Definition of Christian

[TSherbs]

moved over from another thread:

I am being honest, but it is not what you want to hear, Ted.

This is quite wrong. I don't "want" anything here. You misunderstand my disagreement with what you say as a form of "wanting" you to say something else. I don't want you to say anything other than what you think. Please don't misunderstand my disagreement with your ideas with wanting you to change them. I don't care at all whether you change your ideas or not.

Suggesting that Jesus didn't care what his disciples did or thought...

This is the kind of thing that I call dishonest. I did not suggest this. I did not mention Jesus. I referred to the Apostles' Creed, the oldest, most traditional profession of faith in Christian history. I reread it before I made my last post to be sure that I had it right (I had to memorize it as part of my confirmation process). These statements, according to the church fathers of the time, were the core values and statements that defined a Christian believer. I did not say and would never say that "Jesus did not care what his disciples did or thought." But the topic is whether it is fair or even accurate to decide that sinners, even great ones, can't be called "Christian." Again, my point was that if sinners cannot be classified as "Christian" if they commit sin, then there are no Christians at all on the planet. And that seems absurd as a founding premise of a world-wide faith.

[Chuck Naill]

Perhaps we are talking over each other, Ted. I have no agenda or wish to take away your individuality to think as you wish to think. I will not push or presume I have any understanding of your experiences. I realize that I didn't come to my understanding against my will.

What I will do is use the scriptures to respond because that is my sole authority, plus my experiences and stufy. If I use a writer, it will be because they refer to a scripture.

Since 2013, I have been focused on the idea of discipleship/apprenticeship with Jesus. The 2015 Evangelical debacle with Trump made me so angry that I could hardly stand it. As the scriptures say, "the anger of man will not produce the righteousness of God", so I've changed my mind and choose to focus on not being anything other than a disciple of Jesus.

I do think that the idea that Jesus gave of being able to get in on what Jesus is doing right now as a very provocative and positive idea.

[TSherbs]

Your emphasis on scripture suggests (logically) that you trust the accuracy of the text in reporting things that this man Jesus actually said during his lifetime. Am I right in assuming that you consider the scriptures to be accurate records of Jesus' sayings?

[Chuck Naill]

Your emphasis on scripture suggests (logically) that you trust the accuracy of the text in reporting things that this man Jesus actually said during his lifetime. Am I right in assuming that you consider the scriptures to be accurate records of Jesus' sayings?

Of course logically, but also why, logically not?

[TSherbs]

Your emphasis on scripture suggests (logically) that you trust the accuracy of the text in reporting things that this man Jesus actually said during his lifetime. Am I right in assuming that you consider the scriptures to be accurate records of Jesus' sayings?

Of course logically, but also why, logically not?

Why not what? Why not logically "trust" them?

If this is what you mean, well, I assume that you could answer that yourself, really. Rather than go through every "reason" that people doubt the stories of the Bible, I'll just mention this one category: miracles. There is no logical reason to accept as accurate the tellings of a series of stories that include "miraculous" events beyond the laws of nature. From the creation stories of Adam and Eve, to the lives and actions of the prophets, to the submerging of the planet in water from just 40 days of rain, to the virgin birth of Jesus, to water, wine, exorcisms, raising of the dead, wilting of trees, rolling away of the rock, and visions of epiphany, these miraculous tales logically suggest legend and mythology not an accurate history of the words and actions of persons who lived from 3000 years ago (or some such, maybe more) to 2000 years ago.

All the other logical and evidentiary reasons for doubting the accuracy of the material of the gospels and other NT writings I will leave to you to explore, if you are interested. I recommend the writings of John Dominic Crossan for a very thorough look at Biblical attestation and accuracy studies.

[TSherbs]

Who's the dufus that put these bullshit tags on some of these threads?

[Chuck Naill]

I’m fairly familiar with the revisionists, Ted. Why bring them up? Why would you think agnostics and atheists are going to provide you with an objective source? Would an antivaxer ever provide you with a reason to get vaccinated?

[TSherbs]

I’m fairly familiar with the revisionists, Ted. Why bring them up?

Simply because you asked me. Here:

Of course logically, but also why, logically not?

[Chuck Naill]

We all take various paths to discover what we choose to believe. I have not found the revisionists or accommodationists to be logical because they begin with the end in mind. Some had a bad experience as with Ehrman. Or some try to make them into a modern American liberal message. Once I know there is an agenda, they do not become a reliable source.

The New Testament books begin two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, the letters of Paul (Romans 50 AD) and his gospel message is consistent with what the four gospels say. What is paramount for me is can I experience what Paul says the disciple would experience. No one can answer that for anyone else. It is a matter of deciding to take a path and giving it enough attention.

Like you, I grew up in this and that made it easy to think I understood when I didn't. It was blind faith for many years. It was only when I made a decision to find out for myself that I began to see and experience more.

As I said before, anyone can call themselves a Christian, but not everyone can call themselves a disciple or apprentice. Not everyone even wants to. The are content with what they have and that is their chose. I make no negative judgement. Free will must be respected. It is just like when we were discussing the pandemic recommendations. I don't think either of us every wanted people forced to do something that didn't want to do.

[TSherbs]

.... Once I know there is an agenda, they do not become a reliable source.

What do you mean by "reliable"? It may be that we disagree on what this word means, but I don't know. Could you explain what you mean by it since you used it here?

[Chuck Naill]

.... Once I know there is an agenda, they do not become a reliable source.

What do you mean by "reliable"? It may be that we disagree on what this word means, but I don't know. Could you explain what you mean by it since you used it here?

Reliable in the sense that I discover information that leads me suspect their writings are not useful in my case. For example one writer introduced the idea of "misremembering" as a way to question the reliability of the New Testament writers. Of course, misremembering does occur, but it does not necessarily occur. I am often amazed by politicians who write a memoir where they have such detailed accounts of what they said or what someone else said.

I have to attempt to reduce confirmation biases in my search for something I can employ in my life. This is where experience comes in for me. If I experience a healing, mentally, physically, or otherwise, and this is something I decide to do because Jesus said it, it allows me to proceed and consider other teachings. This is the same skill I employ for other interests. If I want to learn to play golf, I read and listen to people who play golf. I remember reading Ben Hogan's book Five Lessons. I never considered he had misremembered. Why would I? I felt he was a reliable source to learn by because he had played the game and had success.

[TSherbs]

.... Once I know there is an agenda, they do not become a reliable source.

What do you mean by "reliable"? It may be that we disagree on what this word means, but I don't know. Could you explain what you mean by it since you used it here?

Reliable in the sense that I discover information that leads me suspect their writings are not useful in my case.

Yes, as I thought, we don't mean the same thing at all.

I am only commenting on the "reliability" of whether the words and deeds of the man named Jesus actually would have matched up with a documentary video recording of Jesus when he was alive (of one could have been made). That is a whole different kind of meaning of the word from what you mean.

As far as I am aware, Crossan is 5he one who has done the most scholarly work on trying to assess this without falling back on the non-academic "It's the Bible, therefore it's true" kind of "reasoning."

[Chuck Naill]

.... Once I know there is an agenda, they do not become a reliable source.

What do you mean by "reliable"? It may be that we disagree on what this word means, but I don't know. Could you explain what you mean by it since you used it here?

Reliable in the sense that I discover information that leads me suspect their writings are not useful in my case.

Yes, as I thought, we don't mean the same thing at all.

I am only commenting on the "reliability" of whether the words and deeds of the man named Jesus actually would have matched up with a documentary video recording of Jesus when he was alive (of one could have been made). That is a whole different kind of meaning of the word from what you mean.

As far as I am aware, Crossan is 5he one who has done the most scholarly work on trying to assess this without falling back on the non-academic "It's the Bible, therefore it's true" kind of "reasoning."

The key is "as far as I am aware". Perhaps you have decided Crossan's work is reliable because you think it is scholarly. How much of his work have you read and compared to other views? Have your studies been thorough? Among those who disagree with him, are they also scholars?

For an experiment disregard the entire canon except of the letter Paul wrote to the Romans which was written circa 50 AD. There is no reason to automatically decide that it is inspired or anything different from any other ancient document. Just read it as a letter to the believers in Rome. What is the purpose of the letter and what knowledge does it provide that anyone 20 years after the crucifixion would find important. Put yourself in their situation.

[TSherbs]

... the letter Paul wrote to the Romans which was written circa 50 AD.

Maybe.

We have no manuscript from Paul from 50 AD. There is no manuscript of anything in Paul's handwriting, nor anything from when he would have lived. The earliest complete Pauline letter dates from about 300AD, and he obviously did not write that. There are some earlier fragments, the oldest being from 150AD in Egypt.

[TSherbs]

One of the earliest "gospels" is that of Thomas, which is a compilation of the sayings of Jesus. No miracles, no life story, no apostles, death or resurrection. Some folks take this as the likely most "authentic" of records of the teachings of Jesus, but no one takes them as a verbatim record. The early church elders a few hundred years later decides that they are "non-canonical," but this is for reasons other than whether they were accurate or not or early or not. Some of the fragments extant today date from as early as 150AD. That's pretty early! That still doesn't mean that Jesus actually said these things, even though about 80% of them appear in one or more of the 4 canonical gospels. The first complete extant gospel of Thomas is from about 300 AD. So again, not great evidence of historical accuracy.

[TSherbs]

I once did similar reading on the history of the manuscripts of The Odyssey. Very interesting. The same questions arise: did Odysseus ever actually live, did he ever actually do or say things like in the text, how old are the earliest manuscripts, and how "reliable" do we judge them to be in revealing the answers to any of these questions? The story of Odysseus is older than that of Jesus, but not older than that of Moses. Which story, from the evidence, is likely to be more reliable as accurate?

[Chuck Naill]

... the letter Paul wrote to the Romans which was written circa 50 AD.

Maybe.

We have no manuscript from Paul from 50 AD. There is no manuscript of anything in Paul's handwriting, nor anything from when he would have lived. The earliest complete Pauline letter dates from about 300AD, and he obviously did not write that. There are some earlier fragments, the oldest being from 150AD in Egypt.

Your maybe indicates that you don’t know, which is perfectly understood.

What I would like to focus on is the message and how it is consistent with the four gospel book written at different times to a different audience.

My interest has always been, does this work. Does what the text say line up with my experience.

If we were reading a book by David Brooks on Character, we would want to learn if what he said was accurate.

[TSherbs]

One of the earliest "gospels" is that of Thomas, which is a compilation of the sayings of Jesus. No miracles, no life story, no apostles, death or resurrection. Some folks take this as the likely most "authentic" of records of the teachings of Jesus, but no one takes them as a verbatim record. The early church elders a few hundred years later decides that they are "non-canonical," but this is for reasons other than whether they were accurate or not or early or not. Some of the fragments extant today date from as early as 150AD. That's pretty early! That still doesn't mean that Jesus actually said these things, even though about 80% of them appear in one or more of the 4 canonical gospels. The first complete extant gospel of Thomas is from about 300 AD. So again, not great evidence of historical accuracy.

... the letter Paul wrote to the Romans which was written circa 50 AD.

Maybe.

We have no manuscript from Paul from 50 AD. There is no manuscript of anything in Paul's handwriting, nor anything from when he would have lived. The earliest complete Pauline letter dates from about 300AD, and he obviously did not write that. There are some earlier fragments, the oldest being from 150AD in Egypt.

Your maybe indicates that you don’t know, which is perfectly understood.

What I would like to focus on is the message and how it is consistent with the four gospel book written at different times to a different audience.

My interest has always been, does this work. Does what the text say line up with my experience.

If we were reading a book by David Brooks on Character, we would want to learn if what he said was accurate.

Cool. Have at it. Good luck with your endeavor.

If the topic comes back to title or one of these other non-personal topics about the definition of Christian or the provenance of biblical texts, I'll come back.

[Chuck Naill]

Okay, Ted.

[Chuck Naill]

This post isn't to respond to anyone, but since my conversation with Ted has ended, I am more able to provide some experiences that I have had recently. After many years on this path, I realized some years ago that something was missing. I allowed myself to get distracted at times. What should have been obvious by a simple reading of what Jesus said had escaped me.

Jesus intended for people to be free to decide if they wanted to follow him. He instructed those that did to make disciples. These disciples were invited to get in on what he and the father were doing. In the prayer he gave as a template, he said, "your kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth, as it is in the heavens". This says to me that God has allowed people to do as they wish, without pressure to either partner with him or not.

I've also come to see the laws he gave to Moses as the best prescription of mankind to live, and that what is behind those rules is love, the same type of love a parent extends to their child when they set parameters for safe living. As Paul said, "father's don't exasperate your children, but bring them up in training and instruction of the Lord. This tells me that God's intent is not to exasperate me. And, I am not to impose these upon others.

In his letter to the disciples in Rome Paul wrote "For this, you shalt not commit adultery, you shalt not kill, you shalt not steal, you shalt not bear false witness, you shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, you shalt love your neighbor as thyself. Love does not do evil toward his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.