.

And again, I don't even see how it's true in the least. I don't see anything about believing in Christ's sacrifice that necessitates belief in the Trinity. If anything, it's the exact opposite to me, but we're not here to discuss that. It was already covered in the other locked thread. XD

The mods are probably getting annoyed with our constant off-topicness though, so we should probably leave this thread to the original topic. <.<

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I think the veracity of the Bible can and ought to be questioned. What parts do we consider true? And what parts to do we consider historical? And furthermore does something have to be historical to be true? I think not.

I think the Bible is a book of truth, not a book of facts. This of course boils down to what truth even is. Not what the truth is, but what truth itself is. So for the record I don't think that believing in the veracity of the Bible is necessary to be a Christian. I think plenty of people consider themselves Christian because they believe in the ideas which other Christians consider as truth. But in the end, any belief in anything is ultimately a matter of faith. Nobody can truly know any absolutes. I like this quote by Kierkegaard:

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy fathoms of water still preserving my faith."

And as a side note, I know a guy who is an atheist (technically agnostic) who considers himself a Christian. I understand his reasoning but I really disagree with him on that one.

[firestorm]

The thief merely said to the other thief, "Don’t you fear God, since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." He then turned to Jesus and said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Again, no mention of "I believe you are the son of God" or "I believe you are dying for my sins." Just a simple rebuke of the other thief, and a plea for Jesus to remember him.

Just as a side note the only kingdom jesus proclaimed in his preaching was the Kingdom of Heaven. As you quoted the thief did say "Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom." Doesn't that sound like he at least acknowledges that there is the kingdom of which Christ professes. On top of that if he didn't believe what's the point of saying anything? I mean Jesus was crucified along side them, how long did that guy hope him to be up there to remember him by.

To me it seems like that's why Jesus said "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." because somehow, that was, in the theif's abstract way, his confession of belief.

[Nate]

Doesn't that sound like he at least acknowledges that there is the kingdom of which Christ professes.

Yes, but he could have believed Jesus was a prophet and not the Messiah. That was my point. The thief never attributes divinity to Jesus, nor mentions anything about sin. He just rebukes the other thief and says "This guy didn't do anything wrong, he's being punished unfairly." The thief obviously believes in the Kingdom of God but that isn't the same as believing in Jesus as the son of God or as the redeemer of sins. The thief never even asks to be forgiven, he just asks Jesus to remember him.

EDIT: Also before you mention the whole "Lord/Liar/Lunatic" argument about how you can't believe Jesus was just a prophet or great teacher, remember that the New Testament hadn't been written and the thief couldn't have read those verses. Besides most of the time when Jesus made claim of being more than just a prophet or teacher, it was to religious leaders of the day or government officials. He never really said that stuff to the regular people He was preaching too. To them, He usually told parables or to love others, meaning that most of the people He preached to probably didn't think of him as much more than a prophet either. Miracles also don't count as proof of divinity, as many prophets in the Torah had miraculous powers too, such as Moses , Elijah, and Elisha. In their cases, they were not divine, but were granted power to show the might of God. People of the day, being familiar with the Torah, would likely attribute the miracles of Jesus to the same kind of power the prophets had.

In fact, Luke 9 supports this theory, when Jesus asks the disciples privately "Who do the crowds say I am?" The disciples reply, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life." The thief on the cross very likely thought of Jesus as a prophet, nothing more. Yet he was welcomed into paradise.

[Fish and Chips]

Yes, but he could have believed Jesus was a prophet and not the Messiah. That was my point. The thief never attributes divinity to Jesus, nor mentions anything about sin. He just rebukes the other thief and says "This guy didn't do anything wrong, he's being punished unfairly." The thief obviously believes in the Kingdom of God but that isn't the same as believing in Jesus as the son of God or as the redeemer of sins. The thief never even asks to be forgiven, he just asks Jesus to remember him.

There's a startling amount of theology packed away within the thief's words in this passage. While I don't think it would necessarily serve as a complete and whole measuring stick, there's the outlines of something like it.

I'll keep it short and simple, though if anyone asks me to, I'll expand:

1. The thief admits his own guilt and that his own punishment is deserved.
2. The thief admits Jesus' innocence and that his punishment is undeserved.
3. The thief does not consider himself worthy of being spared from his punishment, and asks only that he be remembered - not saved.

If we are to take Jesus' returning words at face value, this was enough for the thief to be with him in paradise.

[rocklobster]

According to the Letter of James, (I think) We are to be "doers of the Word, not hearers only." That means to me that a Christian has to do more than just know God, but act that way as well. This is why, to me, Fred Phelps, is NOT a Christian. He uses God's book as a lectern for his hatred. Has he never even heard the phrase: "Love the sinner, hate the sin?"

[J.D3]

"Quote: otherwise their own versions of the Bible."

Actually that's completely and totally false. In fact, on his website, Jack Chick pushes the KJV as the only "true" word of God and the only God-inspired translation of the Bible, and all the others as corrupted and false.

Umm, actually I'm not false in making that statement at all.
It is well-known and documented that Mormons publish & use (along with The Book of Mormon) their own translation of the KJV Bible (by their founder, Joseph Smith), which was officially labelled the "Joseph Smith Translation" in 1978 by the LDS Church.
Also, as another member has already pointed out, the J.W's also use (along with other Watchtower publications) their own translation of the Bible called the "The New World Translation" which was published by the Watchtower Society in 1961.
I acknowledge that perhaps some sects of both religions may be somewhat different in the literature they use (after all, everyone's human), but as I was making what was supposed to be a general statement that was based on information from world religion reference books (and which you can also see on relevant wiki articles, though they seem slightly biased), I'm somewhat unable to see how I'm 'completely and totally false' in saying they generally use their own set of literature.

"Quote: I believe that to be a 'Christian'..."

And my first post in this thread was that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do exactly that and they are not considered Christians. Now, I realize that their beliefs on the origin of Jesus, and a few other doctrines vastly differs from mainstream Christianity. I'm not denying that, and I do believe their doctrines are wrong. What I am saying is if you said that statement to a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, they would reply "Yep, we believe that too, you're absolutely right."

So clearly, what you just said cannot possibly be true or you'd welcome them as fellow Christians.

Nate, I'm very glad that you recognise that the doctrines of these religions greatly differ in the key areas I specified (unfortunately there's lots of folks who aren't aware of this).
In regards to your reply on what I believed to be how one becomes a Christian, it was not intended at all to be a direct comparison to what Mormons and J.W's believe about this, but rather my own personal belief on the matter (hence why I used the phrase 'here's my 2 cents', and a separate paragraph for it).

Although I could have perhaps been a bit more specific/distinct in some of my wording (as I see that it was perhaps a bit 'vague'/generic in parts), I don't believe that it warranted the criticism that my statement 'couldn't possibly be true', as it was actually supposed to be my own personal, subjective viewpoint/opinion on the subject, and not intended for comparison with other religions (I apologise if this was not explicitly clear).

Regardless, this will be the last post on the topic as there are enough resources out there on Mormon and J.W literature (see the links below as a rough guide to what I'm on about), and I refuse to get into 'virtual fisticuffs' over such things with one who also regards themselves as a Christian, so I might as well stop before anything terribly heated arises. My apologies, and all the best!

[http://www.bible-researcher.com/jst.html - Joseph Smith Translation]
[http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/a_better_bible.htm - New World Translation (lengthy but interesting from what I saw)]

[Sheenar]

I didn't even know that there was a doctrine of the Trinity when I became a Christian, so I would hesitate to say that that is necessary for salvation. I do believe in the Trinity, but that is only through my own studies after my conversion. I knew nothing of the Trinity beforehand.

I would say that what constitutes a Christian boils down to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ: believing Jesus is Lord, repenting of dead works (sins), believing in his substitutionary atonement on the cross, and believing in His physical (bodily) resurrection (that the thief on the cross aked Jesus to remember him when He entered His kingdom speaks to the thief's belief that Jesus wouldn't stay dead.) We pray and read the Word to commune with Him and He does the work of santification in us to mold us into His image over time. It is a lifetime process. Nobody has everything perfect. Our views/doctrines change over time through our own studies and what we believe God has shown us.

So let's extend each other grace. Unity in essentials. In everything else, grace.

[J.D3]

I didn't even know that there was a doctrine of the Trinity when I became a Christian, so I would hesitate to say that that is necessary for salvation. I do believe in the Trinity, but that is only through my own studies after my conversion. I knew nothing of the Trinity beforehand.

I would say that what constitutes a Christian boils down to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ: believing Jesus is Lord, repenting of dead works (sins), believing in his substitutionary atonement on the cross, and believing in His physical (bodily) resurrection (that the thief on the cross aked Jesus to remember him when He entered His kingdom speaks to the thief's belief that Jesus wouldn't stay dead.) We pray and read the Word to commune with Him and He does the work of santification in us to mold us into His image over time. It is a lifetime process. Nobody has everything perfect. Our views/doctrines change over time through our own studies and what we believe God has shown us.

So let's extend each other grace. Unity in essentials. In everything else, grace.

I completely agree with this!!! It's exactly what I believe too, and yes *sheepishly grins* we should extend grace to each other and find unity in the essentials of our faith!

Also, it's interesting that a fair few people on here mentioned some sort of 'unclearness' (if that's a word) that others or themselves have/have had about the Trinty...
I suppose I'm kind of blessed in that regard, because I think, in my own experience, I've always been taught about the Trinty (to varying extents over the years I might add), even before becoming a committed Christian.

[Okami]

I think the Bible is a book of truth, not a book of facts.

This. This made me think of the book of Acts, and the many times that Paul has to make his defense. He wasn't on trial for his belief in Jesus, but for his belief in the resurrection of the dead. It's just that uh...yeah. Resurrection isn't something that happens every day. The people thought he had gone mad and was crazy, and they had good reason to believe that!

I think as "Christians" (however you would so define one) we ought to be questioned by the world in the same way. And we should be able to stand up and give our defense. The testimony of our lives should point to the God who has brought us "through the fire" so to speak, as we have been refined and renewed.

I think a Christian should be a follower of Christ, taking up their cross, denying themselves, and following Him. They should be concerned with the things of the Kingdom of God. They should be serving others, giving of their time, talent, money, lives to be working to better their communities and world. I say "should" because as we all know, not too many people do these things.

These are the things that I am striving to work towards, self-denial being my priority on the list currently. It's not easy. Jesus never said this would be a life of comfort, rather He told us it would be brutal (lest we forget how nasty taking up/carrying a cross is!) and that we'd be persecuted. In spite of this, we must go and do His Kingdom work. It's not about us. It's all about Him and His glory.

There's so much more I could say, but instead I will leave it at this:

[I]"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith]
~ 2 Corinthians 13:5

[Dante]

Uh, in this case Schweitzer himself would disagree with you. He did profess to be a Christian and was actually ordained. Now he's of the more liberal variety for certain but I think if you went back in time and asked him "Are you a Christian?" he would say yes.

Then that would imply to me (though I do not know if he would agree) that he had a life that was greatly influenced by Christ and I suppose my answer would be different, under my definition he would be a christian. Certainly his beliefs differ from mine, but most of our beliefs differ in one manner or another. For that matter, he's not the first Christian to have a unique christology.

While I believe most people today seem to think that every Christian since Christ believed that Jesus was a full human being while fully God, this is not the case (as a scroll down that article on Wikipedia reveals). I am hardly an expert on these other ideas, but to steal a few things from Wikipedia, Docetism believed that Jesus was only an illusion (not a real physical person), or adoptionism which would state that Jesus was a normal human being born to Mary and Joseph who was adopted by God when baptized by John the Baptist.

For that matter, it is also important to realize that "The Bible" is not a single book, and that different groups of Christians throughout history used some texts that the "The Bible" doesn't have, while disregarding some that were in it. For one, I would say (and I would ask Peanut if I was correct in this) that we have a very "Pauline" Christianity. That is, we rely heavily on the the teachings of Paul for our doctrinal faith. But the belief that Paul was divinely inspired, is not a necessity for a belief in Christ. Nor even is the belief in the Gospels that we know, there are many writings on Christ throughout time.

So, given that Christianity is not a democracy but an anarchy of the individual, none can claim authority in saying which texts to include or not (or even to include any texts at all - literacy is not a pre-requisite for Christianity). Should you prefer what is considered normal canon, or more importantly, if you feel God has verified their authority in your heart, then that should be enough for you. This seems odd today given that the canon of the Bible was set in stone in order to keep unity in the church (and provide unity within the religion of Rome, which was critical to keeping unity of the people). While we hold on to this tradition, it is important to realize that it was not always so cut and dry and that the people of the early church had to "create" their religion to the best of their abilities. Jesus didn't exactly hand out Bibles, he simply taught others and from their experiences he inspired them to create a faith.

So then, yes, I would say that he could consider himself a form of christian. Different then I, but still a christian. Perhaps his actions of living life in the service of others was more in line with what Christ desired of us then those of us who have a "canon" belief system and make professions of faith. *shrugs shoulders*

[Atria35]

, and believing in His physical (bodily) resurrection (that the thief on the cross aked Jesus to remember him when He entered His kingdom speaks to the thief's belief that Jesus wouldn't stay dead.) .

What? I don't see that at all. If I ask my dying grandma (no, she's not dying, but I'm giving an example) to remember me in Heaven, then I do not believe that she's going to be bodily resurrected- I believe that she's going to die and her spirit/soul is going to Heaven.

In any case, my idea of Chrsitianity is in flux. I personally don't believe in the Trinity, myself, but I still consider myself Christian, but that's really my only part that's staying solid. Reading this is actually changing some of my thoughts and ideas about other parts.

[Sheenar]

What? I don't see that at all. If I ask my dying grandma (no, she's not dying, but I'm giving an example) to remember me in Heaven, then I do not believe that she's going to be bodily resurrected- I believe that she's going to die and her spirit/soul is going to Heaven.

In any case, my idea of Chrsitianity is in flux. I personally don't believe in the Trinity, myself, but I still consider myself Christian, but that's really my only part that's staying solid. Reading this is actually changing some of my thoughts and ideas about other parts.

How would a dead man inherit a kingdom/become King? The thief asked Jesus to remember him when He entered His kingdom --how would Jesus become a King if he remained dead?

[blkmage]

Interestingly enough, my pastor gave a sermon about the resurrection two weeks ago. Bodily resurrection is what the early Christians believed, since it's derived from the same idea in Judaism and they were all Jewish. The whole business about the separation of the soul at death to enter heaven or hell was actually derived from Greek philosophy, where the idea that the spirit was pure and good while the material was bad was pretty much accepted. In fact, Paul was mocked at Athens specifically for presenting the idea of bodily resurrection. In various places in his letters, he's pretty specific about physical resurrection being the hope that Christ offers and that without it, this entire shindig is meaningless.

[ich1990]

Interestingly enough, my pastor gave a sermon about the resurrection two weeks ago. Bodily resurrection is what the early Christians believed, since it's derived from the same idea in Judaism and they were all Jewish. The whole business about the separation of the soul at death to enter heaven or hell was actually derived from Greek philosophy, where the idea that the spirit was pure and good while the material was bad was pretty much accepted. In fact, Paul was mocked at Athens specifically for presenting the idea of bodily resurrection. In various places in his letters, he's pretty specific about physical resurrection being the hope that Christ offers and that without it, this entire shindig is meaningless.

Anyone interested in learning more about this idea would be well advised to pick up Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church by N.T. Wright.

[Hiryu]

Someone who is a christian realizes that they can't be justified without Jesus and repents, in a nutshell. That's all you have to do to be qualified.

And if man lives under a rock, a jungle, or a deserted island for the rest of his life, without ever knowing about Jesus or any religion, the all knowing power of God will decide what will happen.

While this topic does bring interesting points about what makes people really a christian, I think there are some things that are "unchristianlike" for people to do if they claim to be a christian.

[Peanut]

While I believe most people today seem to think that every Christian since Christ believed that Jesus was a full human being while fully God, this is not the case (as a scroll down that article on Wikipedia reveals). I am hardly an expert on these other ideas, but to steal a few things from Wikipedia, Docetism believed that Jesus was only an illusion (not a real physical person), or adoptionism which would state that Jesus was a normal human being born to Mary and Joseph who was adopted by God when baptized by John the Baptist.

Ah yes, those. The problem with many of the other christological theories is that they are more Greek in their thought then Jewish. Which, for a religion that was essentially a cult of Judaism in its early years, is actually pretty problematic for them. There is only one group of Jews that I am aware of which was influenced by Greek thought and that was the Sadducees with their denial of the resurrection. In general, the Jews were (and still are) one of the most ethnocentric groups in all of history. Because of this, I find it doubtful that Jesus and any of his disciples would have developed these ideas about Jesus himself. With that being said, its still never a bad thing to be aware of some of these other Christologies, whether you agree with them or not. They have historical significance and actually help explain a lot of modern beliefs that we have.

For that matter, it is also important to realize that "The Bible" is not a single book, and that different groups of Christians throughout history used some texts that the "The Bible" doesn't have, while disregarding some that were in it. For one, I would say (and I would ask Peanut if I was correct in this) that we have a very "Pauline" Christianity. That is, we rely heavily on the the teachings of Paul for our doctrinal faith. But the belief that Paul was divinely inspired, is not a necessity for a belief in Christ. Nor even is the belief in the Gospels that we know, there are many writings on Christ throughout time.

Eh, I don't really like the whole separating Paul from Christ in terms of teaching since, while they differ, I do think Paul's teachings are an extension of Christs and should be read that way. Beyond that, if you look at the dating for the books within the New Testament, Paul's letters tend to be dated earlier then the gospels (though I don't remember if that's in terms of when they were composed or in terms of dating for the various fragments and complete copies we've found). With this being said, we in the west are more influenced by Paul then in the East. The reason, interestingly enough, is the way we order the books in the New Testament. Supposedly, the Eastern Orthodox Churches place the book of James before Paul's letters and, as a result, its had a greater influence on their thought (or more specifically, their writings and sermons tend to draw from James more then Paul's letters). The Western Church's, of course, have Romans and the rest of Paul's letters before the other apostles writings and, interestingly enough, these have had a greater influence on our thought then the rest of the apostles letters. So I guess what I'm saying is, yes you're right about Paul's influence but I don't like the extremity of that idea of thought. As for the other gospels and writings about Christ, the ones we have aren't really all that legitimate. There is a mysterious document that has yet to be found generally called "Q" (I think) which is supposed to be the sayings of Jesus and a source that was used in the writing of all of the gospels. The other gospels, though, tend to be more gnostic and therefore Greek then Jewish...which, as I've already mentioned, is a problem considering Jewish culture.

So, given that Christianity is not a democracy but an anarchy of the individual, none can claim authority in saying which texts to include or not (or even to include any texts at all - literacy is not a pre-requisite for Christianity). Should you prefer what is considered normal canon, or more importantly, if you feel God has verified their authority in your heart, then that should be enough for you. This seems odd today given that the canon of the Bible was set in stone in order to keep unity in the church (and provide unity within the religion of Rome, which was critical to keeping unity of the people). While we hold on to this tradition, it is important to realize that it was not always so cut and dry and that the people of the early church had to "create" their religion to the best of their abilities. Jesus didn't exactly hand out Bibles, he simply taught others and from their experiences he inspired them to create a faith.

I don't fully agree with you on this Pascal though I would say reading the other books that have been used by Christians or various sects of Christians is worthwhile. For instance, reading the books of Maccabees is great for understanding some Jewish history even if you don't think they are canonical. I can think of another book which would have been read, used, and even quoted (or hinted too) within scripture that is well worth reading which is the book of Enoch. Apocalyptic literature just in general is fun to read and rather revealing.

So then, yes, I would say that he could consider himself a form of christian. Different then I, but still a christian. Perhaps his actions of living life in the service of others was more in line with what Christ desired of us then those of us who have a "canon" belief system and make professions of faith. *shrugs shoulders*

Yeah, this is what I'm tending to think a little bit more these days. I still think having things like the "cannon" and definitive beliefs are important for identity and for theological purposes but I also recognize that a lot of people who don't hold these believes live a more Christ like life then I do.

What? I don't see that at all. If I ask my dying grandma (no, she's not dying, but I'm giving an example) to remember me in Heaven, then I do not believe that she's going to be bodily resurrected- I believe that she's going to die and her spirit/soul is going to Heaven.

To explain this a little more, there was only one group of Jews (that I know of) who didn't believe in a physical, bodily resurrection and that was the Sadducees.

[Nate]

It is well-known and documented that Mormons publish & use (along with The Book of Mormon) their own translation of the KJV Bible (by their founder, Joseph Smith), which was officially labelled the "Joseph Smith Translation" in 1978 by the LDS Church.

A different translation does not make a different Bible. It doesn't make it "their own" version either, any more than the NAB Bible is a "Catholic" Bible.

Now do I deny there are possible problems and theology expressed in that translation? Not at all, but again, it doesn't make it "their own" version, it's just another translation.

it was actually supposed to be my own personal, subjective viewpoint/opinion on the subject, and not intended for comparison with other religions

Right, but...my point was, if you said that to a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, they'd say "We believe that too! You're absolutely right!" But, you also say they're not Christians. Since you said "You have to believe this to be a Christian" how can you possibly turn around and say "Even though you believe exactly what I just said, you are not a Christian"? My point was that if it was as simple as you said, Mormons and JWs would be Christians from your point of view.

Because you do not consider them such, obviously your belief of what makes a person Christian is not what you just stated. That was the only point I was making. Again, I know that they have different beliefs on the nature of Christ and so on, but your statement at face value is exactly what those two groups believe, meaning that you obviously believe there is more to being a Christian than you said previously.

I'm just saying be consistent. XD

[J.D3]

A different translation does not make a different Bible. It doesn't make it "their own" version either, any more than the NAB Bible is a "Catholic" Bible.

Now do I deny there are possible problems and theology expressed in that translation? Not at all, but again, it doesn't make it "their own" version, it's just another translation.

Right, but...my point was, if you said that to a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, they'd say "We believe that too! You're absolutely right!" But, you also say they're not Christians. Since you said "You have to believe this to be a Christian" how can you possibly turn around and say "Even though you believe exactly what I just said, you are not a Christian"? My point was that if it was as simple as you said, Mormons and JWs would be Christians from your point of view.

Because you do not consider them such, obviously your belief of what makes a person Christian is not what you just stated. That was the only point I was making. Again, I know that they have different beliefs on the nature of Christ and so on, but your statement at face value is exactly what those two groups believe, meaning that you obviously believe there is more to being a Christian than you said previously.

I'm just saying be consistent. XD

Spot on! I suppose there's a lot more to these things than we have room for here to discuss, but I see your points clearly now and definitely agree with you on both things (like I said & you've correctly pointed out, my personal profession of being Christian was a bit lacking in retrospect )

My sincere apologies if I came off hot-headed and hence stated anything unduly unkind towards yourself! I'll be sure to try to be a bit more 'consistent' in such matters the future!

Interestingly enough, my pastor gave a sermon about the resurrection two weeks ago. Bodily resurrection is what the early Christians believed, since it's derived from the same idea in Judaism and they were all Jewish. The whole business about the separation of the soul at death to enter heaven or hell was actually derived from Greek philosophy, where the idea that the spirit was pure and good while the material was bad was pretty much accepted. In fact, Paul was mocked at Athens specifically for presenting the idea of bodily resurrection. In various places in his letters, he's pretty specific about physical resurrection being the hope that Christ offers and that without it, this entire shindig is meaningless.

That IS very interesting! I've unfortunately never actually had that distinction between the two specifically explained to me myself but now the pieces all fit! 'Food for thought' methinks!