It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What is a Christian?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Are real Christians trinitarian or unitarian?


A or B. But never A and B.



Do real Christians subscribe to the Pope as the successor of Peter and thus extend Petrine privilege to him?



The questions is, was Peter the head of the church which Christ built? Shouldn't the head be the one who built it instead?



Do real Christians have Saints?


Sainthood isn't a title that can be bestowed to a person. A true saint does not need the recognition of his fellow human beings. Sainthood is a state of being. A person living every aspect of his life according to the teaching of Jesus is a saint. Therefore, a real Christian is a saint.




Are real Christians saved through "faith" or "works" or some combination of the two?


A combination of the two. How can one do good works when one does not have faith in what God recognizes as good?




Do real Christians have to be "born again"?


Becoming a Christian is being born again.




If yes, what would being "born again" entail?


Live the life of a true saint.




What place does baptism have in the life of real Christians?


You cannot be a part of true Christianity without being baptized into it.




Do real Christians interpret the Bible literally? Figuratively? Do they have a specific criteria for which parts are literal and which are not?


Not all Christians are given the purpose of explaining the Bible. Those who are given this duty are held accountable by God for the souls of those who listen to them, which means these people must explain the literal parts with a literal explanation and the figurative parts with a figurative one. Those who are ordained must not go beyond what is written, and they must be careful not to add their personal opinions.




Which version of the Biblical canon do they accept?


All of the books included in the Christian Bible.



Do they give equal credence to the Old Testament?


Luke 24:44. The body of writings that consists of the Law of Moses, the writings of the prophets, and the psalms. In other words, the Hebrew canon.




What position do real Christians take on icons?


It is forbidden.




What opinion of women do real Christians have? Do real Christians allow women to teach?


The Bible teaches that a woman must submit herself to the authority of her husband, while a husband must love his wife as he loves himself. An exact parallel of Christ's relationship with his church.




What is a real Christian's opinion of homosexuals?


About the person there should be none. But about homosexuality itself, a real Christian must uphold the opinion of the Bible.




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version, ©2010)

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Christian; One whom is law.

this is correct



Justice is perpetual
edit on 2010/12/13 by etherical waterwave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

This: The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Nicene Creed is accepted by all the main Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant streams of Christianity as the basic profession of Christian faith.


The Nicene Creed has been normative to the Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic Eucharistic rite as well as Eastern and Oriental Orthodox liturgies.... It is given high importance in the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Old Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church and most Protestant denominations. Wikipedia

There are some who reject various portions of the Nicene Creed (often without knowing they do so) yet call themseleves Christians. However, Christianity, like Islam but unlike, say, Hinduism, is a community of believers as well as a type of belief. The tenets of Christian belief are not very elastic.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bijouramov
 



The questions is, was Peter the head of the church which Christ built? Shouldn't the head be the one who built it instead?


Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Peter isn't the "rock" the church was built upon. What Peter SAID is the "rock" (foundation) Christ said He would build His church upon.

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Uh huh. Pray tell, who is the rock(foundation) upon which the church was built according to the apostles?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bijouramov
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Uh huh. Pray tell, who is the rock(foundation) upon which the church was built according to the apostles?


Peter himself says Jesus Christ is the "chief corner stone", a "living stone", a "stone of stumbling", and the "rock of offense." (2 Peter 2:4-7)

Paul: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11)



The foundation rock of the church is Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. He is the rock, a stumbling stone for the Jews, and a rock of offense for the Greek and the chief corner stone, the stone the builders rejected.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Absolutely correct! In relation to what you have posted, please tell us who is the head of the church according to the apostles?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


A Christian worships a human called Jesus of Nazareth which is an abomination and he wasnt the real Chirst.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bijouramov
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Absolutely correct! In relation to what you have posted, please tell us who is the head of the church according to the apostles?


I've said it twice now, it's Jesus Christ. He is the head of the body of Christ.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18)

Members of degenerate American cults derived from Protestant Christianity like to argue otherwise, because of certain Roman Catholic claims based on this verse, but there it is in black and white. The name 'Peter' is a translation of the Greek word petros, meaning 'rock'.

'Belief in Jesus' never was and never is sufficient to make anyone a Christian. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, believed in Jesus, and he was certainly no Christian.

Only someone who accepts the Nicene Creed in full may be regarded, technically, as a Christian--that is, as a member of a worldwide, if hopelessly schismatized and quarrelsome, community of believers. If you disagree, you are simply not a Christian, whatever you yourself may think. Christianity is not a matter of self-description.



edit on 24/12/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Only someone who accepts the Nicene Creed in full may be regarded...

How utterly pontifical. In full?

There are two. The Eastern Orthodox accept the shorter one and not the longer. Roman Catholics accept both. They also recognize the baptism of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and vice versa.

So, the Roman Catholics accept that the Orthodox are Christian, despite the Orthodox not accepting the creed in full. The Orthodox return the favor, and accept the Romans as Christian despite their professing a different Creed.

Many Protestants seem not to care, but at least some seem to accept the Roman, and not the Eastern. The last statement is hazy because some Protestants advocate substituting the Apostles' Creed for the Nicene, especially if creedal orthodoxy is to be used in any way as a test.

So, are you saying that Eastern Orthodox are not Christian, since they do not accept the Nicene Creed in full? Are you saying that Apostolic Creedal Protestants are not Christians?

And I needn't ask you view about Quakers, since you have already said those who are non-Creedal are not Christians, in your view. Also, I can see that contrary to what mere historians think, there were no Christians before 381, when the "Nicene" Creed was finished in Constantinople. Of course, that work was done by non-Christians, at least while they were working.

So, what happens, in your view, if Pope Benedict, who accepts both the Nicene Creeds, embraces a Quaker as a fellow Christian?


If you disagree, you are simply not a Christian, whatever you yourself may think.

Ah, OK, so Pope Benedict ceases to be a Christian in that moment, even though he believes both creeds. But then, what of Cardinal Bertone? He thinks Benedict is still a Christian...

(... and the rest of the Catholic Church by induction? And the Eastern Orthodox Church as well. And every Protestant who seeks ecumenical communion or reconciliation with Rome or Orthodoxy as fellow Christian churches....

Lol, you may just have wiped out everyone who accepts the Creeds, along with everyone who doesn't. That's everybody, I think. Well played, atheist scourge of Christ! )

I think your definition needs work, because there are plenty of Christians who think that Quakers are Christians, and I think that whether or not someone is Christian is independent of whether they think Quakers are.


Christianity is not a matter of self-description.

No, but it is a matter of consensus among those who adopt a certain self-description. Creeds are useful for group definition, but not necessarily in some simple way. The Quakers don't profess one, but they are historically related to churches that did. Early Chrsitians had the Apostolic while they were working on the Nicene, etc. Mohammed, on the other hand, taught contrary to the Creed (no death by crucifixion, for example), and never claimed to accept any part of it.

But in the end, the best you can hope for is a definition where relatively few of the self-describers are anomalous. Mormons, for example.

And two things to take to heart. People's religious self-descriptions deserve deference, because it is a very personal matter. Under no circumstance does an atheist get to say who is and isn't a Christian.

As Earl Butz memorably said, "You no play-ah the game, you no make-ah the rules."
edit on 24-12-2010 by eight bits because: nip and tuck



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


When Jesus ascended, who was appointed as executive minister of the church? Peter or James?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bijouramov
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


When Jesus ascended, who was appointed as executive minister of the church? Peter or James?


That's an entirely different question. You asked who was the head of the Church according to the apostles. Peter and Paul both say Christ is the head and the foundation rock of His church in their epistles.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Yes, but when Jesus ascended, who led the brethren according to the apostles? I mean Jesus even after he ascended remains the head of the church, but who was charged with overseeing the flock while he was gone? Was it Peter or James? Who made the decisions back then?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bijouramov
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Yes, but when Jesus ascended, who led the brethren according to the apostles? I mean Jesus even after he ascended remains the head of the church, but who was charged with overseeing the flock while he was gone? Was it Peter or James? Who made the decisions back then?


That's fine if you want to go down a new line of questioning, but your original question was answered.

When Christ ascended He left the leadership of the apostles to Peter. It's kind of a moot issue though, because 50 days later the Holy Spirit was given to lead them all and soon after Peter left Jerusalem and handed the duties there to James.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




That's fine if you want to go down a new line of questioning, but your original question was answered.


And I appreciate the time you spend in answering that. But these following questions are in direct relation to my original question.



When Christ ascended He left the leadership of the apostles to Peter.


I hope you don't find it unreasonable of me if I ask you to provide verses that would support the above statement.




It's kind of a moot issue though, because 50 days later the Holy Spirit was given to lead them all and soon after Peter left Jerusalem and handed the duties there to James.


Again, I must request verses that would support this.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
A Christian is a follower of Christ as we see him. No matter the individual viewpoints of biblical teachings a follower of Christ is a Christian.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 
kinglizard,

In reply, I just wish more would as you state. -

"A Christian is a follower of Christ as we see him. No matter the individual viewpoints of biblical teachings a follower of Christ is a Christian."

Some too lax and some overboad, but that is His call.

What is disheartening is the number of the young falling away, unbelievers.

Truthiron.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DanUKphd
 





false doctrine of saved by works


Really, how does that stack up against this scripture?
James 2: 17-20

17So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless. 18Now someone may argue, “Some people have faith; others have good deeds.” But I say, “How can you show me your faith if you don’t have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds.”
19You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.
20How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless?


Actually the once saved always saved, is the false Christian dogma, after all if it was true then the unforgivable sin of blasphemy would be impossible to commit.



edit on 24-12-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join