I know you are not saying the books are worthless - but I think your arguments lead to that conclusion. They are not supposed to be books like Harry Potter - good for a generation or two. To have any value they had to stand the test of centuries and millennia. Given it took over 300 years to codify the bible - and it has subsequently been argued over by Protestants and Catholics it is not looking very robust as something to fall back on. I would expect noone but a scholar to study more than one of the 3 Abrahamic books. I keep saying that for the time being I am confining my discussion to these three books and especially the Bible - that alone is a big enough challenge. we can expand on others later if you like. I am perfectly aware that there are not only the additional texts and sources you mention but also ones from the Americas and Australasia - it would be too confusing to bring it all together. The big difference with the three we are discussing is that each has been very intolerant.
Is there any evidence to assume that Jesus valued scriptures when all the disciples chosen by him were unversed in them ? Whereas he was led to the cross by the scholars of his age.
It seems also that we are revolving around one question (or maybe 2). Is it necessary to believe that Jesus was the son of God in order to be a Christian ? Is it necessary to believe in the absolute infallibility of the Bible in all matters to be a Christian ? The Quaker, as I am sure you are aware, calls his movement 'the society of friends' ie. friends of Jesus - not followers, not disciples, but on completely equal terms. Emphasizing that God is within each of us - hence contemplation has a higher value than the exactness of scriptures (though if the 2 contradict each other this can be hotly debated amongst them). For many Quakers it is enough to live according to his ideals without any extra belief (eg. virgin birth) being necessary. Curiously enough this places the Quaker in a unique position in dialogue with the Islamic World.
From memory Jesus quoted the scriptures constantly and upturned tables where moneylenders were abusing "his father's house" - that seemed sufficient evidence to me
Well until a couple of hundred years ago I doubt you would have even thought of asking those questions as there was no debate - even between Catholics and Protestants. Quakers do not (all) claim to be Christians. Therefore their beliefs can be entirely different. Some modern Christians claim all sorts of things and frankly I am not sure they actually have a body of belief any more. Stay with mainstream and fundamentalist Christians and I suspect even your questions would be considered blasphemy. Just because there are people who believe things close to Christianity or use the Bible as a good book does not necessarily make them Christians. You would need to find out why they call themselves Christian if they do not believe the fundamental aspects in the Bible. I am relaxed - a person can claim to be whatever they want- I hold no dogma so have nothing to judge.
Again there are problems here Leo. Who wrote these things ? It is unlikely that a carpenter's family would have owned a set of scrolls containing the scriptures of this time (proportionally much more expensive than now), and there is no evidence that he attended rabbinical schools - so where is his scriptural knowledge supposed to have come from ?
Well the bible suggests that as a child he sat at the feet of elders so I guess he got his education there - are you suggesting that the ordinary man in those days knew nothing of their scriptures. Unlikely as they collectively opined on blasphemers and conducted mob action when they chose too. I suspect every poor person in those days attended scriptural teachings at least on the Sabbath - they would not have to own anything That is a bit trite. Of course a person can call themselves what they like. Many said they were Jedi in the 2002 census. If nobody else recognised your claim to be a Christian then you may call yourself one but nobody else needs to.
If your definition of a Christian is someone who calls themselves a Christian then the word is meaningless
Interesting point... and you will find so called Muslims who think they are, etc etc..... Christianity and Hinduism and Buddhism has become so loosely interpreted in this day and age. Some practice Some preach Some philosophize etc etc
Leo, the early Quakers thought of themselves as being the only real Christians and there is no formal entry to becoming a Quaker other than to say that you are one. Most Quakers today would identify themselves as Christians although very few would believe in anything like a virgin birth, nor do they talk much about things like heaven and hell (concepts which are hardly mentioned in the bible) but, whether nominally Christian or not, they are universalists. Universalism means that if you believe in God, then you believe he created everyone - whatever religion (or otherwise) they profess, and that a spark of the divine exists in every person. If there is such a thing as a heaven then people will not be saved because they hold this belief or the other - as if God would punish somebody for simply going with the religion of his parents and neighbours. Because of this 'universalism' many Quakers have become attracted to other religious traditions, some even to Islam. Deep down I believe that all these religions are arrows pointing in the same direction and that only when a Christian can recognise the word of God from the mouth of eg. a Moslem or a Hindu etc. only then can he really be a Christian. Gandhi once said that he was a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew all at the same time - would you contradict his right to do so ? There is actually a faith which emphasizes the unity of all religions - called Baha I' Faith, hardly a new age religion, having its origins in Persia.
Lovely people the Baha I .... i went to their temple in Delhi a few years back please log in to view this image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith Oppressed etc..... and they espouse the unity of all......................
This is another of the blind men and elephant fable. We may each have one perspective but which of us, which religion has the truth?? the poem "The Blind Men and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe (1816–1887). please log in to view this image And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right And all were in the wrong! The poem begins: It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind[13] Each in his own opinion concludes that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan or rope, depending upon where they had touched. Their heated debate comes short of physical violence, but the conflict is never resolved. Moral: So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has see ......... Which of us is right? Which of us knows the whole picture?
You keep using red herrings. I know Quakers developed from a fairly strict sect of Christians and also know through the Quakers I know today that being a Christian is no longer a requirement for being a Quaker. I could not care less. We are not talking about them. I could start a club called the Red and say anyone who calls themself a Red is Red- big deal. If that is the definition of a Red then they qualify. A Christian though in some way has to be a follower of Christ. According to you, if I met someone who had never heard of Christ or Christianity then if I told them I was a Christian and they thought that sounded good and said they were too then suddenly they become a Christian. Even if you agreed with that it would end all discussion as there would be no common reference point. It is absurd. Someone can be a Quaker and a Christian or a Quaker and something else - but the Christian is a Christian and has in some way to believe things that woulld meet a definition of Christianity. I have no objection to people being Universalists etc etc - it is all beside the point. You are not a Christian just because you say you are - except in your own eyes. You are just adopting Poiically Correct style definitions don't upset someone by telling them they are not what they think they are. Does a Universalist who believes in God have to think he created everyone? Is that part of the definition? I doubt it. I can believe in Go d but not consider him the creator.Apart from this your Universalist sounds a bit nicer than the traditional Christian God who condemned even new born babies if they were not baptised. I love the way you have created your idea of who is a "real" Christian - earlier he just had to say he was - now he has to recognise the word of God from the mouth of a Muslim or Hindu etc. You are bending over backwards to create your own idea of what a Christian is. Sounds to me like a person could no longer be a Christian if there were no other religions to hear the word of god from. I think we are poles apart. For me Christianity does not rely on the existence of Muslims or anyone else. A Christian is a follower of Christ, his teaching and Christianity. Maybe people with other beliefs like Quakers and Universalists can be Christians too but not those who believe in things that are alien to Christianity. A Muslim cannot also be a Christian because they deny a central Christian teaching on who Jesus was. They can be very nice people and all that - but they are not Christians because they do not believe who Christ was.
Probably nobody is right because there is no absolute right or wrong. Some religions and groups like to believe there is - but that is just their view. Each of us finds our own path and hopefully that path is right for them.
Leo, a Christian is a person who lives by the teachings of Jesus, no extra belief is necessary. The mysteries of his birth are irrelevant. Do you know who Henrietta Pressburg was ? She was the mother of Karl Marx. How many people have called themselves Marxists over the years without knowing that ? Having said that, living according to the ideas of Christ is enough to call yourself a Christian - you can be something else as well, because his ideas of how to live were not exclusive to Christianity.
Without going into detail I have unimpeachable reasons for despising them, the one's I knew: and that was a good decade before I discarded my faith as a protestant christian. They disgust me.
Surely a christian is someone who accepts as fact: the immaculate conception and virgin birth; the life of jesus as demigod or begotten son of; the resurrection after death and ascent to heaven. The very tenets of christianity? To follow jesus by works alone is not enough. You have to believe. It is written!
Why do you keep up with red herrings? What has Marx or any one of another 1,000 philosophers got to do with anything. Christ was supposed to be the product of a virgin birth - was Marx - I didn't think so. Yes - a Christian is a person who lives by the teachings of Christ - even if they themselves fail to be perfect. One extra belief is actually necessary - you have to believe in the "one God" of Jesus and the Jews. That involves the biblical texts that teach about Christ - who he was and what he did. He was the son of God and of a virgin. The bible says so and that is the only reference point anyone has for following Christ. You can of course live up to all the moral teachings that Christ taught without calling yourself a Christian but to be a Christian you have to be a follower of Christ. I have already conceded you can be "something else as well" - eg a Universalist or a Quaker to use your examples. But you cannot be a Muslim or a Jew as they deny Christ. A person who simply lives a good life, who is beyond any reproach etc is just that a good man. He is only a Christian if, in addition, he is a follower of Christ -and there is no need for him to be a follower in order to have the highest moral values going. Can you not agree that a Christian is a Christian because - and only because - he accepts and tries to follow the precepts of Christianity. I would like an answer that does not bring in any other philosophers, religions, ways of life etc. Christianity is about Christ - full stop.
I would think so - but many "modern" Christians try to claim many of these were metaphors and similies - mainly because they do not fit in with modern knowledge - I have no idea why they do not ditch their whole Christian thing rather than try to make one size fit all. You did not get any of this until relatively recently - perhaps the last two or three hundred years.
