It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If they aren't real Christians then who are they???

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by Sundancer

Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't a Christian a person who will be saved as long as they believe Jesus is their savior and they ask to be forgiven for their sins no matter what atrocities they commit? Seems to me believing in god gives you a licence to kill, steal, lie, have sex with children, do drugs, get drunk, and whatever else you choose as long as you say your prayers every night.

Salvation is certainly not a license to sin. As Christian's we're supposed to turn from sin and try not to commit it.

So why do I always hear people say "he or she is not a real Christian"?

I don't know why people say that, because it certainly isn't man's place to judge others' hearts; only God can do that. There's absolutely no way to know if someone truly is a Christian or if they just say they are.

So who are the "real Christians" ?

The real Christians are the ones who have accepted Christ and have complete faith in Him, and who have repented of their sinful ways. explains it like this:

How do we receive salvation? We are saved by faith. First, we must hear the gospel—the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Ephesians 1:13). Then, we must believe—fully trust the Lord Jesus (Romans 1:16). This involves repentance, a changing of mind about sin and Christ (Acts 3:19), and calling on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:9-10, 13).

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Totakeke]

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Sundancer
I'm not really new to ATS. I'm a long time reader, but a first time
poster. The more I read the more questions I have, it's a
vicious circle.

Reading these posts for as long as I have, there's one question that's
really been bothering me. What is a "real Christian"?
I'm constantly seeing someone refer to someone else as "not a real

Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't a Christian a person who will be saved
as long as they believe Jesus is their savior and they ask to be
forgiven for their sins no matter what atrocities they commit?
Seems to me believing in god gives you a licence to kill, steal, lie,
have sex with children, do drugs, get drunk, and whatever else you
choose as long as you say your prayers every night. So why do I always
hear people say "he or she is not a real Christian"?

If there was a religion designed by the devil to deceive the common
man wouldn't it be Christianity?

So who are the "real Christians" ?

In my opinion, a "real Christian" is someone who is Christ-like. Loving, Compassionate, a steward to their community and the world.

As far as the other stuff about being given a license to do whatever as long as you believe in God, I don't know. It's all quite confusing to me.

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by octotom

The early church was always unified. There wasn't a need to form a "single orthodoxy". It's apparent that by the time the council of Nicea rolled around, 23 of the 27 NT books were accepted as Scripture. The other four--2/3 John, Jude, 2 Peter--were being discussed because some had issue with them. By the time the council ended, the church as a whole agreed on the 27 books that we call the New Testament.

I beg to differ.

There are two issues here: unification of the Church and agreement on holy scripture. In fact the "early church" was a mixture of "Jesus Movements" and "Christ Cults" with very different views about what it meant to be a follower of Jesus and the nature of Christ. Nor was there agreement or even a concept of holy scripture, other than the Pentateuch perhaps, until Nicea. Nicea discarded much more material than it kept, and it modified, rewrote, or 'forged' much of what it kept (forged is perhaps too harsh).

The early church was most definitely NOT unified. A large part of the New Testament is even dedicated to showing Paul's political and doctrinal attempts to gain ascendancy for the orthodox position (which interestingly, is NOT what Paul had in mind) through his touched up and forged letters. In I Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul acknowledges the divisions and schisms that existed. How could anyone come to a different conclusion? The earliest Christians were obviously a Jewish splinter group, and the schism between the Jewish Christians and the Pauline Christians was quite traumatic. So traumatic that a peace treaty was required which, as related in Acts, results in 'recognition' that Paul suffered persecution at the hands of non-Christian Jews, and in Peter baptizing a non-circumcised Gentile.

Even after the orthodox 'party' in the church gained political domination and declared itself catholic, it was not 'unified'. Not in its belief and not in its organization. The Roman bishopric argued with the other bishoprics over doctrine and political control for centuries until the Western and Eastern Churches finally split altogether, and this argument started from the very beginning of the church.

One focal point for doctrinal disunity was in the nature of Jesus Christ. There were literally dozens of opinions, but perhaps the most fought over were the "monophisite", "Nestorian", or "hypostatic union" view. Monophisites believe that Jesus is a human that 'evolved' into the divine Christ. Nestorians on the other hand believe that the human and divine are separate but joined in conjunction. The orthodox view, "hypostatic union", is that the human and divine are not separate, they are unified. There are literally dozens of views of the nature of Christ espoused by early Christian thinkers.

The argument over beliefs like these were multiple, vociferous, intense, and deadly for hundreds of years. If you don't understand that, you simply don't understand the origins of Christian thought. Fundamental doctrinal arguments over the nature of Christ resulted in the slaughter of many thousands of people in the heresy wars. That is not the sign of unity, that is a sign of dictatorship, demagoguery, and totalitarianism.

Some of these early 'churches' still exist to this day, including the monophysite Syriac and Coptic Churches, and the Nestorian Abyssinian Churches. These churches, once in communion with the orthodox church, were never in agreement as to the nature of Christ and split very early. Furthermore, the Christian Gnostics, like Marion, had a completely different mythic structure and were certainly never unified in any way with the orthodox.

Whether you define the "early church" as 'before Nicea' when the cannon was enumerated or as 'before Chalcedon' when the orthodox position on the nature of Christ was decided, the "early church" was definitely not unified.

[edit on 27/7/2009 by rnaa]

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by octotom

The Bible only seems vague to those who interpret allegorically.


That just isn't true. The Bible is many times more powerful when looked at allegorically than when it is looked on literally.

Looked at literally, it reduces to a compendium of bad history and children's fairy-tales. This is a major stumbling block in the vision of the church today.

Looked at allegorically, with an understanding of mythic structures and the historical political and social necessity of the time of its writing, it becomes a masterful guide to understanding life, both 'ancient' and 'modern'.

I urge you to study the work of Joseph Campbell, a master of world mythology and one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. If you come to understand his book, 'The Hero With A Thousand Faces' you might find that the allegorical story in the New Testament takes on much more power than when interpreted as literal history.

Or not. I have no way of knowing your currently beliefs, and I'm absolutely not trying to denigrate your faith. But treating text as literal when it was originally meant to be understood as allegorical is, in my opinion, dangerous and unprofitable.


The heretics come when they deny something about Jesus that is plainly taught in Scripture.


Incorrect. Heretics come when they espouse something other than the orthodox view. Without an orthodox view, there is no heresy.

My suggestion that scripture be treated allegorically could easily be considered heresy, and probably is by many. But there is nothing 'plainly taught in Scripture" one way or the other. However the orthodox teaching of the Church is plainly that the Bible is to be interpreted literally.

Whether that view is 'plainly taught in Scripture' or not does not enter into it. None of the heresies prosecuted by the orthodox church had anything to do with anything that was "plainly taught in Scripture". Most had to do with whether or not Jesus was human when he was born and only became the Christ divine later, or was always both but the human and divine natures were separate within him, or where always joined, or etc. etc. etc. None of which is 'plainly taught in Scripture' or there wouldn't have been room for the literally dozens of interpretations that sprang up.

[edit on 27/7/2009 by rnaa]

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:40 AM
A good lawyer can twist and distort anything written or spoken, to mean whatever he wishes it to mean.
And that includes tracts from the Bible taken right out of context.

Go to the real essence, and that is THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

That is really all you need to know.
Even a child can understand it.
It is very short, and directly to the point.

The rest of being a Christian relies on absolute trust and faith in God.

As to your fellow man, help if you possibly can, and are in a position to do so, but always, the very first rule is do no intentional harm to others..

It is not a difficult concept, just very very difficult to put into actual practice.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:16 AM
Here is a thread that I feel extremely qualified to answer, mainly because of my personal experience with the Living God. For one, I was raised in a "Christian home", declared a belief in Christ as my savior at age 5, and again at age 14, and yet again at age 19. The problem with my "christian life" was that nothing ever changed in me. I was not a "true Christian".

Not until at age 27 I found myself broken by sin, and my inability to live a holy life did the Holy Spirit of God draw me into a living relationship with Him did I actually become a "real Christian". When that experience occurred, I was in the prescience of God; I was not in a church, so I know it wasn't just an emotional response to any preacher, but I truly repented of my lack of ability of my fallen human nature to desire to rebel against God and to continue to sin against Him.

Yet when I became "born again" everything changed, from the inside out. Also I never again doubted my salvation ever again, I always had the spirit of the Living God living inside of me ministering His Grace and divine enablement to supply what my fallen nature could not, to live a holy life free from the power of sin to hold me in bondage.

In the parable of the sower, Jesus tells of four different types of soil, not all make it to fruition, only the good soil that was prepared before hand made any difference. I do not like the term "Christian" mainly because it has deteriated in it's meaning over time, I do however prefer the term "Overcomer" which describes the overcoming nature of Divine Grace to change a believer and to bear fruit unto repentance.

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in