Fourth Abrahamic religion?

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I tentatively think the latter more than the former

Well, let's take the Jehovah's Witnesses. They say that Jesus is not Jehovah. Is that enough to make their Christ a different Christ than the one talked about by the Saints?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Since the Gospel was restored 200 years ago, we have only been able to convert 17 million people around the world. Seventh-day Adventists, on the other hand, have been able to reach 24 million people with their word in the same amount of time. So something about our message has become a little boring, and sometimes it's better to shake things up. I think we spend too much time trying to prove we're Christians and not enough time showing that the restoration is real. The weight of Christianity is crushing the word of the restoration. We need to pull it out from under the pile of Christian religions and start our own pile. From there, we can let religions into the fourth Abrahamic faith that want to follow the message of the restored gospel. 

I think the church needs to be less corporate.

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think @Benjamin McGuire has not only a valid point, but an unassailable one.  If we pull ourselves out from under the pile of Christian religions, how then do we then teach the Restoration?  What exactly was restored, if not OG Christianity?

 

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

How can Joseph Smith have restored us to something that we are not?

Just a few questions on that part:

 

Did Joseph say he came to restore Christianity? Did he talk about making people true or restored Christians? Once things were up and running, did he refer to the Saints as Christians?

 

(These aren't rhetorical questions, I don't know the answers 🙂 )

 

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 It's tautologically impossible.  If we are not Christianity Restored, we have no message, no purpose, no religion.  

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

something about our message has become a little boring,

I have never heard anyone say “I didn’t let the Mormon missionaries in because I didn’t want to be bored all evening.”

Do you have any evidence that being boring is the reason our missionaries aren’t baptizing more?  Maybe we are too exciting, too peculiar (“just another Christian religion” is also on my list of Never Encountered Anything Like That Ever).  Maybe we are too patriarchal or too hierarchical, too white an image, too American (all I have heard as major reasons).  Maybe 100s of reasons that are not “too boring”.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

5 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Well, let's take the Jehovah's Witnesses. They say that Jesus is not Jehovah. Is that enough to make their Christ a different Christ than the one talked about by the Saints?

For me, the point at which Christ becomes so different that a viewpoint is no longer Christian, is when He is no longer unique.  For Muslims, he was just one of many prophets.  Therefore, not unique and and not Christian.  In some modern takes on the historical Jesus, he is but a great moral teacher, the same as the Buddah or Confucius.  Therefore, not unique and not Christian.  

I'm not well versed in JW Christology, but I believe that they believe he was a mortal who became the adopted Son of God.  As long as He was the only such mortal to ever be so adopted, I'm perfectly willing to consider them full members of the Christian family.  

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

I don't think you've thought about what a good message it would send to start a fourth Abrahamic faith based on a heavenly father and mother

I don't think you know my opinions about this. I am strongly in favor of women being able to participate in organized religion equally with men, having access to the same roles and authority at all levels. And I see no reason why such an organization could not claim to be part of the Christianity. Claiming to be a fourth branch would only alienate the vast majority of Christians who still value that term.

Quote

I know a lot of Christians who have given up on Christianity because of all the drama and fighting. 

I think you would quickly find that the drama and fighting are not going to go away just because you start a new branch. 

[Leaf474]

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

For me, the point at which Christ becomes so different that a viewpoint is no longer Christian, is when He is no longer unique.  For Muslims, he was just one of many prophets.  Therefore, not unique and and not Christian.  In some modern takes on the historical Jesus, he is but a great moral teacher, the same as the Buddah or Confucius.  Therefore, not unique and not Christian.

I'm pretty sure the JW's

(not a pejorative, they refer to themselves that way 🙂 )

say that Jesus is an angel, so in that way not unique. But they do say that he was the first Angel created, indeed the first thing or being created, so unique in that way.

 

But do the Saints say that Jesus is unique? My understanding is that he is viewed as one of maybe billions of Gods, just like us. He had a unique formation, maybe? The union of Heavenly Father and Mary? Or am I all mixed up 😀

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

I'm not well versed in JW Christology, but I believe that they believe he was a mortal who became the adopted Son of God.  As long as He was the only such mortal to ever be so adopted, I'm perfectly willing to consider them full members of the Christian family.  

Well, no, but five stars for trying. I don't think they say Jesus was ever a mortal being, nor adopted.

 

Would it be allowable to post a link here to their website? I'm not in favor of their teachings, just using them as an example of what might or might not be Christian.

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Well, let's take the Jehovah's Witnesses. They say that Jesus is not Jehovah. Is that enough to make their Christ a different Christ than the one talked about by the Saints?

I am not really familiar enough with Jehovah's Witnesses Christology to comment on that. Sorry.

[Stormin' Mormon]

From JW.org: 

Quote

We have faith that Jesus came to earth from heaven and gave his perfect human life as a ransom sacrifice.

Probably unique, if they believe, like the LDS do, that Jesus lead the ONLY perfect life ever to have been lived.

Quote

His death and resurrection make it possible for those exercising faith in him to gain everlasting life. 

Probably unique, if exercising faith in any other name has no salvific power.

Quote

We also believe that Jesus is now ruling as King of God’s heavenly Kingdom, which will soon bring peace to the entire earth.

Probably unique, if there is no other King in God's heavenly Kingdom.

The LDS claim of uniqueness has some overlap: Only begotten of the Father, only being to have ever lived a perfect life, only name in which faith can have any salvific power, only being to have been resurrected through His own power, etc. 

 

[Sara H]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not really familiar enough with Jehovah's Witnesses Christology to comment on that. Sorry.

Hold on, you're confusing me kind sir. Don't you think, like InCognitus, that if someone says they're a Christian because it's what they believe, then they must be a Christian? JWs say they are Christians, so we should believe them, right? Their ideas about Christ shouldn't matter. 

[Leaf474]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not really familiar enough with Jehovah's Witnesses Christology to comment on that. Sorry.

No problem, *suppose* there were a group that said that Jesus wasn't Jehovah in any way. Would that be a different Christ than what the Saints teach?

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

For me, the point at which Christ becomes so different that a viewpoint is no longer Christian, is when He is no longer unique.  For Muslims, he was just one of many prophets.  Therefore, not unique and and not Christian.  In some modern takes on the historical Jesus, he is but a great moral teacher, the same as the Buddah or Confucius.  Therefore, not unique and not Christian.  

I'm not well versed in JW Christology, but I believe that they believe he was a mortal who became the adopted Son of God.  As long as He was the only such mortal to ever be so adopted, I'm perfectly willing to consider them full members of the Christian family.  

Just wiki, but you appear to be correct and I see nothing that would cause me to not call them Christian:

Quote

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's "only-begotten Son", and that his life began in heaven.^[90]He is described as God's first creation and the "exact representation of God",^[91] but is believed to be a separate entity and not part of a Trinity. Jesus is said to have been used by God in the creation of all other things.^[92] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Archangel Michael, "the Word" of John 1:1, and wisdom personified in Proverbs 8 refer to Jesus in his pre-human existence and that he resumed these identities after his ascension to heaven following his death and resurrection. They also identify him with the "rider of the white horse" at Revelation 6 and 19.^[93] His birth on earth was accomplished when he willingly allowed himself to be transferred, by God, from heaven to the womb of the virgin, Mary.^[94] While on earth, Jesus was executed as a sacrifice to atone for mankind's sins, becoming the "eternal father" to the human family.^[95]

They believe that after his death, Jesus appeared to his disciples, convinced them of his resurrection, and then ascended into heaven to sit at Jehovah's right hand until he would become the promised king of God's heavenly kingdom. Jesus acts as the mediator of a "new covenant"^[96] referred to in Jeremiah 31:31, Luke 22:20, and Hebrews 9:15; 12:24, mediating between the parties of that covenant (God and the "144,000"). Those with an earthly hope are said to be beneficiaries of that covenant.^[97][98][99] Even as king of God's kingdom, Jesus remains subordinate to God.^[100] Witnesses reject the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, who they believe bore more children after Jesus.^[101]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Here's another part of the article Navidad supplied us with. Here's a few words that describe Christianity in the article. "Diametrically opposed, troubles and perplexity, false doctrine and darkness, error and superstition, minds have been beclouded, darkness, groveling in dark." 

Nobody, not even the informed Christian of today, would deny that some of the denominations of Christianity have doctrines that are diametrically opposed to one another.  I'm not sure why this is supposed to convince someone that everything in Christianity is totally false and that we should have no part in it.  Remember, Joseph Smith taught that Christian denominations have some truth and we are to gather that truth from them in order to be true to our faith:

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'" (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

So according to Joseph Smith, we need these people in order to learn to see the bigger picture.  I think that includes learning to get along with them.

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

The restored gospel isn't meant to be a sub-group of Christianity.

The restored gospel is restored Christianity.  This article from the Church Newsroom in 2012, using an essay by Robert L. Millet, seems to address most of the questions in this thread:  Traditional Christianity and the Latter-day Saints

Quote

1.     Why do Mormons insist they are Christian?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built upon the person, power, divine Sonship and teachings of Jesus Christ. He is our Savior, our Lord and our God. Salvation comes in and through Him and in no other way. He alone has the power to forgive sins, cleanse hearts and raise people from the dead. He is also the great Exemplar, the model for happiness and the abundant life.

2.     Do Latter-day Saints want to be included within traditional Christianity?

Although we have many things in common with different denominations, we are not a part of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant Christianity. Instead, we claim that ours is an entirely different expression of original Christianity—restored Christianity.

And, the article is not afraid to define the term "Christian":

Quote

5.     How would Mormons define a Christian?

We believe a Christian is one who is a follower of Jesus. No one of us has the power or right to look into the hearts of men and women and discern the reality of their Christianity or the depths of their commitment to Christ. Faith is a personal matter and is really between that person and God.

6.     Because Latter-day Saints believe that many truths and powers were lost from the earth following the deaths of the apostles, do they feel they are the only true Christians?

No. We see ourselves as a part of the larger Christian world, and we have no difficulty acknowledging that our Christian friends worship the same God we do, seek the redeeming power of the same Savior we do, and enjoy the illuminating and sanctifying influence of the same Holy Spirit we do. Now, to be sure, Latter-day Saints do believe they have something to add to the great reservoir of Christian truth in the world—important theological insights, as well as a broadened perspective on the purpose of life and the eternal destiny of individuals and families.

Seems clear to me.

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

No problem, *suppose* there were a group that said that Jesus wasn't Jehovah in any way. Would that be a different Christ than what the Saints teach?

I, personally, don't see the need for a Christian to believe that Jesus is Jehovah.  The Bible can be interpreted multiple ways in that regard.  For me, it is whether Christ is the only way to God.

[Leaf474]

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

From JW.org: 

Probably unique, if they believe, like the LDS do, that Jesus lead the ONLY perfect life ever to have been lived.

Probably unique, if exercising faith in any other name has no salvific power.

Probably unique, if there is no other King in God's heavenly Kingdom.

The LDS claim of uniqueness has some overlap: Only begotten of the Father, only being to have ever lived a perfect life, only name in which faith can have any salvific power, only being to have been resurrected through His own power, etc. 

 

Thanks for doing that research 👍 Not that I want to beat this to death or anything, but this is how the Wikipedia article "Jesus in Islam" starts

"In Islam, Jesus is believed to be the penultimate prophet and messenger of God and the Messiah sent to guide the Children of Israel (Banī Isra'īl) with a book called the Injīl." So, some degree of uniqueness there.

 

I suspect we could probably find some Hindus who would say that Jesus was an incarnation of Krishna, unique in that he was sent to the Jews.

 

Anyways, if we set aside any characteristics or activities attributed to Christ, and just say a person is a Christian if they follow Christ, then the Saints definitely fit the definition.

[Leaf474]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just wiki, but you appear to be correct and I see nothing that would cause me to not call them Christian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs

This indicates, does it not, a set of characteristics (or actions?) that a group must attribute to Jesus in order to qualify as Christians?

[InCognitus]

21 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Hold on, you're confusing me kind sir. Don't you think, like InCognitus, that if someone says they're a Christian because it's what they believe, then they must be a Christian?

For the record, this is not my view.  Please don't misrepresent me.  A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ and follows him.  It's really more about behavior and what is in the person's heart than it is about doctrine.  Many times it becomes obvious from a person's actions, but not always.  And, ultimately, it's not our place to judge a person's heart.  That is between them and the Lord.  Consequently, it's not our place to try to take away a person's relationship with the Savior (assuming they have that relationship).  This is why fighting over who is really Christian and who is not is just plain dumb.

[webbles]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

I will offer an answer to your excellent question. I have talked to many (how many is many?) members of the church who do not believe that there was a total apostasy; who believe that there was at worst a partial apostasy in which the Spirit continued to work, comfort, and guide folks.

I think "total apostasy" can have multiple meanings:

1. Loss of priesthood power
2. Loss of the Spirit
3. Loss of teachings
4. Corruption of teachings

I think "total apostasy" in the church's teachings has always included #1 with a blend of #3 and #4.  I don't think it has ever included #2.  The reason is that in the Book of Mormon, there is a prophecy that the Spirit would move people to travel to the promised land.  This is interpreted as Christopher Columbus and the settlement of the Americas (though I have heard of other interpretations).  We've also talked about visions from before Joseph Smith (such as what Wilford Woodruff said).  There's been talks/discourses about how God inspired the protestant reformation, the US constitution, the KJV translation, and other historical items.  I think we've always believed that the Spirit was active during the total apostasy.

[Leaf474]

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Nobody, not even the informed Christian of today, would deny that some of the denominations of Christianity have doctrines that are diametrically opposed to one another.  I'm not sure why this is supposed to convince someone that everything in Christianity is totally false and that we should have no part in it.  Remember, Joseph Smith taught that Christian denominations have some truth and we are to gather that truth from them in order to be true to our faith:

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'" (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

So according to Joseph Smith, we need these people in order to learn to see the bigger picture.  I think that includes learning to get along with them.

The restored gospel is restored Christianity.  This article from the Church Newsroom in 2012, using an essay by Robert L. Millet, seems to address most of the questions in this thread:  Traditional Christianity and the Latter-day Saints

And, the article is not afraid to define the term "Christian":

Seems clear to me.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus - that would be a big tent definition, I think. And I'm fine with that, definitely 👍

 

I'm just also saying it may end up including groups we don't normally think of as Christian. I know there are Hindus who talk about "Christ Consciousness".

 

An old friend sent me an excerpt from a book about "New Thought". I think that used to be called Religious Science (not to be confused with Christian Science). Anyways, it contained numerous quotes from Jesus. But the actual teaching isn't something most people would recognize as Christianity.

 

To stretch the tent pegs super far, there are Secular Humanists who would say that they follow Jesus' teaching of "treat others like you want them to treat you".

Edited September 13, 2023 by Leaf474
Fixed a confusing voice typing error

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Hold on, you're confusing me kind sir. Don't you think, like InCognitus, that if someone says they're a Christian because it's what they believe, then they must be a Christian?

Nope, not what I believe at all. I apologize if I have written something that has confused you about my beliefs on the subject.

In that case, let me try again . . . First the negative . . . I do not believe someone is a Christian because they say they are (although I am not in any way the judge of that). I do not believe someone is a Christian by virtue of having their name on the membership roll of a Christian organization, group, or church. I do not believe someone is a Christian because they have been baptized by whatever Christian group. I do not believe that anyone is made a Christian by undergoing any ordinance(s) in any church because I don't believe any ordinances in any church are salvific. Last in this regard, I do not believe that once a Christian, always a Christian. Therefore if there are 14 million members of the LDS church in the world, I do not believe that there are necessarily 14 million members who are Christians. If there are 16 million members in the Southern Baptist Convention, I do not believe that there are necessarily 16 million members who are Christians. Half a million members in the C&MA church - not a half a million Christian, and so on. At one time in my life I was a member of a Masonic lodge and a master mason. Not any more. At one time in my life I was a member of Troop 401 - a Boy Scout - not any more. At one time I was a Certified Family Life Educator - not any more. And so on.

Who is a Christian? - now the affirmative. . . . I believe that the decision to be a Christian is an individual decision. It does not and cannot happen as a member of a group or because of a group experience. Even in a group, Christians are made one-by-one. I guess someone can be born into a church, as I often hear in Mormonism, but they are not by that birth born into Christianity. Becoming a Christian is as the Bible says a process of a new birth - a birth experienced by a personal decision. What is that decision?

It is a decision to acknowledge that I am a sinner by deed and thought. It is a decision to repent of that sin, which means in the Greek to turn around, or to turn away from my tendency to sin. In that last sense it is an aspirational statement. It is a decision to acknowledge the reality and truth of the atonement of Christ. Regardless of how rudimentary is my understanding or knowledge of that atonement, it is an acknowledgment of Christ as Savior and my acceptance of all those decisions in my own personal life. Once I declare that, if only to myself I am a Christian.

Even if I have never darkened the door of a church I am a Christian. By virtue of my faith, I am made whole (in the sense of forgiven, declared worthy) by Christ even if I have no knowledge of all of that. I may or may not then join a church, fellowship, group, etc. to learn more about what I have done in my decision-making. Some keep on learning and growing in their faith - we call that sanctification. Some may regret their decisions and turn away from them quickly or over time. Does that mean they lose their Christianity when they lose their faith (in Christ, not in a church)? I would say yes, although many would say no. One of the great divides in Christianity is between those who believe once "saved," always "saved - and those who believe that salvation (that which makes someone a Christian) can be rejected and thus lost. For now, I am in the latter camp.

Must someone be able to articulate specific beliefs beyond the atonement such as the trinity to be considered a Christian? I think not. Must someone understand the role of the Holy Spirit in their lives? I think not. I do believe that becoming a Christian is a point-in-time experience that can be lost over time. I believe that Sanctification is a process over time - perhaps over all eternity.

When is the finish line? At the judgment seat of Christ. No one comes to the Father, but by Christ at that time. Who will He allow access to the Father? Again, that is an individual one-by-one decision when deciding the fate of the billions of humans, including the Christians and the non-Christians who have ever lived. Can we predict in this life who will be allowed? Not with any degree of certainty!  I happen to believe in a wideness in His (Christ's) mercy at that time. I do not believe earthly denominations, faith groups, etc. will continue after this life. No Mennonites or Mormons in the spirit world or in heaven, at whatever level. I believe certainty is more often a sin than a virtue. However, that is another story! Thanks. I hope I have been clear in who I believe is a Christian.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Navidad

[Leaf474]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Nope, not what I believe at all. I apologize if I have written something that has confused you about my beliefs on the subject.

In that case, let me try again . . . First the negative . . . I do not believe someone is a Christian because they say they are. I do not believe someone is a Christian by virtue of having their name on the membership roll of a Christian organization, group, or church. I do not believe someone is a Christian because they have been baptized by whatever Christian group. I do not believe that anyone is made a Christian by undergoing any ordinance(s) in any church because I don't believe any ordinances in any church are salvific. Last in this regard, I do not believe that once a Christian, always a Christian. Therefore if there are 14 million members of the LDS church in the world, I do not believe that there are necessarily 14 million members who are Christians. If there are 16 million members in the Southern Baptist Convention, I do not believe that there are necessarily 16 million members who are Christians. Half a million members in the C&MA church - not a half a million Christian, and so on. At one time in my life I was a member of a Masonic lodge and a master mason. Not any more. At one time in my life I was a member of Troop 401 - a Boy Scout - not any more. At one time I was a Certified Family Life Educator - not any more. And so on.

Who is a Christian? - now the affirmative. . . . I believe that the decision to be a Christian is an individual decision. It does not and cannot happen as a member of a group or because of a group experience. Even in a group, Christians are made one-by-one. I guess someone can be born into a church, as I often hear in Mormonism, but they are not by that birth born into Christianity. Becoming a Christian is as the Bible says a process of a new birth - a birth experienced by a personal decision. What is that decision?

It is a decision to acknowledge that I am a sinner by deed and thought. It is a decision to repent of that sin, which means in the Greek to turn around, or to turn away from my tendency to sin. In that last sense it is an aspirational statement. It is a decision to acknowledge the reality and truth of the atonement of Christ. Regardless of how rudimentary is my understanding or knowledge of that atonement, it is an acknowledgment of Christ as Savior and my acceptance of all those decisions in my own personal life. Once I declare that, if only to myself I am a Christian.

Even if I have never darkened the door of a church I am a Christian. By virtue of my faith, I am made whole (in the sense of forgiven, declared worthy) by Christ even if I have no knowledge of all of that. I may or may not then join a church, fellowship, group, etc. to learn more about what I have done in my decision-making. Some keep on learning and growing in their faith - we call that sanctification. Some may regret their decisions and turn away from them quickly or over time. Does that mean they lose their Christianity when they lose their faith (in Christ, not in a church)? I would say yes, although many would say no. One of the great divides in Christianity is between those who believe once "saved," always "saved - and those who believe that salvation (that which makes someone a Christian) can be rejected and thus lost. For now, I am in the latter camp.

Must someone be able to articulate specific beliefs beyond the atonement such as the trinity to be considered a Christian? I think not. Must someone understand the role of the Holy Spirit in their lives? I think not. I do believe that becoming a Christian is a point-in-time experience that can be lost over time. I believe that Sanctification is a process over time - perhaps over all eternity.

When is the finish line? At the judgment seat of Christ. No one comes to the Father, but by Christ at that time. Who will He allow access to the Father? Again, that is an individual one-by-one decision when deciding the fate of the billions of humans, including the Christians and the non-Christians who have ever lived. Can we predict in this life who will be allowed? Not with any degree of certainty!  I happen to believe in a wideness in His (Christ's) mercy at that time. I do not believe earthly denominations, faith groups, etc. will continue after this life. No Mennonites or Mormons in the spirit world or in heaven, at whatever level. I believe certainty is more often a sin than a virtue. However, that is another story! Thanks. I hope I have been clear in who I believe is a Christian.

If I understand your post right, then it would be:

Are {Blanks} Christian? Some are, some aren't.

 

Am I understanding you right?

[Navidad]

32 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

No problem, *suppose* there were a group that said that Jesus wasn't Jehovah in any way. Would that be a different Christ than what the Saints teach?

Sorry again. I don't know what you mean by saying that "Jesus wasn't Jehovah in any way?" Jehovah is a term I think of applying to the Father. Jehovah-Jireh for example means God will provide. Christ is what is provided by Jehovah - the Father. He is the sacrifice - his is the atonement. He Jesus is the Christ, the Savior, the Lord-Adonai - the Messiah. I am not used to thinking of Jesus as Jehovah. Does that make me a non-Christian? I believe the Saints to understand Jesus as Jehovah as well as those names I listed. I will of course, allow them to speak to that. Was Christ active in the Old Testament, or was he in the Old Testament portrayed as the coming Messiah? I am uncertain about the first, and provisionally certain about the second. You will probably rarely ever hear me say I am "certain" about faith matters. I think certainty leads to a host of problems.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

This indicates, does it not, a set of characteristics (or actions?) that a group must attribute to Jesus in order to qualify as Christians?

For whom are these characteristics a requirement to believe about Jesus?  Saints or me or Christians in general?

Edited September 13, 2023 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

33 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Thanks for doing that research 👍 Not that I want to beat this to death or anything, but this is how the Wikipedia article "Jesus in Islam" starts

"In Islam, Jesus is believed to be the penultimate prophet and messenger of God and the Messiah sent to guide the Children of Israel (Banī Isra'īl) with a book called the Injīl." So, some degree of uniqueness there.

 

I suspect we could probably find some Hindus who would say that Jesus was an incarnation of Krishna, unique in that he was sent to the Jews.

 

Anyways, if we set aside any characteristics or activities attributed to Christ, and just say a person is a Christian if they follow Christ, then the Saints definitely fit the definition.

That's what I get for taking shortcuts.  The working definition of Christian that I use is one who looks to Christ as someone who was "uniquely normative."  I tried to sidestep the "normative" part of the definition and ended up with a number of exceptions that would have otherwise been ruled out.  Muslims may see Him as unique because there was only one penultimate messenger of God, but what makes Him normative in Islamic thought (His role as a messenger of God) is not unique.  

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Hold on, you're confusing me kind sir. Don't you think, like InCognitus, that if someone says they're a Christian because it's what they believe, then they must be a Christian? JWs say they are Christians, so we should believe them, right? Their ideas about Christ shouldn't matter. 

While I'm not in the habit of throwing people out of the Christian tent, I do recognize that there has to be SOME definition and line drawing.  A definition with no boundaries has no utility whatsoever.  

Edited September 13, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Navidad]

10 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

If I understand your post right, then it would be:

Are {Blanks} Christian? Some are, some aren't.

 

Am I understanding you right?

Yep!  Attention all - a short answer from Navidad!