An attempt to define Christianity.

[peruban]

I have read a few threads here where the term Christianity has been tried to be defined in all sorts of ways using all sorts of different details to explain many different aspects of Christianity. I would like the opportunity to provide a definition.

Christianity is a very broad term which, even among those who consider themselves Christians, is difficult to summarize and define. You will see many differing scriptural citations and all sorts of conflicting proclamations of belief. There are, however, basic underlying principles that allow for us to define an essential doctrine of belief they all share which can be called Christianity.

First, everything I am about to write can be easily found on the web. I researched the issue for myself and have also encountered different forms of Christianity throughout my life. Let me provide you with a few readily found resources which you can use to research this issue for yourself if you’d like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/religion/christianity/christianity.html

There many more websites which describe more specific detail regarding different denominations, but I consider these resources to be sufficiently objective in their presentation of the general concepts.

I will now summarize for you in my own words and with the help of my own experiences:

One of the best ways to approach the definition of what Christianity is, is to consider its historical development. Christianity has developed over the last 2000 years or so into something between four to six basic groups.

The first phase of Christianity was very chaotic and many different stories were told and many different precepts were held. Since it was not actually a separate religion at first but an offshoot or sect of Judaism there was much debate on many essential ideas such as the question of the divinity of Jesus, specific tenants of faith, the whether it justified a new covenant with God so on. In its beginnings Christianity resembled many other well established cults or religions at the time such as Mithraism, Zoroastrism, and Buddhism. Many of these other faiths also posited a belief in a one God, and that God offers mankind salvation so this was not a novel concept at the time. The teachings of Christianity were spread with the help of the apostles, such as Paul during his documented travels to Rome.

According to scripture, an official leader was chosen by Jesus to carry on his message and the Roman Catholic papacy derives its lineage from this first leader, the apostle Peter. The Roman Catholic Church was the first attempt at a universal definition of Christianity was established in the mid fourth century when the Emperor Constantine legalized it and Emperor Theodosius made it the official religion of the Roman Empire about 70 years later. This was the first official declaration of general Christianity and it was defined in the First Council of Nicene in 325. Most of the original tenets are still held among most followers.

The next change occurred during the decline of the Western Roman Empire in which Christianity was split in two with Roman Catholicism identifying with the Roman Papacy in the Western empire and the Orthodox faiths splintered off in the Eastern, or Byzantine, half. The Orthodox faiths broke up mainly into regionally separate, but united communities. They did not derive their authority from the Roman papacy but, instead, relied on regional hierarchies of bishops, archbishops and councils.

The next wave of Christianity was the Protestant Reformation, generally attributed to the act of Martin Luther posting his 95 thesis on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany in 1512. His protest was that of the authority and corruption within the Roman Catholic Church. This began a wave of splintering off in the West which continues to this day in the various forms of Christianity; including Anglicans, Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians and practically hundreds of other separate faiths, including those referred to as fundies and "non-denominational". These are generally referred to as Protestant Christianity, though they are comprised of many differing details and teachings.

Now that we have established the different forms of Christianity we can try to abstract a basic set of principles:

- There is only one God and he first revealed himself to Abraham, the founder of the Jewish religion
- The name of this God is given in the Hebrew scriptures and is spelled with the Hebrew letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei, or generally translated into the Romanic letters YHVH. This name is also referred to as the tetragrammaton and I provide an image below.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Tetragrammaton_scripts.svg

Since the Biblical Hebrew alphabet does not contain vowels, the certainty of the vowels used is a debated topic but the name is generally pronounced in English as ‘Jehovah’ with the Y being pronounced as J due to the Greek sources and their pronunciation of the letter Y.
- There once lived a man named Jesus who was born a Jew
- There was a Jewish virgin woman named Mary who was visited by a messenger of God named Gabriel
- Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive and bear a child despite her virginity
- Mary took a man named Joseph as her husband and he was aware of her immaculate conception, he served as Jesus' physical father and was a carpenter.
- This man Jesus was born immaculately by Mary in a manger in the town of Bethlehem
- Three wise men from the East bearing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh arrived at the time of Jesus' birth and proclaimed him the prophesied king of the Jews
- A man known as King Herod heard of the wise men's proclamation of the birth of the king of the Jews and ordered the killing of all male children under a certain age
- Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to protect their son and they remained there until Herod's death before settling in the town of Nazareth
- This man Jesus was and is the son of God
- Jesus was told he was the son of god in his early thirties by a messenger of God in the form of a bird
- Jesus was baptized with water, a common practice held by many other faiths, by a man known as John the Baptist who recognized Jesus as the Jewish messiah
- Jesus performed various miracles and supernatural acts
- The New Testament is the story of the life and teachings of Jesus and the early beginnings of the faith as well as an establishment of a new covenant with man and is considered to conclude events prophesied in the Old Testament.
- Jesus was the Jewish messiah prophesied in Judaism
- Jesus taught about a new covenant with the Jewish God and extended this new covenant to the gentiles, no longer exclusively to Jews
- Jesus traveled and taught a message of compassion for one's fellow man and nonviolence for about three or four years and developed a group of followers known as apostles
- Jesus was accused of heresy and deemed a threat by the local Jewish authorities, known as Pharisees, who appealed to the Roman government for punishment
- He was sentenced to torture and death under a Roman bureaucrat named Pontious Pilate who gave the local Jewish community an opportunity to pardon one man sentenced to death and gave the choice of Jesus or a man named Barabus who was accused of killing a Roman soldier
- The local Jewish community chose to set Barabus free instead of Jesus
- Jesus was tortured mercilessly and killed slowly and painfully by the Romans in a humiliating public setting by being nailed to wooden torture device
- Three days after his death, he was resurrected from his tomb and appeared to numerous apostles
- Jesus commanded his followers to spread his message and commemorate his death in this new covenant with God
- The are such things as righteousness, and wickedness; the prescribed goal is to follow the path of righteousness, which pleases God, and avoid wickedness, considered sin, or an offense against God
- The new covenant with God allows for the forgiveness of sin if we are sincere and our intentions are pure
- The new covenant requires a ceremonial initiation of baptism with water, as Jesus was given
- Jesus will return some day in some form to rid the world of wickedness and suffering and bring about a new age of man
- The following of Jesus' teachings is rewarded with the promise of an afterlife

I think that's about it. I believe these statements can be said to be considered universal and commonly shared among the different sects of Christianity, since there are such varying differences in detail. I worded things specifically to try to avoid excluding any Christian sects that I am familiar with. I hope this helps with the understanding of Christianity as a religion. Please feel free to ask any questions I may not have addressed, but also please keep in mind that I am trying to achieve the broadest general sense of Christianity as a religion.

[dmallind]

1. Good job

But after all that (and I'm not one to criticize wordiness obviously!) you seem to agree with the contention that Christianity is about accepting certain beliefs and holding them to be true, correct? That's your list of bulleted statements, right? The initial history ios more for context I think, and useful for that. But unless I'm mistaken your actual definition of a Christian is someone who accepts those commonly shared universal ideas.

I agree with that entirely, and could not have done any better. Probably worse. Now to be clear that means I agree with your definition, and with your list of universal requisite beliefs as those which are shared by Christians. I certainly don;t agree that the statements are true. I could quibble with the idea of Jesus' bodily return being universal maybe. It's certainly not universally stressed or a focus like it is for the rapture crowd for sure. But it's not anything I'd worry about.

So then do I assume right that you yourself completely eschew the no true soctsman fallacy and recommend that other believers do likewise? That acceptable or pleasant behavior is in no way definitional of a Christian and that downright nastiness as seen by most of us is in no way indicative that someone is NOT a true Christian? Remember that even those who behave objectionably usually THINK they are behaving righteously, and so anything objectionable is a matter then of either sin on the part of a genuine Christian or doctrinal dispute over whether it is objectionable in the first place?

[peruban]

13. You are asking things still under debate within the Christian community itself.

Not universalities.

[dmallind]

19. I thought I was referring to YOUR universalities

You don't list behavior among them, so at least to you is it not then something I can infer that you consider behavior to not be a universal prerequisite to be a Christian?

[peruban]

22. Behavior is included in the following of Christs' teachings.

The specifics of those teachings, however, are still under debate within the Christian community itself.

[dmallind]

27. Sorry but there is a difference - you stated that Jesus TAUGHT behavior

and assuming anyone believes Jesus taught at all, then he certainly did if the gospels are any guide.

However the way you said it implied to me at least that the universality for Xians is that they should believe that Jesus taught us to love our neighbors and seek righteousness rather than sin, etc.

I saw nothing there to indicate you deemed it necessary for Christians to actually successfully follow these teachings.

This is a key distinction. I believe that people should help the needy. However I do not do as much as I could, or even should, to do so myself. It's not that I do nothing, but believe me I spend more on dining out than on feeding the poor. Theoretically I could eschew all the entertainment and discretionary spending I enjoy and sustain a (frugal) poor family of 4 people in tolerable if far from luxurious conditions. I don't.

So if I believed that as a Christian I should do what I can to feed the poor (and in fact he is on record as stating people should sell their belongings, let alone cut down on luxuries to feed the poor - there is no equivocation in this area at all) and did not do so would I be a Christian if I accepted not only that teaching but all the others you listed?

Obviously the main point is not whether I would make a good or even real Christian given my reasonable but much lower than possible charity. I have no desire to be one.

My main point is how much of being a Christian is determined not just by believing in him and his teachings but in actually FOLLOWING them. I'm not going to throw a softball like Fred Phelps out there but he's certainly an example, and in fact I see that as your impossible dilemma. If you say that Christians who believe everything you listed with all their hearts, but do not enough to feed the poor based on their ability to do so can still be real Christians (I'm guessing you would - tell me if I'm wrong) AND you also state that Fred Phelps is not a real Christian because he spreads hateful and vile opinions which definitely do not show him to love his neighbor (I have no idea about you personally, but it's rare indeed for a DU Christian to accept that Fred is a fellow believer in the same faith) then obviously you must have a line somewhere in mind where X act of not following Christ's teachings makes you a Christian and Y act of not following makes you NOT one. Commonly, being insufficiently charitable and saying "God hates fags" (even though God himself says so if you accept the Bible at face value) are on separate sides of that line.

I find that rather disingenuous. Christians have three options and three only.

1) Any diversion from the teachings of Jesus - including the very clear and oft repeated ones about impoverishing yourself to help the poor - stop you from being a real Christian. This would almost certainly reduce Christianity to a smaller faith than Scientology. Hmmm. Not good there.

2) Diversions from following the teaching merely make you an imperfect Christian and faith itself is the important thing in making you a Christian per se. This would mean you have to accept McVeigh and Rudolph and Phelps etc as fellow Christians. Hmmm not too many DU believers like to do that (and no hypocrisy here - I have absolutely no problem admitting Pol Pot was an atheist. He didn't do anything nasty BECAUSE he was an atheist, but he surely was one by everything I've read).

3) There is some line between 1 and 2. If you choose this option surely you have to tell us where you think it is. Is Pat Robertson a Christian? He's said some wacky things hurtful to many but generally seems to be an upstanding fellow personally. That false prophesy bit is a bugger for him too. Is Billy Graham? Is Ted Haggard? Is Fred Phelps? Is anyone but an impoverished preacher who lives on a bare minimum so he can give all his money to the poor? Not too many believers like to step into this one and make a determination.

So which one is it? I can;t see room for a 4 but give it a shot if youbthink it's there.

[peruban]

29. Semantic differences and specific details are not universally held beliefs.

Thus I omitted them. Many of your points have differing opinions within the Christian community itself.

[dmallind]

32. No - I am beginning to smell avoidance I'm afraid

Please answer me clearly. I am going to state my objection very clearly this time. No wiggle room.

Assuming beliefs about what Jesus was/is and what he taught are held constant and in complete accordance with your list, is there any standard of actual behavior that makes one such believer a Christian and another who believes exactly the same NOT a Christian? If yes what is that standard?

[peruban]

35. The list is of commonly held notions.

If I included something or excluded something other by mistake I have no qualms with that. But to claim Christianity generally follows within those guidelines. If there are a few points up there that have exceptions they were mistakes overlooked and should have been omitted. The general standard appears to be that Jesus is the son of God. His divinity and other points are still under debate, but the son of God part appears to be universal held.

[dmallind]

50. Can I try again

I'm NOT questioning your list of beliefs or their universality or otherwise - I'm asking you if you would suggest that behavior according to those beliefs is a criteria that separates a Christian from a non-Christian. If a Christian believes everything you could hope for and list but acts in a way that demonstrates he does not love his neighbor or help the poor etc as Jesus taught does that make him not a Christian?

It's a simple aquestion that I doubt you can claim not to understamd. The follow up question is do you really want to answer? Few Christians do.

[peruban]

52. Ok, but I have to lay down some personal foundation for the answer to that.

No adherent to a faith can be truly held up to a light or given a litmus test as an example of that religion's following of teachings. It's an approach that is ultimately doomed to fail since the question is about an absolutism imposed on imperfection.

But yes, a person can behave entirely in a way that "I myself" would consider entirely unchristian and still, by virtue of what they believe and not how they behave, still consider themselves christian. Whether "I" agree with them of not on that is an entirely different matter, however.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Where is the "basic set of principles" you mentioned? All you did was list some accepted beliefs

about a man called Jesus, based on the New Testament. While I think Jesus probably existed and was a gifted speaker. He attempted to teach tolerance and acceptance amongst the various tribes of the time. He proclaimed that love and forgiveness were keys to leading a 'righteous' life.

That's about as far as I can go. Was he the son of god? Was he born to a virgin? Those are things of myth. It's too bad people can't actually take just his words and apply them to reality. Then 'christianity' might be worth looking into. Most christian churches have become focused on the myth of Jesus and not on the goals that Jesus had.

Edited to correct first sentence.

[BurtWorm]

3. What makes you think his words aren't things of myth too?

You accept on faith that he was historical and those words are his. But if the words are so central to the fact of Jesus Christ, why did they make a religion out of him? Why is his divinity so important to so many Christians? Why is it more important than what he said?

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I just read the book and thought he said some pretty good things. I don't have faith nor do I

believe he is divine. There are plenty of others who have stressed the same ideas and nobody founded a religion about them.

Of course, you're right. I have no idea if those quotes in the NT came from Jesus or some scribe a couple of centuries later.

[BurtWorm]

6. Exactly. No one made a religion out of others who said the same things.

I find that peculiar. I find a lot about Jesus Christ peculiar.

[peruban]

16. I list similar contemporary religions to early Christianity which have not survived as well. n/m

[peruban]

15. Christs' divinity is not shared by all Christians. Being the son of God is.

Not a universal belief.

[peruban]

14. The specifics of Jesus' teachings are still under dispute within the Christian community.

Not a point of universality.

[peruban]

24. That's right, I did list a set of commonly held beliefs.

That was my point. I also admit to excluding things still under debate within the Christian community itself.

[cosmik debris]

4. You forgot the bit about

sugar on the porridge.

[Birdiesmom]

7. There is something very major missing, here

The definition of Christianity is the act of following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recorded in the canonical Gospels.

He said that his teachings could be summed up in two commandments: That you love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and that you love your neighbor AS YOURSELF. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, he defined "your neighbor" as being anyone who needed your help, whether they lived near you or not, whether they shared your religion, race, or nationality or not. Everyone, in other words, is your neighbor. Everyone in the world is just as important as you.

These are world-shattering principles, far more than the "be righteous and avoid sin" set of beliefs delineated above. If you are struggling to make sure that everyone you know is as well-cared-for as you are -- your entire life is transformed. As one person said, whose name escapes me, "Christianity is a marvelous idea. It's a shame no one has ever tried it." And Gandhi remarked, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

That said, I know this is an incredible act to follow. But it is what Jesus required. Any reading of the Gospels straight through will support this. Everything else is just window dressing, as far as Jesus is concerned. He doesn't care whether you believe his mother was a virgin or not. He cares whether or not you saw people hungry, naked, sick, in jail, in need of justice, and ministered to them -- or turned to other way.

[BurtWorm]

8. Narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Jesus basically taught that most of us are going to hell. But I guess he thought the few good ones should be nice to the rest of us rotten ones:

7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

A lot of wisdom there, Jesus. :eyes:

[peruban]

21. You point out particulars that are not universal.

Not all Christians believe in hell, not all Christians believe in Heaven, some don't believe in either. Some believe in a physical resurrection.

[BurtWorm]

58. Would you say they beleive the words in the Gospels reflect his words?

That seemed to be what the previous poster was saying.

[peruban]

60. They are the pirmary source for the understanding of his teachings, yes.

There are many translations of the original texts and even more interpretations of them. Then we have the apocryphal writings to consider, gnostic, mysticism and even other historical writings. Since nobody's around to actually tell us what the guy said first hand, or even if there was actually a guy to begin with, and he supposedly never wrote anything himself (why is that always the case, anyway?) all we can really go by is the texts. Those are what we are forced to use by necessity to inform ourselves of his words.

[peruban]

17. I did state that Jesus meant for his teachings to be folllowed and spread.

This is a universal point.

[MedleyMisty]

30. If more Christians thought that way

I might have a better opinion of religion. As it is I agree with Gandhi.

I need to reread the thread - was it about defining Christianity or putting forth a set of beliefs that one must have to be considered a Christian? The more I think about it, the more it seems that all you have to do to be considered a Christian is to say you are one, and that the majority of people already have their own personal beliefs and then just interpret the Bible to fit with those preconceived beliefs. The Bible is a mirror and you just see yourself reflected back at you - like good and decent people like the above poster see calls to benevolence, and then your average fundie sees hatred and judgement and damnation and all that sort of stuff.

So I think you can't really have a checklist of Christianity and say you have to believe this and this to get into the club. I think entrance into the club is by being born in a time and place where Christianity is the dominant religion and just accepting what the people around you tell you and identifying as a Christian.

Let's say our civilization crashes and dies and hardly any records remain, so it's not like how we still know about the religions of past civilizations and study them as myths. A few people survive, and hundreds of years after the crash one of their descendants happens to find a Bible that was somehow preserved. Do you think that a person who just read the book without social influence and pressure to say that you're part of the tribe would believe in it?

[peruban]

34. The list is not meant to be a set of requirements.

They are just a list of observably commonly held beliefs. And many other religions existed during the time of Jesus, the majority of them now considered extinct based on lack of adherents. Any set of beliefs can be considered archaic mythology if one chooses not to believe in them. Christianity may also one day follow this path.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. I think - or would like to, perhaps - that the teachings of Jesus

would continue to resonate. In part, because they're reflective of teachings that have been part of many cultures and civilizations throughout time. They're that universal - and apparently, that hard to actually follow.

I agree that people can have pretty radically different takes on Christianity and especially on what is important about the faith. I tend to think that's a reflection of the person - those who see hatred and judgment are in a sense judging themselves already, aren't they?

So I shy away from any real checklist myself. You are if you say you are, and it's not really my business to vet you or rate you.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said

and that is absolutely the crux of the faith for me.

I'd just add that though I also agree the commandments you cite are world-shattering in their impact, I don't think they were necessarily a new idea with Jesus. IIRC (and I could be wrong) Rabbi Hillel said about the same thing sometime slightly before Jesus is said to have said that. (Someone smarter than I am, please correct me if I'm wrong here!)

Which to me only underlines the importance of the concept, of course. And to paraphrase the Rabbi again, all the rest is commentary.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Nice effort, but ultimately a failure

Any effort to define who is and is not a Christian ultimately falls afoul of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. At best, you can propose a definition of Christianity and categorize people as either an "orthodox believer" (someone who professes belief in your entire definition of Christianity and renounces belief in anything related to Christianity that falls outside your definition), a "heretic" (someone who does not profess belief in your entire definition of Christianity, professes beliefs related to Christianity which fall outside your definition, and/or refuses to renounce belief in anything related to Christianity that falls outside your definition) or a "non-believer."

Also, keep in mind that the definition you propose is at odds with the historically orthodox definition of Christianity endorsed by the great Ecumenical Councils by requiring belief in many things not required by the Councils (such as Jesus being accused of heresy) and not requiring belief in many doctrines seen as vitally essential by the Councils (such as the Nicene Creed, trinitarianism and the undivided Personhood of Christ.)

I will class you as a heretic. :hi:

[peruban]

18. I did not include particular points which are not universally held.

If it is specific to a particular sect or absent from any, I tried to omit it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. I would hardly call Trinitarianism as "specific to a particular sect"

The Trinity was a central point in the first six of the seven Ecumenical Councils recognized by all major (and most minor) branches of Christendom. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 established Trinitarianism and declared that any person who would deny the Trinity is anathema. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 denounced Arianism (the doctrine that Jesus was not "of the same substance" as God) and Macedonianism (the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is a lesser being than God), revised the Nicene Creed and declared anathema upon anyone who would deny or alter the Nicene Creed any further. The Council of Ephesus in 431 denounced Nestorianism (the doctrine that the Son was two separate persons, one human and one divine.) The Council of Chalcedon in 451 denounced monophysitism (the doctrine that the Son had one nature, an inseparable mix of both human and divine.) The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 further repudiated Nestorianism. The Third Council of Constantinople in 680 denounced monothelitism (the doctrine that the Son had two natures but one "will") and monoenergism (the doctrine that the Son had two natures but one "energy.")

All of the Ecumenical Councils reiterated the orthodox doctrine of Trinitarianism: that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, co-equal but distinct and that the Son, while one Person, has two full distinct yet fully combined substances, natures, personalities, wills and energies, one fully human and the other fully divine. More than 350 years of arguing, cursing to eternal Hell (the actual and doctrinal meaning of "anathema") and on occasion even open warfare cannot be dismissed as "specific to a particular sect."

[peruban]

28. Not all Christians believe in the trinity or Holy Spirit

Not a commonly held belief.

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. You are quite ignorant of your professed religion, aren't you?

Trinitarianism is an essential part of the doctrine of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions, which collectively make up more than two thirds of all Christian adherents (by itself, Roman Catholicism represents almost half of all Christians.) In addition, Trinitarianism is declared in the Augsburg Confession, central to the Lutheran denominations, and is affirmed by most Methodist denominations.

How can you possibly claim that Trinitarianism is "not a commonly held belief"?

And if you want to argue that something cannot be classed as necessary for a definition of Christianity if "not all Christians believe" in it, then keep in mind that there are many Christians who reject every last one of the items you have proposed. Just for starters, please provide the chapter and verse upon which your claim that belief in THREE wise men is necessary for the definition of "Christian." Why three and not two or four? If this is such an essential point, why does only one Gospel mention it? And while you are at it please explain how the census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria could occur more than nine years after the death of Herod the Great? And why do Mark, Luke and John make absolutely no mention of star, magi or a great slaughter of children? For that matter, why is there NO record whatsoever, except for Matthew, of a great slaughter of children? Certainly, someone would have noticed if only a Roman bean-counter noting that the tax revenue from the Bethlehem area would dip alarmingly in about 15 to 20 years.

[peruban]

56. Look, I know it's frustrating.

This is not easy to do here. There's one of me who did the research on this and many of you who have much more information than I have at my disposal. So I have to reflect the answer to this back to you.

What specific faiths do not believe in the points I listed? That is the real question since what we are doing here is trying to arrive to a universality. If any christian faith disagrees with something that something then is taken off the table and we peel the definition down further, arriving at a better consensus.

I understand your objections to the points, I understand that not all the points have solid archeological or strong historically documented evidence but if it is something that is believed and is part of the faith then it remains in the definition. If the belief in a rabbit hiding eggs in the springtime were universally believed I would have had to, despite any appeal from my own sense of absurdity, list it.

So, I understand that the trinity is a concept believed by the majority of Christians, however, there are still sects that do not believe in the divinity of a three man God. Some sects believe in a single God who sent his spiritual son to earthly form and the holy spirit is just a messenger between themselves and God. So just one God, no trinity there. Not a universally held belief, I can not list it.

[knitter4democracy]

55. Um, yes it is.

Most of us are Trinitarians, if you want to use that term.

[peruban]

57. Please refer to answer #56. n/m

[laconicsax]

10. Questions:

First, please acknowledge that the Greek word for Joseph's occupation (tekton) does not translate directly to 'carpenter.'
Also, please acknowledge that Pilate's Passover pardon is not mentioned in any Roman source.
Lastly, please acknowledge that Herod's order to kill all young boys in Bethlehem is not verified by any Roman source.


-Which messianic prophecies did Jesus fulfill and to be intellectually honest, which ones did he not fulfill?
-Does the old covenant still apply at all? If so, to whom?
-What is the full extent of the forgiveness of the new covenant?
-What defines righteousness and wickedness?
-What sort of afterlife is promised to the followers of Jesus' teachings and what happens to everyone else?

[peruban]

20. You are asking things still under debate within the Christian community itself.

Not commonly held notions so a universal answer can not be provided. Not all Christians believe in an afterlife. And verification from Roman sources does not validate or invalidate the documentation in the New Scripture.

[laconicsax]

25. "The following of Jesus' teachings is rewarded with the promise of an afterlife "

Part of your definition.

You provided what you considered to be a near universal definition of Christianity and now you are refusing to elaborate on its contents. You made claims, the burden is on you to back them up. If you will, please answer the following:

-Which messianic prophecies did Jesus fulfill and to be intellectually honest, which ones did he not fulfill?
-Does the old covenant still apply at all? If so, to whom?
-What is the full extent of the forgiveness of the new covenant?
-What defines righteousness and wickedness?
-What sort of afterlife is promised to the followers of Jesus' teachings and what happens to everyone else?

These should be easy questions to answer if the definition of Christianity you provide is, at the very least, one you believe to be true.

[peruban]

31. These points are still under debate within the Christian community itself.

These specifics are not commonly held beliefs.

[laconicsax]

36. Are you calling yourself a liar?

At the end of your list of 'basic principles,' you wrote the following.

I think that's about it. I believe these statements can be said to be considered universal and commonly shared among the different sects of Christianity

It seems that when anyone asks you about the principles you listed, you state that they're under debate and not commonly held beliefs. Which is it? Are these universal beliefs as you stated in your original post, or are they contested points that cannot be elaborated on because of their contested nature. You can't have it both ways. Either way you decide to go on it, I'm not asking what the 'official' stance is. I'm asking you. Please give your answers to the following questions:

-Which messianic prophecies did Jesus fulfill and to be intellectually honest, which ones did he not fulfill?
-Does the old covenant still apply at all? If so, to whom?
-What is the full extent of the forgiveness of the new covenant?
-What defines righteousness and wickedness?
-What sort of afterlife is promised to the followers of Jesus' teachings and what happens to everyone else?

[peruban]

37. No, it's that the full answer to your questions would have multiple answers.

Depending on which sect we are focusing on. Again, if the topic is still under debate within the community itself, it is not a universally held belief. So I did not address it as such. I did not include my personal views because they are also not universally held beliefs.

[golddigger]

11. I have a problem with the last sentence: "Jesus will return some day...

in some form to end the world of wickedness and suffering. The following of Jesus' teachings is rewarded with the promise of an afterlife."

In the Gospel of Mark, the writer says that it is better to have your hand cut off and go to heaven than to go to hell with both hands, because if you go there, you are going to "BURN" forever and ever. The fire will never be quenched! Can you image any human being "BURNING" in a fire forever? Surely you don't believe this?

Do you think if there was a God, and we were his children, that he would let us "BURN" in a fire forever? If he would allow this then he is worse than the "DEVIL." Wake up! How could one live if he had the least thought his or her child was burning in a fire?

Listen to what Jesus said. Broad is the gate, big and wide that leads to Hell. He also said that all who had ever come before him were a bunch of thieves and robbers. Can you believe this man? He also said that the people had left him and that he was all alone because they were all going to Hell. He also called them a bunch of vipers! He was the biggest preacher that taught you were going to Hell.

Most people think that Heaven is a good place that they, want to go there too. If you read Revelations 12:9, you will find out that the Devil and his Angels were fighting in Heaven. It was 'WAR!" And you and other people want to go there? I don't.

Let's go a little further to the 19th chapter of Revelation. First let me say quickly that if you believe this story, then you have to believe that God has a big army in the sky with guns, swords, and horses. He has factories in Heaven where they make these weapons. If you love Jesus so much, listen to this story very carefully.

It is said that he saw Heaven open up. He saw a man sitting upon a white horse. He wore an overcoat drenched in blood. Your going to say "It's not human blood!" Well then prove it's not. Prove me wrong.

This man is supposedly Jesus. Look at Jesus sitting on a big white horse with a "sword" in his hand. He is screaming as loud as he can "WAR! WAR!" If a man like this rode into town, you would be scared of him. I hear you saying that Jesus was a good man; a man that taught you to turn your check. Well, here he is a fighting man. He is going to start a damn War!

It says the armies that are in Heaven. You see, they are already there in Heaven. It says so. If you go to Heaven and join Jesus' army, you will be given a white horse, guns, and swords. I hope you know how to use them!

Do you want to have a man that is this mean with the names King of Kings, Lord of Lords here with a bunch of religious fanatics following him around?

There is one more thing I would like to say about this Heaven. It's not a very good place, according to your Bible. Most of the preachers around the world believe that God is going to come down here and make Jerusalem his final home. If God and Jesus are going to make their home in Jerusalem, then Heaven must not be a very good place.

Why do people want to go there?

[peruban]

12. You point out particulars that are not universal.

Not all Christians believe in hell, not all Christians believe in Heaven, some don't believe in either. Some believe in a physical resurrection.

[Birdiesmom]

23. Crazy-making, isn't it.

No wonder the Christian church has shattered into thousands of fragments over this very issue -- defining itself.

You have made a good faith and exhaustive effort here, Peruban. You put a lot of thought into it, and have tried to be as inclusive as possible. I think you've done a good job.

I struggle with my Christianity, as Paul said we must. I can't agree with every belief of the Christian Church, as put forth in their creeds and Ecumenical Accords and declarations of heresies, because there are contradictions and moral and ethical issues I have to work through with fear and trembling.

If you are a heretic, then so am I. I'd rather be called a heretic than to consign people to Hell and turn my back on them as "unsaved and hopeless".

[peruban]

33. It took more thought than I originally imagined.

And the research was tough, but I think I've whittled it down to basics. Again, if it was particular any one sect or excluded from any one sect I found it not universal and omitted it.

[knitter4democracy]

38. What a Western view of the history.

No, it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church from the beginning, and no, the Eastern Orthodox Church didn't break up in any way. *sigh*

The Church has always said that it's the Creed that separates Christians from non-Christians.

[peruban]

39. I apologize if there appears to be a slant to the historical approach.

I did my best to try to be fair and objective regarding the histories and individual set of beliefs. If you would like to elucidate your objections, please do so. I am not claiming infallibility here, it's just an attempt at a universal definition given what I have been able to research. If you find flaw in my historical approach, please don't keep it to yourself.

[knitter4democracy]

40. It's just that you've posted the history that the Catholics have written.

They're not the only Church that goes back to Pentecost, you know.

As I said, it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church at the beginning. It was just the Church, later the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (as said in the Nicene Creed). The Church was run initially by bishops--priests elevated to run all the churches in a city and help those churches' priests. Then, bishops were elevated to metropolitans and then patriarchs. At the time of the Great Schism, the patriarchs ruled in council, just as the 12 disciples did at the beginning, with no one of them more important than others. The patriarch of Rome was the only patriarch in the Western Church, and after the fall of Rome, he became more powerful. Eventually, the patriarch of Rome wanted to rule the patriarchal council, but after the Roman capital had moved to Constantinople, the patriarch of Constantinople had become more powerful. The two fought for control of the Church, and then the Pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, which caused the Great Schism. The Church was one, and then it split into East and West. The only reason there was no council of patriarchs in the Western Church was because there was only one patriarch in that region at the time of the Schism.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has continued as it was at the Schism--patriarchal councils, though we refuse to change our theology until the entire Church is one again and everyone's involved in the decision, no Reformation or indulgences, bishops running cities or regions and answering to the metropolitans who answer to the patriarchs. We didn't split into regional churches--we stayed the way we were. We don't have a pope, although the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered the Ecumenical Patriarch and first among equals in the council.

The Church didn't have a ruler, and the Pope in Rome didn't have much power until much later in the Church's history. Most of his power was political, too. Rome may have been Peter's seat, but Jerusalem (still have a patriarch there) was where St. James, Jesus's brother, was the first bishop, and even Antioch's patriarchal seat is older (and yes, we still have that one, too).

[peruban]

59. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

It's a difficult task we're doing here and I need as much input as possible. I tried to remain objective but I see now where my own limited understanding created a bias there. The historical approach should be revised. Once I have enough information I'll rewrite this, repost it and we can get a better understanding of this. I truly appreciate your pointing this out for me.

[JerseygirlCT]

42. Knitter, I was waiting to read you chiming in!

I was thinking along the same lines as I read... "hmmm... I'm thinking our Orthodox friends might quibble with that a bit".

[knitter4democracy]

43. I know, I know, I'm totally predictable.

;)

Still, I do get a bit miffed when a third of Christianity is completely ignored or, almost worse, misrepresented.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. Don't think of it that way. Think of it more like one of a few

orthodox people I've "met" online who have educated me, so that I'm far more aware now on the subject than my RCC upbringing might have allowed for!

[knitter4democracy]

46. I like that.

:)

Honestly, I grew up Nazarene, and there was so much I didn't know or understand. It wasn't until I was at our church college and did a semester in Russia that I started learning about the Eastern side of the faith. Made my Christian history class the next semester really difficult. Our textbook was full of anti-Orthodox propaganda.

[TechBear_Seattle]

48. A third? He his throwing out everyone except a narrowly defined group of Protestants

See my posts above, where peruban demotes the doctrine of the Trinity to something "specific to a particular sect." :eyes:

I don't count myself as a Christian any more, and haven't for years. But I still remember what I learned in Sunday School (Congregationalist, at that), confirmation classes, college and independent studies.

[knitter4democracy]

53. That's true.

It's definitely not a good, well-rounded version of Christian history.

[peruban]

62. Not including something does not "throw out" a sect of the overall religion.

We're trying to arrive to a universal definition here. See my post #56 for the trinity explanation.

[knitter4democracy]

74. It was in how you originally worded your defense.

Universal beliefs are much simpler than your original post, frankly. You'll have to pare it down a lot.

[peruban]

75. I definitely agree with you on that.

I'm trying to whittle out a universal set of beliefs so any contradictions to the points are welcomed. So, what do you think should go?

[knitter4democracy]

76. Well, I would start with the Apostles Creed.

It's the earliest creed that the early Church came up with. Start with that and pare down from there, if you have to.

One question: are you including Christianity-based cults/sects in your definition? Mormons call themselves Christians, but most Christian churches say they're not (they've added another book and many other beliefs that go against mainstream Christianity). Christian Scientists, same thing. If you're including them, then that's going to make everything much harder, since those groups often directly oppose the Creed in their theology.

As for history, try reading Bishop Kallistos Ware's book on Christian history for the Eastern side to understand why the Great Schism happened and why the early Church was in turmoil over basic tenets of belief.

[peruban]

77. Thanks.

I'll have to do more research on the orthodox faiths and a more objective view on the history. And, yes, I am trying to include all of the fringe christians as well. That is why I could not use the creed as a foundation since it's not used by some of those other cults/sects. But if they believe something other christians do not then that removes it from the list also. Specific things like blood transfusions, belief in a trinity, the veneration of Mary, refusal of medical treatment, use of texts exclusive to any one particular faith and so on.

[knitter4democracy]

78. Frankly, I'm not sure I would.

Some of them don't believe in Jesus or that he was God's son, and that's pretty much pivotal for the faith. I know they call themselves Christians, but I've often wondered if it's a cultural thing because they started during a Christian revival period in American history (most of them) and didn't want to stick out too much.

[dmallind]

51. Which is pretty close to my view.

To my atheistic mind, a Christian is one who more or less believes in the Nicene creed minus the one church terminology (otherwise we make all Protestants non-Christian, which may be OK for the Orthodox and Catholic, but is clearly an unworkable definition in current times and in the US for sure. Obviously at the time the Nicene creed was written that bit applied).

[struggle4progress]

49. Traditionally, the "beliefs" of Christians are defined by creeds, such as this ancient one:

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; Creatorem coeli et terrae. Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam

Note that it makes essentially no commitments on most issues you raise

[knitter4democracy]

54. Why in latin?

Just curious. ;)

[struggle4progress]

61. It's one of the earliest versions, and in Latin it's short and punchy

Compare the length of the creed to the length of the OP. It mentions few miracles -- perhaps the virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension -- though the virgin birth is wrapped together with the more beautiful and ambiguous "conceived of the Holy Spirit," while the "ascended to heaven" is entirely vague. Beyond that, the historical demand made by the creed is merely "He suffered under Pilate." The final article emphasizes relationships (Holy Spirit, universal church, communion, forgiveness) though it does end with the "resurrection of flesh" and "eternal life" that no one really seems to understand. This version is from around 700 AD; some earlier versions can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=saFgJRjaPwcC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=%22Interrogatory+Creed+of+Hippolytus%22&source=bl&ots=YWGmzgtiDi&sig=IvxhA0o_3OV_9iJJMFp_o3-ZYn8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

[knitter4democracy]

72. No, that creed's first version wasn't in Latin.

That's why I asked. Just yankin' your chain. ;)

[struggle4progress]

66. Doh! I just realized: you were really asking -- Why not in Greek?

Πιστεύω εις Θεον Πατερα, παντοκράτορα, ποιητην ουρανου και γης. Και `Ιησουν Χριστον, υίον αυτου τον μονογενη, τον κύριον ήμων, τον συλληφθέντα εκ πνεύματοσ άγίου, γεννηθέντα εκ Μαρίας της παρθένου, παθόντα επι Ποντίου Πιλάτου, σταυρωθέντα, θανόντα, και ταφέντα, κατελθόντα εις τα κατώτατα, τη τρίτη `ημέρα `αναστάντα `απο των νεκρων, `ανελθόντα εις τους ουρανούς, καθεζόμενον εν δεξια θεου πατρος παντο δυνάμου, εκειθεν ερχόμενον κρϊναι ζωντας και νεκρούς. Πιστεύω εις το Πνυμα το `Αγιον, αγίαν καθολικην εκκλησίαν, αγίων κοινωνίαν, άφεσιν αμαρτιων, σαρκος ανάστασιν, ξωήν αιώνιον.

[knitter4democracy]

73. Thanks!

I didn't see that reply before I replied to your earlier one. Now, you're talking! :D

[peruban]

63. Yes, ultimately, we only have the texts to follow.

The creed is a very commonly utilized foundation for belief in christianity. It is not, however universally used, and it is my mistake for using "commonly held" instead of "universally held" in one of my previous posts. What I mean to do here is arrive at a universal set of beliefs that we can whittle down to. I did use information from the creed in creating the list but i had to omit some of it on the basis that some christians do not agree with the trinity, or the creed itself.

[struggle4progress]

64. I disagree with most of what you write: the texts tell us something, but

so do the living traditions we find, and our own insights likewise count

Listing irreducibles for Christian belief seems to me an authoritarian project and an unimportant one at that, because people readily agree on words without actually agreeing

The point of the gospel is something entirely different -- G-d comes to us in human form and promising love; but we ignore or abuse the Visitor; that is really how most of us are; to think that we could change is just as silly as to believe a few loaves and fishes could feed a large crowd; and yet perhaps this is important enough, that we would best do whatever might effect such change, no matter how silly it seemed ...

[peruban]

67. Can you name specifically what should be removed?

It's a difficult task but I have some time on my hands and have invested some time into this as a project. I do plan on following up with a rewrite but need some help. What would you add or remove in an attempt to be more universal in approach and definition?

[struggle4progress]

68. But I just told you: the gospel is not a matter of a specified list of beliefs -- it is

the preaching, to those who will hear, that in actual practice, to love G-d cannot really mean something much different than loving your neighbor

If you have too much time on your hands, why not volunteer in a homeless shelter (say)?

[peruban]

69. I take your points into consideration.

Perhaps the general approach is flawed. Maybe we should be looking at this issue differently. I'm trying to arrive at a minimalist perspective in which to define what it is to be christian to the overall agreement of all particular faiths. It's just a pet project I have going that I have a great interest in. I have some semblance of a life.

I am attempting to describe a list of universal beliefs, not necessarily a strict doctrine of faith. I'm trying to keep an open mind so I can further this idea for my own understanding, and hopefully help come up with something significant for the forum. I don't mean to come off as authoritarian, quite the opposite, in fact. Think of this more like the debate held to compose the U.S. constitution, a democratically derived list of beliefs that all can agree on. It may be meaningless and idiotic in nature but I like it, it strengthens my understanding of this broad faith and I can appreciate the differences better. That's all.

I understand that the gospels themselves are the only source of true knowledge. Is that correct? If so I have to put more consideration and research into the issue.

I would love to oversimplify down to "be good to others", but there are more universally held beliefs and I want to explore those.

[struggle4progress]

70. "the gospels themselves are the only source of true knowledge"?

You will obtain nothing worthwhile if you sit alone with the gospels the rest of your days: they are intended to tell something about how to live, based on the experiences of a particular community two thousand years ago

[peruban]

71. So how do we go about defining it in a modern sense?

Given the vast variety of beliefs that claim to be "christians", would you suggest a different approach? Attention to the flaws in my historical approach have been made, I need to rewrite the historical approach and would welcome input from you on the matter. Also, if you disagree with specific details in the points of belief I tried to make what points specifically? and please give some idea of which christians do not accept those points. I will make the needed amendments in my rewrite.

[Taverner]

65. You know the Early Christians beleived completely differently

They "knew" Jesus was coming back in their lifetime, and when he did it would be the great war against Rome, and Israel would lead the world.

Actually, pretty close to Islam in some ways.