Originally posted by Gregory
"Christ" is a title for the Messiah, not a name.
Ummm - I think it's essentially assumed(at least in most cultures) that one is speaking of Jesus when they say *Christ*, but if you really want to get technical(and anal retentive Mr. Smartypants) - you are correct. It's used in a context similar to that of the word *Buddha* (meaning "enlightened one"😉 - a word many use when referring to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of *Buddhism*(even though, technically speaking - as to not obfuscate the definition(s) any further, there are many other *Buddhas* -- see I can look smart and learned too..He..He..He).
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Ummm - I think it's essentially assumed(at least in most cultures) that one is speaking of Jesus when they say *Christ*, but if you really want to get technical(and anal retentive Mr. Smartypants) - you are correct. It's used in a context similar to that of the word *Buddha* (meaning "enlightened one"😉 - a word many use when referring to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of *Buddhism*(even though, technically speaking - as to not obfuscate the definition(s) any further, there are many other *Buddhas* -- see I can look smart and learned too..He..He..He).
Congratulations. 😄
lil bitchiness asked, and I answered. I don't think I'm being pedantic; understanding "Christ" as a title makes the Bible read much smoother, since people keep referring to Jesus not as "Christ" but as "the Christ," and that won't make sense to anyone who understands Christ to be a name.
Not to mention all the times when people use Christ as a title in the Bible. "Many will come and say, 'I am the Christ.'" "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it." "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ..." "Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." "But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ." None of those passages mean anything unless you understand "Christ" as a title.
Originally posted by Gregory
Not to mention all the times when people use Christ as a title in the Bible. "Many will come and say, 'I am the Christ.'" "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it." "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ..." "Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." "But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ." None of those passages mean anything unless you understand "Christ" as a title.
That's a very good point, and I happen to agree. Personally - I generally don't like to get too caught up in all of the technicalities. I've never been the most detail oriented person(probably due to the fact that I'm naturally a bit lazy).
I must say, out of all of the possible alternatives(such as saviour/savior/son of man/Jesus/Christ/messiah/etc/etc) - I believe Christ is the most recognizable - when referring to Jesus of Nazareth.
Still - remember that the names(used when referring to Christ and/or Jesus) themselves mean very little -- most of those seeking him -will know him(and be known themselves) not by what he(or they)
call(s) himself(or themselves), but by the *love* and truth he(they) project with the message.
Jesus never called himself the "Christ" nor the"Messiah".
OH, and you can find what Jesus taught and only what he taught in the Gospel of "Q"
A little info about it.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus never called himself the "Christ" nor the"Messiah".
Umm..I never stated that he did, but many knew him as the *Christ* - such as his disciples(revealed specifically to them by Peter) -
Mark 8:27 - 39
27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
28They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."
29"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "You are the Christ."
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
And even if one didn't know he was the *Christ* upon witnessing Peter's testimony(or Jesus the son of the carpenter Joseph - there were many upon many other Jesus's who were carpenters - and the sons of men named Joseph during those days..He..He..) - they were still given much evidense proving it - through his works and/or miracles(of course he didn't go around parading to everyone that he was the *Christ* - seeing as how that would of kind of defeated the purpose of one having *faith* in him).
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That's untrue.Christianity is JUST a religion....once again. No God is really needed, just the beleif in one.
The "rules" of Christianity CHANGE all the TIME...the Bible has been editted and re editted throughout History, and the Church(es) have evolved over the centuries as well.
For someone to argue that they are REAL Christians, and someone else is NOT, is a flawed and non-factual argument.
I still stand behind the truth that anyone who Identifies as Christian IS ONE...
Originally posted by Gregory
No. The contrapositive of this is that if God exists, there is nobody who "can say with authority who is Christian and who is not." This is true, but what authority have I pretended to? All I've done is given my opinion, albeit forcefully; I even added "I would say" to one of my comments so that nobody could claim I'm pretending that it's anything but my opinion.
con·tra·po·si·tive noun. Logic. the inference drawn from a proposition by negating the terms and changing the order of an equivalent proposition, e.g. “Not B implies not A” is the contrapositive of “A implies B.”
I know what the contrapositive is, and I stated it correctly.
"I repeat that there is only one who can say with authority who is Christian and who is not [God; if he exists.]"
If that being does not exist, then there are, in fact, no beings who can say with authority who is Christian and who is not.
"if God does not exist, then there are no true Christians." would be the contrapositive of, "A true Christian is one who obeys God," or something like it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]con·tra·po·si·tive noun. Logic. the inference drawn from a proposition by negating the terms and changing the order of an equivalent proposition, e.g. “Not B implies not A” is the contrapositive of “A implies B.” [/B]
I was not disagreeing with Capt Fantastic.
The statement that Christians cannot exist without God is the sole point I was trying to address.
A Perfect Example
According to Nellinator, the belief that The Bible is the word of God is essential to being a Christian:
Originally posted by Nellinator
I wouldn't define 'true' Christians by their denomination. I look at each individual and it should be apparent in the way they live and a few key beliefs:
1) Belief in God
2) Jesus as the son of God and accepted as Savior
3) Loving other people
4) That Jesus died and rose again
5) Belief in the Bible as the Word of GodI see those five as essential. If you don't live by the first four the Bible makes it perfectly clear that you will not receive salvation.
According to -hh-, the belief that The Bible is the word of God is not essential to being a Christian:
Originally posted by -hh-
it's understandable that there are so many different denominations of Christianity, but that is because human personality comes into play. the ceremonies might be different, and some of the teachings might be taught differently (i honestly dont know about the minor denominations) but the message (if truely Christian) should be the same.I am Apostolic Armenian Christian, and i could care less what the next man believes in (as long as it promotes morality 👆 )
Faith is much more important than the Religion.
Both cannot be correct.