Christianity? who fits the definition?

philologos

Thought this would be an appropriate thread as a week or two ago I was reading an article on beliefnet which was a debate between a Evangelical minster and a priest of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) on the issue of the LDS identifying themselves as Christians. Just wondering what the thoughts are on this. I think that they still stand by Christian morality, just with the Book of Mormon added on as a supplement. I was wondering what other peoples views are. This topic can also discuss other faiths derived from Christianity, such as Rastafarism.

PDN

I would say doctrine, rather than morality, would be the issue with the Mormons. For example, Mormonism teaches that God was once a mortal man who grew up into being God. This would appear to be incompatible with the Christian view of God as eternal.

Mormons also teach that Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer, rather than worshipping Jesus as God the Son.

BrianCalgary

Mormonism has also altered their theology on marriage over the years.

The book of mormon speaks of a civilisation existing in North America for which no archaelogical evidence exists.

philologos

But don't they follow by the same teachings as us in the Bible. (Fair enough they use the Joseph Smith translation of it but it can't be that different). It's not so much whether you believe in it. The question is do they classify as Christians?

Edit: I've been informed that the Mormons often use the King James version.

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

But don't they follow by the same teachings as us in the Bible. (Fair enough they use the Joseph Smith translation of it but it can't be that different). It's not so much whether you believe in it. The question is do they classify as Christians?

Well obviously not if they deny the Eternity of God and the full deity of Jesus Christ. These are not minor doctrines - they are essential to Christianity.

Run_to_da_hills

Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, was a 33rd degree Freemason. One cannot be both a Christian and a Freemason, its a contradiction in itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry
http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.utlm.org/images/masonictemplearticle/thesaltlaketemple_p157.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/masonicsymbolsandtheldstemple.htm&h=437&w=600&sz=57&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=5Wg0sFdAM0O22M:&tbnh=98&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmormon%2Bsalt%2Blake%2Btemple%2Bfreemason%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX

dan719

BrianCalgary wrote:

The book of mormon speaks of a civilisation existing in North America for which no archaelogical evidence exists.

Definition of irony. A semi-creationist who criticises someone for the lack of archaelogical evidence.

philologos

PDN: I'd be interested in hearing about those two things in a bit more detail. I thought that the LDS didn't reject the divinity of Christ.

BrianCalgary

Jakkass wrote:

But don't they follow by the same teachings as us in the Bible. (Fair enough they use the Joseph Smith translation of it but it can't be that different). It's not so much whether you believe in it. The question is do they classify as Christians?

Edit: I've been informed that the Mormons often use the King James version.

The Bible is secondary to the Book of Mormon in authority.
If there is a difference in teaching the B of M takes precedence. They also use another book called: The Pearl of Great Price, which I have never read, but it also supercedes the Bible in wisdom.

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

PDN: I'd be interested in hearing about those two things in a bit more detail. I thought that the LDS didn't reject the divinity of Christ.

They believe in His divinity, but not in the sense of being the one true God. Jesus, in Mormon doctrine, is a god, not the God.

In their own words: http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/jesusmor.htm

Mormons believe that Jesus was created by God and is a "brother" to Satan. They teach divine progression. Jesus was once just a man who lived on another planet. He eventually progressed to be equal to God and came to colonize planet earth with "gods to be" or humans. Unforeseen to Christ, Satan (Jesus' brother) put a kink in this plan when he deceived Adam and Eve. Jesus was then required to die for fallen man, His creation. Jesus therefore is a model for us and one day we will be equal to God and colonize other planets too. There are millions of other planets being colonized right now in the same way in other galaxies. What makes earth's colonizing process unique is Satan's deception of Adam. Jesus is the God of planet earth. The Mormon hope is to marry, through a Mormon Temple ceremony, as many earth women as possible for eternal celestial marriage. In the resurrection all good Mormon men will call from the dead those women they married in a temple ceremony. They will then fly off to some uninhabited planet with their wives and populate that planet.

IrishLDS

Jakkas, someone who I know on-line from elsewhere, asked me to post my 2 cents on this topic.

On the topic of how one is a "Christian," the Greek of the Book of Acts uses "Christianos," the -ianos ending meaning "partisan of," indicating the term means a follower of the Christ. Broadly, this would include anyone who acceptes Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), including "splinter-group" Christianity, such as Latter-day Saints ("Mormons").

PDN

<<I would say doctrine, rather than morality, would be the issue with the Mormons. For example, Mormonism teaches that God was once a mortal man who grew up into being God. This would appear to be incompatible with the Christian view of God as eternal.>>

The King Follett Discourse does state God having once been mortal, and as with Jesus, having experienced a “kenosis.” However, Joseph Smith qualified his statements in the KFD in that the Father’s mortality was that of the Sons (Marvin Hill, The essential Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1995), 235), suggesting that the Father was God before, during, and even after whatever Kenosis he experienced. He did not "[grow] up into being God."

<<Mormons also teach that Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer, rather than worshipping Jesus as God the Son.>>

The very Title Page of the Book of Mormon states that Jesus is the Christ, the eternal God. Furthermore, in LDS belief, we are all the spirit sons and daughters of God the Father. There is nothing sinister in us being all spirit brothers and sisters, though anti-Mormons such as Ron Rhodes makes a huge deal about it.

<<Well obviously not if they deny the Eternity of God and the full deity of Jesus Christ. These are not minor doctrines - they are essential to Christianity.>>

God the Father is eternal in LDS theology and Jesus is divine. Now, the Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the deity of Jesus, so perhaps this is where you are getting the belief that LDS reject Christ’s divinity.

See http://uk.geocities.com/irishlds87/mormons_and_god.pdf and Barry Bickmore’s review of arguments against LDS Christology at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=340

I deal with the arguments about the Father’s mortal phase and the question of how can be said to be “eternal” and “unchanging” as the Bible (and Book of Mormon) states God to be there.

Brian Calgary

<<Mormonism has also altered their theology on marriage over the years.>>

No. Critics claim that Celestial Marriage always was equated with polygamy (to be more correct, polygyny). However, D&C 132, the very revelatoin discussion plural marriage, equates Celestial Marriage many times between a man and a (indefinite article [singular]) woman (e.g., D&C 132:18). Polygyny was an extension to it, something that was practiced from 1831 to 1890, though in some parts, until 1904.

<<The book of mormon speaks of a civilisation existing in North America for which no archaelogical evidence exists.>>

For several decades now, LDS scholars have believed that the geography of the Book of Mormon is that of Mesoamerica (south Mexico and north Guatamala). The best resource on this issue is that of Dr. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985).

A lot of confusion has resulted over the location of the Hill Cumorah. Instead of discussing all the points of this topic, I suggest going through my review of Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine’s rather popular book, “Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons,” at http://uk.geocities.com/irishlds87/rhodes_bookofmormon.pdf

Also see a discussion of Book of Mormon evidences at www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

As for Joseph Smith and Freemasonry, a heck of a lot of critics on this vein charge Smith with plagiarising from Freemasonry to come up with the Temple. However, there are problems with such claims. Let us examine one of them -

Critics claim that Joseph Smith got the idea for a white veil in the temple from Royal Arch Masonry, which does use a white veil in its Royal Arch Degree.

Problem 1: Joseph Smith was NOT a Royal Arch Mason.

Problem 2: Joseph Smith had not seen the Royal Arch Degree.

Problem 3: People who were practicing Royal Arch Masons took their obligations seriously and did not disclose details of the rituals to non-Royal Arch Masons, particularly after the disappearance and alleged murder of William Morgan.

Problem 4: The Royal Arch Degree in America used and has, from the beginning, used FOUR veils in its ritual, through which the candidates must pass, blue, purple, scarlet, and white.

Problem 5: None of these have markings or places through which one may place one's hands and there is in no case any portion of said Degree where any act done at the veil in LDS temples is done there.

Much more could be said, of course, on these issues. Notwithstanding, I do hope that the following was of some use.

BrianCalgary

dan719 wrote:

Definition of irony. A semi-creationist who criticises someone for the lack of archaelogical evidence.

Not really, there is historical and Archaelogical evidence to support the life and deeds of Jesus as well as the characters of the Bible dating back to Abraham. So the events can be corroborated with archaelogical evidence, yet none exists for the Mormon civilisations.

Whereas creation and origin questions is a whole different branch of sciencesince there isn't human records to support or contradict either side of that debate.

philologos

Lets get this slightly more on topic.

If you were to make a list of what makes one Christian, what would you put down. That's what I'm really getting at, and after you have made that list, would you consider some of the Christian based faiths such as the LDS and Rastafarism to be still compatible with that list you've come up with.

Mine would be.

1. Acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
2. Viewing God as a triune being (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)*
3. Determination to lead ones life by the Laws given in the new covenant.
4. Believing that God has carried out miracles and has power over our lives.
5. Belief in a life after death.

That would be a rough five.

* This is debatable in relation to the Jehovahs Witnesses and other groups. So we should have an interesting discussion on this topic.

Zombrex

Surely a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

While you all might disagree in what those teachings are, ultimately that is irrelevant since you all believe that what you believe are the correct interpretation, and it is largely impossible when dealing with supernatural belief to demonstrate that you are right and they are wrong.

If someone defines 5 or 10 things that they think a Christian is, someone else might come up with their own 5 or 10 things that are different. The CLDS might claim none of you are proper Christians. How would you demonstrate they were wrong and you are correct.

Any system that draws on the supernatural to define belief will encounter this problem. The Mormons believe in the supernatural tales of their founder (the objection that there isn't any evidence for this belief is, as another poster pointed out, rather ridiculously ironic). Being supernatural it is impossible to demonstrate that these beliefs are not true. As such they believe in them as strongly as any of you guys, and more importantly you cannot demonstrate that they are wrong, you can simply say you don't share the belief.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote:

Lets get this slightly more on topic.

If you were to make a list of what makes one Christian, what would you put down. That's what I'm really getting at, and after you have made that list, would you consider some of the Christian based faiths such as the LDS and Rastafarism to be still compatible with that list you've come up with.

Mine would be.

1. Acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
2. Viewing God as a triune being (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)*
3. Determination to lead ones life by the Laws given in the new covenant.
4. Believing that God has carried out miracles and has power over our lives.
5. Belief in a life after death.

That would be a rough five.

* This is debatable in relation to the Jehovahs Witnesses and other groups. So we should have an interesting discussion on this topic.

To declare Jesus Christ died and was raised in 3 days. Also, I'm no JW, but I'm not a Christian in the eyes of most because of my belief in jesus being Gods Son, I.E. Father = God almighty. Jesus = His only begotten Son, to which all authority has been given by the father. Personally, I don't mind it. Religion always tries to say, 'we are better than you'. It would be great if people shared my view, or indeed called me a brother in the faith, but security comes from faith in Christ, not from men or religious organisations. Thank God it is his judgement I can look frward to and not Religions.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

But don't they follow by the same teachings as us in the Bible. (Fair enough they use the Joseph Smith translation of it but it can't be that different). It's not so much whether you believe in it. The question is do they classify as Christians?

Edit: I've been informed that the Mormons often use the King James version.

Joseph Smith read the religion out of a hat.

Mormonism is a con job that was designed to make money. People have made a relatively moral religion out of it thats fine (except maybe the post mortem conversions of everyone from Einstein to Charlie Chaplain).

Mormonism is a far cry from the Christianity you would recognise Jakkass believe me.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Surely a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

In that case a scientist could be someone who believes they are following the principles of science. So I am a scientist after all.

Incidentally, up until about 30 or 40 years ago Mormons themselves used to insist that they were not Christians, and that all Christian denominations and churches were corrupt and in error.

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

Lets get this slightly more on topic.

If you were to make a list of what makes one Christian, what would you put down. That's what I'm really getting at, and after you have made that list, would you consider some of the Christian based faiths such as the LDS and Rastafarism to be still compatible with that list you've come up with.

Mine would be.

1. Acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
2. Viewing God as a triune being (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)*
3. Determination to lead ones life by the Laws given in the new covenant.
4. Believing that God has carried out miracles and has power over our lives.
5. Belief in a life after death.

That would be a rough five.

* This is debatable in relation to the Jehovahs Witnesses and other groups. So we should have an interesting discussion on this topic.

I think that true Christianity must be more than just intellectual belief, but also must be more than simply adhering to middle-class morality. Christianity involves both believing and being. There is room for an amazing diversity of belief & practice within Christianity - but I would suggest that the following are absolutely essential.

1. Faith in Jesus Christ as one's Saviour due to His death on the Cross.
2. Belief in one eternal God who is the Creator of all things (but not necessarily excluding the possibility of creation by evolution).
3. Belief in the full deity of Jesus Christ (but not necessarily accepting the Trinity)
4. Abstaining from the practicing of behaviour identified by Scripture as totally incompatible with Christianity (murder, theft, idolatry, witchcraft, sexual immorality etc).
5. Possessing a genuine desire to follow Christ's teachings.

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

I think that true Christianity must be more than just intellectual belief, but also must be more than simply adhering to middle-class morality. Christianity involves both believing and being. There is room for an amazing diversity of belief & practice within Christianity - but I would suggest that the following are absolutely essential.

1. Faith in Jesus Christ as one's Saviour due to His death on the Cross.
2. Belief in one eternal God who is the Creator of all things (but not necessarily excluding the possibility of creation by evolution).
3. Belief in the full deity of Jesus Christ (but not necessarily accepting the Trinity)
4. Abstaining from the practicing of behaviour identified by Scripture as totally incompatible with Christianity (murder, theft, idolatry, witchcraft, sexual immorality etc).
5. Possessing a genuine desire to follow Christ's teachings.

What exactly does point 3 mean? Is accepting that Jesus as an equal to his Father, not accepting the trinity doctrine?

PDN

JimiTime wrote:

What exactly does point 3 mean? Is accepting that Jesus as an equal to his Father, not accepting the trinity doctrine?

Not necessarily, there are some 'Oneness' or 'Jesus Only' groups who hold to a form of modalism, or Sabellianism. These teach that the one true God is called by different names when he operates in particular ways. When he created the word he was called the Father, when he came to earth he was called the Son, and when he inspires us today he is called the Spirit. They use the analogy of one substance (water) appearing in 3 different modes (water, ice or steam).

Modalism was officially condemned as a heresy during the Christological controversies of the Second and Third Centuries. I would consider those who hold this view to be in error, but still to be true Christians nevertheless.

philologos

points 3 and 2 conflict with eachother. How can God be one if Jesus is also divine if you don't accept the Trinity.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Surely a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

As IrishLDS has posted Christian means a partisan of Christ if you take it from the Greek used in Acts. Hopefully he'll come back on at some point to address any more inaccuracies people have about the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

In that case a scientist could be someone who believes they are following the principles of science. So I am a scientist after all.

As I went on to explain the difference is of course that because religion is based on the supernatural belief, and as such unverifiable

Religion in essence shoots itself in the foot when it comes to trying define itself in any meaningful way, because ultimately to be a religion in the first place it is open to the undefinable supernatural.

Something like science draws its authority to say something is or is not science from the collective standards of the scientific community. This authority can be argued against, and is required to justify and explain itself.

Religion on the other hand draws its authority from a untestable supernatural source, namely a supernatural deity.

If you claimed to be a scientists I could say "Well you aren't a scientists because you don't follow A, B, C, which have been defined by the scientific community as requirements to follow science"

You can of course challenge that, say that I'm wrong that you do follow ABC, or that C isn't necessary etc etc. It is possible to verify who is correct, you simply ask everyone else. Because the authority is grounded in reality in the first place it is easy to verify it.

If though this was a religion then there is no way to verify who is correct, since you would go away and ask your god, I would go away and ask my god, and it is impossible to tell who's god is actually correct. Even if one said that the community itself can establish by group consensus a definition this is not authority in of itself, it is simply a proxy. The group consensus can be wrong, ultimately the authority rests with God (unlike science, which is a human concept and therefore gains it authority solely from humans themselves)

Which is why the only sensible way to look at it is to say that a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus, because it is impossible to verify in any meaningful way if they actually are or not following the teachings of Jesus.

At least until he returns of course

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

Surely a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

As IrishLDS has posted Christian means a partisan of Christ if you take it from the Greek used in Acts.

I think what Wicknight is getting at is the distinction between teachings by Jesus, and teachings about Jesus.

An atheist may accept many of the teachings by Jesus as important, but dismiss the teachings about Jesus as mythologising. His view might simply be that Jesus was a good moral teacher (thereby running himself into the arms of Lewis' trilemma, of course).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jesus wrote:

I think what Wicknight is getting at is the distinction between teachings by Jesus, and teachings about Jesus.

It is also important to remember the context in which Jesus taught.

Jesus' teachings cannot be really separated from the supernatural element of the concept of sin and God's love/punishment. That is the why behind all of Jesus' teachings. Jesus didn't teach what he did because it was considered simply a good idea, it was taught in the context of God tells you to do this, this is Gods way In fact questioning exactly why one should do such and such was discouraged. It is not the place of the Christian to question, simply to follow, since God cannot be wrong so questioning is ultimately pointless.

So while an atheists might be in agreement that some (a lot?) of what Jesus taught is a good idea, the reason why it is a good idea tends to be quite different.

Anyway, that is getting a bit off topic.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote:

Mormonism is a con job that was designed to make money. People have made a relatively moral religion out of it thats fine (except maybe the post mortem conversions of everyone from Einstein to Charlie Chaplain).

Generally when people make statements like this one, they give reasons why.

BrianCalgary

Originally Posted by Wicknight
Surely a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Therefore JC is a scientist because he believes he is following the scientific method in all of his studies?

Christianity is more than believing in Jesus. It is also a commitment to put your life in His hands.

Jesus puts it nicely when He says that loving God with all your heart soul and mind, and your neighbour as yourself as the keys to leading a Christian life.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

In fact questioning exactly why one should do such and such was discouraged. It is not the place of the Christian to question, simply to follow, since God cannot be wrong so questioning is ultimately pointless.

So while an atheists might be in agreement that some (a lot?) of what Jesus taught is a good idea, the reason why it is a good idea tends to be quite different.

Anyway, that is getting a bit off topic.

Completely wrong here wicknight, Christianity and indeed Jesus instructs us to seek out the truth.

Job, questioned God on why He was doing what He was doing. Jesus disciples questioned Him on what He was up to.

God is there to be questioned and discovered and know.

One of teh reasons Jesus came to earth is so that we may come to see and know the Father.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Which is why the only sensible way to look at it is to say that a Christian is someone who believes they are following the teachings of Jesus, because it is impossible to verify in any meaningful way if they actually are or not following the teachings of Jesus.

At least until he returns of course

Actually you can know if you are following the teachings of Jesus. If you demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit as spelled out in Galatians 3:22-23 then you are living a Christian life.

If you don't demonstrate these fruits then there is work to do.

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

Religion on the other hand draws its authority from a untestable supernatural source, namely a supernatural deity.

Not true. Religion draws its authority from people's belief that the supernatural deity they've been told to believe exists actually does exist. And since belief is a human property, religion's authority is believed to be there whether or not the deity exists to back it up. Schematically, it's identical to money which only has authority if everybody believes it has.

Reality simply doesn't get a look-in.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Not true. Religion draws its authority from people's belief that the supernatural deity they've been told to believe exists actually does exist. And since belief is a human property, religion's authority is believed to be there whether or not the deity exists to back it up. Schematically, it's identical to money which only has authority if everybody believes it has.

And which is what makes the world go round....apparently.

Indeed, any atheist who believes that the power of belief can be easily tamed should find the power of fiat money (which is to say, money backed by no assets except belief and authority, which is what virtually every modern currency is) a sobering thought.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

any atheist who believes that the power of belief can be easily tamed

Not sure if I follow your logic above, but I don't know many people who believe that the power of belief can be easily tamed in large quantities unless you're a Benny Hinn or a Uri Geller. But despite the difficulty of taming it, the use of taming it is undeniable as the millions employed worldwide in sustaining religion will testify as adequately as the millions employed in currency exchange, for example.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Therefore JC is a scientist because he believes he is following the scientific method in all of his studies?

I refer you to my reply to him about the difference between a classification that draws its authority from humanity (and therefore can be tested) and classification that draws (or at least claims to draw) its authority from a supernatural deity (which cannot).

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity is more than believing in Jesus. It is also a commitment to put your life in His hands.

Isn't that what following the teachings of Jesus means, since Jesus taught that people should put their lives in his hands?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus puts it nicely when He says that loving God with all your heart soul and mind, and your neighbour as yourself as the keys to leading a Christian life.

I'm pretty sure Jesus never uses the term "Christian" in the Bible

BrianCalgary wrote:

Completely wrong here wicknight, Christianity and indeed Jesus instructs us to seek out the truth.

The Creationism thread suggests otherwise, as does every time yourself or other Christians here have said something along the lines of "I don't know exactly why God would do this, but I have faith in his infinite wisdom and morality" Which to be honest seems like every second day (and I've a feeling that this thread is heading that way fast)

I cannot count the number of times the only response I've gotten on an issue such as genocide in the Bible, or homosexuality, is that I shouldn't be so arrogant to question God and his perfect decisions. And no one here has ever provided an explanation for anything from God beyond quoting an interpretation of the Bible.

BrianCalgary wrote:

God is there to be questioned and discovered and know.

Well I assume that since I don't know God I cannot question him. Can you ask God a question for me? And can he answer in a way that it is possible to verify that it is actually God answering and not you?

That would be great if you can ....

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Not true. Religion draws its authority from people's belief that the supernatural deity they've been told to believe exists actually does exist.

Well true, but the followers don't realise this.

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

Well true, but the followers don't realise this.

It's curious that people who spend so much time supporting one belief or another don't seem to understand what a "belief" is, nor how it works in the philosophical sense.

neuro-praxis

Scofflaw wrote:

An atheist may accept many of the teachings by Jesus as important, but dismiss the teachings about Jesus as mythologising. His view might simply be that Jesus was a good moral teacher (thereby running himself into the arms of Lewis' trilemma, of course).

The problem that atheist must struggle with is that the teachings by Jesus are passed on to us by a community of people who themselves are not Jesus. Thus all teachings "by" Jesus (almost inevitably the ones that fit in nicely with the prevailing moral and philosophical winds of the day) cannot be distinguished from the teachings "about" Jesus (almost inevitably any of the statements that cause us to pause).

It's curious that people who spend so much time supporting one belief or another don't seem to understand what a "belief" is, nor how it works in the philosophical sense, and how one arrives at it.

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

The problem that atheist must struggle with is that the teachings by Jesus are passed on to us by a community of people who themselves are not Jesus. Thus all teachings "by" Jesus (almost inevitably the ones that fit in nicely with the prevailing moral and philosophical winds of the day) cannot be distinguished from the teachings "about" Jesus (almost inevitably any of the statements that cause us to pause).

I don't think that is quite what Scofflaw meant.

He is talking about the difference between, say, the teaching that one should do to others as they would do to you, with the teaching that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead.

To accept the first as being a good idea it is not necessary to accept the second as being true, at least for an atheist.

While you are correct that both teachings come from the same source, that is not an issue for atheists since we have the advantage of being able to disregard which ever of the teachings appears to be illogical or nonsense. There is no requirement that all of it be true for it to mean something.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I don't think that is quite what Scofflaw meant.

He is talking about the difference between, say, the teaching that one should do to others as they would do to you, with the teaching that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead.

To accept the first as being a good idea it is not necessary to accept the second as being true, at least for an atheist.

While you are correct that both teachings come from the same source, that is not an issue for atheists since we have the advantage of being able to disregard which ever of the teachings appears to be illogical or nonsense. There is no requirement that all of it be true for it to mean something.

But since Jesus himself taught that he was the Son of God, and frequently foretold his own resurrection, then these can hardly be classed as teachings "about Jesus" as opposed to teachings "by Jesus". Maybe it would be more accurate to contrast "teachings by Jesus with which I agree" to "teachings by Jesus with which I disagree".

the resurrection witnessed by a few loyal followers only...

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

the resurrection witnessed by a few loyal followers only...

500 witnesses at one time. Not bad IMHO.

PDN

PDN wrote:

500 witnesses at one time. Not bad IMHO.

still loyal followers though? any skeptics?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

But since Jesus himself taught that he was the Son of God, and frequently foretold his own resurrection, then these can hardly be classed as teachings "about Jesus" as opposed to teachings "by Jesus".

I would agree with that assessment, as I said here

Wicknight wrote:

Jesus' teachings cannot be really separated from the supernatural element of the concept of sin and God's love/punishment. That is the why behind all of Jesus' teachings. Jesus didn't teach what he did because it was considered simply a good idea, it was taught in the context of God tells you to do this, this is Gods way In fact questioning exactly why one should do such and such was discouraged. It is not the place of the Christian to question, simply to follow, since God cannot be wrong so questioning is ultimately pointless.

This though applies more for the definition of a "Christian", than to atheists. Atheists can pick and choose what they decide to follow, but a "Christian" by definition is supposed to follow all that Jesus/God taught.

The issue of course is that lots of people have different ideas of what they think Jesus/God taught, and therefore what it actually means to be a Christian, from the Protestants who turn only to the Bible, to the Catholics who believe Jesus bestowed power to the Pope and the Church, to people like the Mormons who believe that Smith discovered a book from the ancient Hebrews who settled in America. in the 7st century BCE.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

500 witnesses at one time. Not bad IMHO.

If I remember my Bible correctly no one witnessed the resurrection, since it is supposed to have happened in a sealed cave.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

still loyal followers though? any skeptics?

I would be impressed if there was any evidence that any of these 500 actually existed. All we have is Paul's claim that Jesus appeared to 500 "brothers"

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

I would be impressed if there was any evidence that any of these 500 actually existed. All we have is Paul's claim that Jesus appeared to 500 "brothers"

the paul who never met jesus?

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

the paul who never met jesus?

Thats the one

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

Generally when people make statements like this one, they give reasons why.

Um ... a religion read out of a hat by a convicted fellon? Signing people up to mormonism AFTER they die?

Scientology is only worse because they get violent and scary.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I'm pretty sure Jesus never uses the term "Christian" in the Bible....

That's irrelevant. Jesus instructions are for all mankind. The term Christian is a man made one and is appopriate as a name for His followers.

Wicknight wrote:

The Creationism thread suggests otherwise, as does every time yourself or other Christians here have said something along the lines of "I don't know exactly why God would do this, but I have faith in his infinite wisdom and morality" Which to be honest seems like every second day (and I've a feeling that this thread is heading that way fast)....

That is because for some things there are no ready answers. We try to give you explanations, yet you refuse to acknowledge how any of them could even possibly be correct.

Wicknight wrote:

I cannot count the number of times the only response I've gotten on an issue such as genocide in the Bible, or homosexuality, is that I shouldn't be so arrogant to question God and his perfect decisions. And no one here has ever provided an explanation for anything from God beyond quoting an interpretation of the Bible. )....

That is because you are not listening to the explanation. Let me make it simple: God was removing evil people from the face of the planet. People who murdered babies by sacrificing them in fire and then performed orgies on the latars that were put up to worship teh Ba'als.

Wicknight wrote:

Well I assume that since I don't know God I cannot question him. Can you ask God a question for me? And can he answer in a way that it is possible to verify that it is actually God answering and not you?

That would be great if you can ....

yes, we ask the questions, He answers, it is verifiable through testing the answer to scripture.

I will be more than happy to ask Him anything you like, He's a good friend of mine, I chat with Him often. The question is: are you prepared to listen to the answers?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

If I remember my Bible correctly no one witnessed the resurrection, since it is supposed to have happened in a sealed cave.

The 500 witnessed the risen Christ.

When Paul wrote his letter his comment is inviting those that don't believe him to go ask any of the over 500 who did.

He was providing corroborative witnesses to the event. On teh other hand there is no evidence from that period contrary to the events of teh Bible.

Yes Paul did meet Christ, on teh road to Emmaus.

where does it say that about meeting him, can't find on google
most people say otherwise...

Tar.Aldarion

Didn't they meet on the road to damascus or something - saul