What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Vance]

Ok so then explain to me from the context of Deuteronomy 4 how you can justify limiting there is ‘none else’ in heaven or earth to mean there is no god that takes eminence over God?

Deuteronomy 4:35&39

Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightiest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him... know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Well, Paul already answered this question.

1 Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

AND!!!

Just for fun some quotes.

"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as a god ... Matthew 28.19 ... Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son (e.g., 11.27), but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God. It is John's gospel that suggests the idea of equality between Jesus and God ... While there are other New Testament texts where God, Jesus, and the Spirit are referred to in the same passage (e.g., Jude 20-21), it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear. An example is 1 Peter 1.1-2" (Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, Trinity, p 782).

[KevinG]

Ok so answer my questions then....

1+3) Do you believe Jesus has eternally existed as God - with all his atributes and power. Or do you believe he was once an intelligence that has gotten to the state he is now in?

2) Do you believe there are other beings of Gods in existance other than the Father or is there only 1 being of God in existance?

4) Do you believe Jesus created the Devil or is he a spirit son of the Father as the Devil is?

5) Do you believe Jesus incarnation began with his conception in Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit or by an act of the Father?

They are all simple questions. If you can't go with one of my statements then you can make up one of your own to explain.

Don't take my word for it. Look up actual LDS doctrine. (Hint: not CARM, UTLM or The Godmakers)

That's a CFR and please don't answer my questions with questions.

Edited August 1, 2012 by KevinG

[altersteve]

1+3) Do you believe Jesus has eternally existed as God - with all his atributes and power. Or do you believe he was once an intelligence that has gotten to the state he is now in?

Yes. I don't see a contradiction between the two.

2) Do you believe there are other beings of Gods in existance other than the Father or is there only 1 being of God in existance?

There is one Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I believe each of these personages may be referred to as God individually, and they can also be referred to as God collectively, which is often what the authors of ancient scripture seem to do.

4) Do you believe Jesus created the Devil or is he a spirit son of the Father as the Devil is?

I do not believe the devil is a "spirit son" of the Father. He was cast out of heaven and is no longer part of God's family. But yes, I believe the power of Christ brought all of us into existence, including the spirit who would become the devil, since the Father created all things by and through the power of His Son.

5) Do you believe Jesus incarnation began with his conception in Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit or by an act of the Father?

I believe Jesus was born of a virgin. There was no sexual intercourse involved in Jesus' conception whatsoever.

Edited August 1, 2012 by altersteve

[Vance]

5) Do you believe Jesus incarnation began with his conception in Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit or by an act of the Father?

WARNING!!!! WARNING!!!!!!

FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT!!!!

Edited August 1, 2012 by Vance

[Duncan]

Bluebell,

Do you have a copy of Daniel Peterson and Stephen Ricks' book , "Offenders for a Word"?

if not, here you go! it has an EXCELLENT portrayal of Christian definitons and I highly recommend it

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=58

[Vance]

Is the Hebrew Bible monotheistic?

Nah. Not really.

http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/monoth1.pdf

I conclude, the, that monotheism, as used, for example, by Vriezen in that passage with which I began this paper, is indeed a misused word in Jewish Studies. The pattern of Jewish beliefs about God remains monarchistic throughout. God is king of a heavenly court consisting of many other powerful beings, not always under his control. For most Jews, God is the sole object of worship, but he is not the only divine being. In particular, there is always a prominent number two in the hierarchy to whom Israel particular relates. This pattern is inherited from biblical times. The attempt of the compilers of the Hebrew Bible to merge (sorry, don't know how to do Hebrew characters) with (more Hebrew characters) never really succeeded.

[KevinG]

WARNING!!!! WARNING!!!!!!

FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT!!!!

His original statement about the non-true Christians was "5) was begotten in the flesh by the father" which of course is a crude misrepresentation of "begotten of the father".

The Bible and LDS revelation has been quiet on the mechanics of the process.

[Zakuska]

I'm off now, but i will explain how I understand this when I get back.

I await your spin doctoring, with bated breath.

[CASteinman]

So if we take the term 'follower of Jesus' or 'disciple of Jesus' and come to the NT seeking to understand who does or doesn't fall into these categories we need to look at the entire presentation of the NT regarding 1) who Jesus is and 2) what do his followers do/look like/believe.

This is not an exercise authorized by the Bible. Or in other words, not biblically approved -- extra-biblically supported, I suppose. Maybe supported by Greek forms of logic.

[bluebell]

Bluebell,

Do you have a copy of Daniel Peterson and Stephen Ricks' book , "Offenders for a Word"?

if not, here you go! it has an EXCELLENT portrayal of Christian definitons and I highly recommend it

http://maxwellinstit...ooks/?bookid=58

This is one of the many reasons you are awesome Duncan! When i get to bismarck, i'm going to be on the look-out for an equal awesome woman worthy of your attention since i'll final live close enough to attempt to be a matchmaker.

[Ahab]

Looks to me like this thread is following the same pattern followed earlier when the Church was in apostasy, with no apostles.

Some guys sitting around (gals weren't allowed so this is a bit different) trying to figure out who they thought was a Christian, or a disciple of Jesus Christ, based on what they believed was the criteria they should use... the words they accepted as authoritative.

Why are we confined to quotes from only the New Testament?

Why are we trying to figure this out, based on what some other people have said about something?

Why not just ask Jesus Christ if we are his disciples, or if he will say we are following him?

He will tell us, don't you know, if we ask our Father who we can access through him.

[KevinG]

Looks to me like this thread is following the same pattern followed earlier when the Church was in apostasy, with no apostles.

Some guys sitting around (gals weren't allowed so this is a bit different) trying to figure out who they thought was a Christian, or a disciple of Jesus Christ, based on what they believed was the criteria they should use... the words they accepted as authoritative.

Why are we confined to quotes from only the New Testament?

Why are we trying to figure this out, based on what some other people have said about something?

Why not just ask Jesus Christ if we are his disciples, or if he will say we are following him?

He will tell us, don't you know, if we ask our Father who we can access through him.

For the sake of the exercise we often humor Biblical idolters (worshipers of the written word not the living author) by confining our arguments to the sources they approve. This is of course an artificial restriction not a statement regarding our belief in a living God who reveals His will in our day.

[Vance]

For example in Matthew 28 when Jesus gives the great commission we see Jesus sending out his disciples to baptise in the name of.... not think for a moment.

Matt 28:19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

If you are familiar with the OT what is the name of God? Jehovah is often (but not exclusively) used in conjunction with the phrase ‘the name’ The great name of Jehovah. But in the great commission Jesus commands to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit.

Not accurate.

He said "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Notice the difference?

Where we would expect something to be done in the name of God in the OT it is done in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit.

You continue to misquote.

Notice also that it is in the name not names.

Notice the conjunctive "and" is being used.

"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

If he were referring to three different names, how would he word it differently?

To Jesus the Father, Son and Spirit was 1 name, why?

Faulty conclusion based on a misquote.

Because the Father, Son and Spirit are one God –

Agreed.

. . . not just one God in purpose . . .

You have not demonstrated that this oneness of purpose cannot be the attribute that defines what is being numbered the "mono" of God.

. . . for then they would be three different names,

As the quote ACTUALLY indicates?

but one God in existence, in being.

You have not demonstrated that the "oneness" of God is "in existence" or "in being".

You accept that they are three "persons", can you provide any example where a separate "person" is NOT a separate "being"?

Edited August 1, 2012 by Vance

[Ahab]

You accept that they are three "persons", can you provide any example where a separate "person" is NOT a separate "being"?

Just in case this point may go a little further with you than it did with (she who shall remain nameless, for now):

Can you think of an instance where someone may use the phrase "human being" to refer to a particular kind of being while referring to everyone who is that kind of being as a _______ being?

In such a case, could you understand how all of the individuals can be considered to be the same being... the being known as human, or human being, just as the word God can refer to one particular kind of being, which is the kind of being all persons who are God are.

[KevinG]

Don't forget the Lord's prayer:

"Our three-fold personality existing in one divine being or substance; the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite, co-equal, co-eternal persons; one God in three persons who art in Heaven."

[Duncan]

This is one of the many reasons you are awesome Duncan! When i get to bismarck, i'm going to be on the look-out for an equal awesome woman worthy of your attention since i'll final live close enough to attempt to be a matchmaker.

ooh, I am all goosepimply!!!! thank you! sense of humour, I like a sense of humour. driving ability would be nice, since I don't know how or whatever...but it is on my to do list!

Edited August 1, 2012 by Duncan

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Don't forget the Lord's prayer:

"Our three-fold personality existing in one divine being or substance; the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite, co-equal, co-eternal persons; one God in three persons who art in Heaven."

Well done.

[Akboy]

I disagree, too many times they also want to define follow. If some people do not follow the way another thinks he/she should follow they think it their duty to correct them.

But defining follow is a huge part of Christianity. If someone walked up to you and asked you how to follow Christ, what would you say? Yet following Christ isn't something that can be learned in one day, or even one year. We spend our whole lives learning more and more about what it means to follow Christ, and a good church will help you in that process. So why are you so reluctant to define follow in this case?

Bottom line (again); it is not how you follow Christ it is that you choose to follow him that makes you a Christian.

There have been evil men who have followed Christ and were called Christian.

There have been very good men who have followed Christ and were called Christian.

Where are you getting your definition? I'm getting my definition, a follower of Christ, from a legitimate, unbiased source that looks at the original meaning, etymology. The definition isn't someone who believes they're following Christ, it's someone who actually is a follower of Christ.

A billion people could misuse a word and it would still be a misuse of the word. I actually agree with the authors of Offenders when they wrote Truth is not established by opinion polls, and not even by surveying “experts.” p. 175

I most certainly did NOT say I "don't care if someone is following a false Christ." I don't believe anyone is following a false Christ if they say they follow Him. In other words, if they say they follow Christ, then they follow the same Christ I follow -- and regardless of the things they have wrong, they still follow the same Christ I follow. Having an understanding of Him that is less than 100% correct does not preclude them from the great privilege of calling themselves a disciple of the Savior. How many times do I have to say that?

And, in my opinion, Christ was talking about people who claim to be a Christ (Messiah). That, to me, is a "false Christ."

Are there any false Christ's today? Has Christianity successfully eliminated all false Christ from the world?

I think you're vastly underestimating Satan and his ability to deceive people. Sure, he likes to tempt people into sinful life styles full of sex, drugs, drunkenness, etc. But he has more tools than that. Why do you think he's called the father of lies?

John 8

³⁷ “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. ³⁸ I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with^[l] your father.”

³⁹ They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. ⁴⁰ But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. ⁴¹ You do the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”

⁴² Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. ⁴³ Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. ⁴⁴ You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

They thought they were following God. But they were being deceived by the father of lies. Do you think they were following God?

The best lie has enough truth in it to make it look like the real thing. Satan isn't stupid. He knows if someone today claimed to be Christ or a Messiah, he wouldn't get many followers. The best way to get followers is to take the real gospel and twist it. Are you saying Satan has given up and isn't trying to decieve people with false gospels?

Edited August 1, 2012 by Akboy

[altersteve]

But defining follow is a huge part of Christianity. If someone walked up to you and asked you how to follow Christ, what would you say?

I would say that I follow Christ in word and in deed.

Yet following Christ isn't something that can be learned in one day, or even one year. We spend our whole lives learning more and more about what it means to follow Christ, and a good church will help you in that process. So why are you so reluctant to define follow in this case?

Follow = to serve Him, worship Him, keep His commandments, and do as He would do.

Very simple.

Where are you getting your definition? I'm getting my definition, a follower of Christ, from a legitimate, unbiased source that looks at the original meaning, etymology. The definition isn't someone who believes they're following Christ, it's someone who actually is a follower of Christ.

You're not trying very hard to see this from the LDS perspective, are you? We don't see a difference!

They thought they were following God. But they were being deceived by the father of lies. Do you think they were following God?

You're changing the subject. They thought they were following God, but they didn't think they were following Jesus. Also, they weren't deceived that they were following God, they were deceived that Jesus was not who He said He was.

Edited August 1, 2012 by altersteve

[bluebell]

But defining follow is a huge part of Christianity. If someone walked up to you and asked you how to follow Christ, what would you say? Yet following Christ isn't something that can be learned in one day, or even one year. We spend our whole lives learning more and more about what it means to follow Christ, and a good church will help you in that process. So why are you so reluctant to define follow in this case?

If you can't be a Christian without following Christ correctly, but it takes your whole life to learn how to follow Him correctly, when can someone be called a Christian?

[Akboy]

I would say that I follow Christ in word and in deed.

What if they wanted to know more? What deeds are required to be following Christ?

Follow = to serve Him, worship Him, keep His commandments, and do as He would do.

Very simple.

Specifically, how do you serve him? How do you keep his commandments?

You're not trying very hard to see this from the LDS perspective, are you? We don't see a difference!

I've heard it plenty of times. I'm just trying to understand the logic of it. If I believe I'm following someone's directions, yet in reality I'm not, then what am I following? Maybe I misunderstood the directions. Maybe I heard an inaccurate description of the directions. Or maybe I heard them correctly, but don't really want to follow them, so I rationalize my own way to follow the directions. There are many ways to believe you're following something without actually following it.

You're changing the subject. They thought they were following God, but they didn't think they were following Jesus. Also, they weren't deceived that they were following God, they were deceived that Jesus was not who He said He was.

You're missing the point. Satan is a liar and the father of lies. He made people believe they were following God when they weren't. Why couldn't he do the same today with people trying to follow Christ? Are you saying Satan has given up and isn't trying to decieve people with false gospels?

[Akboy]

If you can't be a Christian without following Christ correctly, but it takes your whole life to learn how to follow Him correctly, when can someone be called a Christian?

But I didn't say "it takes your whole life to learn how to follow Him correctly." I said we spend our whole lives learning more about what it means to follow him. We can certainly get on the right path to following him within a day, but there's always more to learn.

[volgadon]

http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2010/07/monotheistic-declarations.html

This should be a good starter list for seeing why "one" didn't mean "excludes everything else from even existing." The examples cover both OT and NT times.

[bluebell]

But I didn't say "it takes your whole life to learn how to follow Him correctly." I said we spend our whole lives learning more about what it means to follow him. We can certainly get on the right path to following him within a day, but there's always more to learn.

I'm sorry if i misunderstood you.

It just seems that if it takes a whole lifetime to really learn what it means to follow Christ, then following Jesus imperfectly cannot exclude someone from being a Christian.