Jesus' Wife?

[The Brain]

Valmy is white, if he says he is of some religion then he is. Brown people don't have that privilege, for them white people have to decide if they in fact belong to the religion they claim to follow.

[garbon]

you are just agreeing that it is a good idea to treat each other nicely.

Fuck that noise.

[alfred russel]

The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god.

John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.

Further, the New Testament itself has copious references to the same. I get that you can go for the teachings of Jesus while rejecting the rest of the NT, but I have my own opinions about that as well. But that has nothing to do really with how any particular person chooses what to believe or not believe.
[/quote]

John 3:16 (I assume that is what you meant) is not entirely explicit.

Also, and as someone that went through catholic education for 12 years, and was taught religion by priests and nuns, I was taught in new testament history by a priest that a likely reason the gospel of john was included in the bible was that the other three gospels (the synoptic gospels that are very similar, as opposed to the gospel of john) is that you can read the synoptic gospels without any sense that jesus is the son of god or divine. They also don't go into so much about theology. So much christian theology comes from John 1, which is mostly not in the voice of Jesus.

So I don't think it is so radical to say there was a historical guy named jesus that wandered around the near east 2000 years ago, and taught lots of cool things that I want to follow, and his followers after his death added in some "god" stuff (as people in the ancient world did) and we ended up with christianity.

[The Minsky Moment]

The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god. What if someone belongs to a group (lets call them "unitarians") that follows the teachings of jesus as laid out in the bible, historically believed in the divinity of jesus, but at a certain point as scholarship advanced decided to give up an opinion one way or the other on the theological stance? If they still follow the teachings of jesus....

To put it another way, the apostles may not have qualified as Christians under berkut's defintion.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also, and as someone that went through catholic education for 12 years, and was taught religion by priests and nuns, I was taught in new testament history by a priest that a likely reason the gospel of john was included in the bible was that the other three gospels (the synoptic gospels that are very similar, as opposed to the gospel of john) is that you can read the synoptic gospels without any sense that jesus is the son of god or divine. They also don't go into so much about theology. So much christian theology comes from John 1, which is mostly not in the voice of Jesus.

Right - the synoptics being generally recognized as preceding John in time, and all three drawing on a common "sayings source" (the hypothesized Q source) put together not that long after Jesus' life.  So if someone was looking to find whatever is closest to the words Jesus actually spoke, one would look in the synoptics and not John.

[Jacob]

To put it another way, the apostles may not have qualified as Christians under berkut's defintion.

[Barrister]

Can I be Christian if I don't believe that Christ ever existed, or if I believe he was wrong about everything he preached about?

we have very different understanding of the meaning of "belief in his teaching" if you equate that with believing everything he said was wrong.

That is the point.

So you are comfortable saying that someone who claims to be Christian is not actually Christian if they say they do NOT believe in his teachings?

The teachings of jesus in the bible conspicuously omit the part where he is the divine son of god.

John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.

Further, the New Testament itself has copious references to the same. I get that you can go for the teachings of Jesus while rejecting the rest of the NT, but I have my own opinions about that as well. But that has nothing to do really with how any particular person chooses what to believe or not believe.

And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

[Berkut]

To put it another way, the apostles may not have qualified as Christians under berkut's defintion.

If one of them came along today and said he thought Jesus was just a guy with some good ideas and there was no god, then yeah, I think they would not qualify as "Christian" under my definition.

I am sure I am the unique and special flower that equates a belief in god and the divinity of Christ with Christianity.

[garbon]

To put it another way, the apostles may not have qualified as Christians under berkut's defintion.

If one of them came along today and said he thought Jesus was just a guy with some good ideas and there was no god, then yeah, I think they would not qualify as "Christian" under my definition.

I am sure I am the unique and special flower that equates a belief in god and the divinity of Christ with Christianity.

What if they said Jesus was just a guy with good ideas but there was a God?

Or Jesus was appointed by God but not God himself?

[dps]

That said, while Unitarians historically were noted for their rejection of the Trinity, and I think you can easily argue that Unitarian Christians are still Christian, the modern UUA takes it further and does not mandate that you believe in the divinity of Jesus... or really any aspect of Christianity at all, for that matter.  For me, that makes the UUA decidedly non-Christian.  I don't personally think that someone who rejects the divinity of Jesus can in any way, shape, or form be considered a Christian.  If so, then why can't we call the Jews Christians too?

I tend to consider anyone who professes to believe the Apostles' Creed to be a professing Christian:

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen."

I would agree that historical Unitarians would still be Christians under my definition.  Unitarian Universalists, as a group, would not, though some individuals who are UU might.  I think, based on what Valmy has said about his beliefs, that he would not ascribe to the Apostles' Creed, but perhaps he would like to comment on that.

John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean John 4:16 (Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband and come hither).  Did you mean John 14:6 and the following verses (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life;  no man cometh unto the Father, but by me...)?

[alfred russel]

e individuals who are UU might.  I think, based on what Valmy has said about his beliefs, that he would not ascribe to the Apostles' Creed, but perhaps he would like to comment on that.

John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean John 4:16 (Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband and come hither).  Did you mean John 14:6 and the following verses (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life;  no man cometh unto the Father, but by me...)?

I think you meant to quote Berkut, not me-I didn't say that. I think Berkut meant to cite John 3:16 rather than 4:16.

[dps]

e individuals who are UU might.  I think, based on what Valmy has said about his beliefs, that he would not ascribe to the Apostles' Creed, but perhaps he would like to comment on that.

John 4:16 is commonly cited by Christians as Christ explicitly stating that he is in fact the son of god, and only through him can salvation be realized.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean John 4:16 (Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband and come hither).  Did you mean John 14:6 and the following verses (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life;  no man cometh unto the Father, but by me...)?

I think you meant to quote Berkut, not me-I didn't say that. I think Berkut meant to cite John 3:16 rather than 4:16.

Ah, the quote function screwed up your reply #122.

[Razgovory]

Oh please, that is some pretty light poking at Beebs in response to his doing the same with me. If you are going to get offended at that, I guess you should be done with a lot of threads.

Someone was suggesting the same thing to me yesterday...

[11B4V]

Give it a rest, cross thread stalker.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure if Berkut realizes it, but there are a lot of different beliefs regarding the nature of Christ, some of which reject his divinity.