This discussion concerns a totally hypothetical person, Mr. X. Suppose Mr. X thinks* that the character of Jesus in the New Testament is a myth or legend that may or may not have been based on one or more actual persons who preached in the Middle East many, many years prior to the creation of the New Testament. Further, suppose Mr. X also thinks that all supernatural phenomena described in the New Testament are entirely allegorical or metaphorical in nature and the authors of the New Testament never intended to describe these supernatural phenomena as actual events. Nevertheless, Mr. X has read and studied the New Testament rigorously and uses the teachings in the New Testament as a guide to living a morally upright life. Furthermore, Mr. X encourages others to read and study the New Testament.
*I chose the word think instead of believe because, apparently, for some people, in a manner I cannot comprehend, the word believe means something more than having used your conscious and subconscious mind to determine that something is true.
All of the evangelical protestants I grew up with would say of course Mr. X is not a Christian; it is obvious that he worships Satan.
In the United States, theoretically one can define Christian any way one chooses. There is no one definite answer to the following question: ** Is Mr. X a Christian?**
Since one has to believe in Christ to be a born-again believer, it pretty much follows that Christ has to be real for that belief to be believed - so by your hypothetical, I would say that Mr. X is not a real Christian.
Dunno, because a crucial piece of information is missing from the OP: does Mr. X identify as a Christian? If so, then I think he is; if not, not.
I guess this way of thinking about it has limits, because if, say, Stan’s Bible Church has a rule that explicitly states members must believe in the existence and the divinity of Jesus Christ, Mr. X is presumably not a member of Stan’s Bible Church even if he chooses to identify that way. But in the absence of a central authority defining what a “Christian” is, I think identity is the only criterion that really matters, and it is certainly the only one that can be applied in practice.
Just to complicate the OP hypothetical I little bit more, let us assume that Mr. X is unable to determine on his own whether he identifies as a Christian or not.
… and those are just the ones who are prepared to admit it on a survey. The percentage among ordinary church-goers will be far higher.
What other mainstream churches:
Have female and openly LGBT clergy
Will officiate at gay marriages
Disapprove of abortion, but affirm a woman’s right to have one
Regard racism as sin
Are distinctly non-pushy about beliefs and doctrine
From the Anglican Communion site:
A former professor, and man I consider a friend, was a philosopher and atheist (presumably still is). His wife was (is?) an ordained Methodist minister. I discussed this with her and she readily admitted that there was a substantial minority of people, some deacons who served in the church for decades, who did not believe the supernatural claims of the bible. But, these people still regarded the ethics of scripture to be useful and applicable, as well as the person of Christ (literally real or not) as a moral exemplar worthy of emulation. They identified as Christians, regularly took part in services, donated to the church, and tried to live as they believed Christ would want them to.
As far as whether they were “real” Christians: I think I’ll let those who identify as Christians debate, argue, and if need be kill each other over that. I have no god in the fight.
Acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as the avatar of Yahweh (the Christ, Messiah, etc) is intrinsic to the definition of Christianity . . . as defined by those who recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the avatar of Yahweh.
There are people out there who model their lives on the Jedi or Mr. Spock, and we know that stuff was made up, so why shouldn’t Christ get the same deal?
I think he could argue that he is a Christian because he follows the teachings of Christ, even though he believes those teachings were created by an early Church.
Though I guess, to be fair, the evangelical term “Jesus follower” may be more appropriate. Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah. So by saying you are a Christian, technically, you are proclaiming Jesus to be the Christ.
“Jews are Satanists.” would be a perfectly ordinary and logical statement where I come from. Not that I agree with any of those people. Some of those people might make an exception for Jews that believe in Jesus and have accepted him in their heart as their personal savior.
Eh, this is an argument about a word (a label) and whether or not it fits a particular person or group of people. It’s an inherently semantic debate, so I don’t think pointing out the meaning of the word “Christ” is pedantic in this context.
And I think it’s a pretty good argument–“Christ” isn’t simply the surname of Jesus of Nazareth (son of Joe and Mary Christ, I guess), it IS a title, and it isn’t unreasonable to say that a Christian is someone who proclaims Jesus to be “the Christ”. There’s been a fairly huge amount of disagreement over the centuries as to what the heck that title means, exactly, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that someone who doesn’t even believe Jesus ever existed is therefore denying that Jesus was “the Christ”. By pretty much all definitions of “the Christ” that I’ve ever heard–being the Son of God and also God Incarnate; being the Son of God and the first of all created beings, but NOT God Incarnate; being one of three divine beings; and so forth–being an actually existing person or entity seems inherent in the definition.
If some people are super-duper impressed with the ethical teachings allegedly taught by Jesus, but don’t actually care much about who the original author or authors of those teachings was, we can call them…geeze (sorry), I dunno, Jesusists or something.
Firstly, one doesn’t have to be real to have properties. Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit. Harry Potter is a wizard. Jesus is (according to some readings) a Christ. I don’t see any credible reason to say that the title can’t be applied to fictional characters - no other title has that restriction.
Secondly, it doesn’t make sense to me to try to drive a split between the “Jesus” and the “Christ” in “Jesus Christ”. Having the name “Jesus” is as much a property as having the title “Christ”; if being nonexistent meant you can’t be a Christ, it also means you can’t be a Jesus.
I would say that if you’re willing to admit that Mr. X is basing his beliefs on Jesus, then you can’t do that without also admitting that he’s basing his beliefs on Jesus Christ. The two names refer to the same person/character/whatever, for crying out loud.
