Following the teachings of the Christ, and sincerely attempting to live by them.
This means that Paulinists are not Christians (since Paul was a false prophet and an anti-Christ), Jesusists are not Christians (he was a very good, albeit imperfect, manifestation of the Christ, but not the Christ itself), theists are not Christians (since belief in a deity of any sort is patently incompatible with the teachings of the Christ), and non-socialists are not Christians (since crucial to the Christ’s teachings is universal love and brotherhood and compassion and support, which is incompatible with private ownership of the means of production and unequal distribution of social wealth).
I am very broad and inclusive in my definition of “Christian.” This is not because my theology is liberal, but because my vocabulary is practical. Given that many millions of people throughout the world believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the English language has a pressing need for a word to describe these people. And I think “Christian” is a far more convenient phrase than “people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God.”
Would supplying each type of Christian with the Bible of their choice and shoving them all into a Thump Off Cagematch Pay-Per-View be out of the question?
Roughly, what he’s calling “Paulinism” is a belief that the overwhelming majority of what is considered Christian theology was actually created by Saul/Paul of Tarsus, including the supernatural nature of Yeshua bin Miriam. “True” Christianity, in that belief, is following only what the Christ said and did in the gospels, minus all the miracles and “Son of God” stuff.
I have never understood, however, how they can dismiss the New Testament as
and yet still believe they know the “real” Christ. Yanno, seeing as how all we know of the Christ’s actions and words scomes from it. But all the people I’ve spoken to who have held that belief have been just as strident and uncompromising as SDF, so I dunno, maybe they have tea with him or something. (I also have no idea why they persist in calling him “the Anointed One” while denying his divinity, but again, whatever.)
The New Testament (or, at least, the Gospels) is about the life of Jesus. But Jesus was not the Christ. So what’s the problem with ignoring the Gospels, since they tell us nothing about the Christ?
Cool, I kind speed read through it. It doesn’t say that Paul didn’t believe in the Christ, at least in that article. I’m interested bc I live in Saint Paul and there is a lot of pagan symbolism in our capitol that could be interpreted as Mithraism. It was said that Paul of Tarsus was a student of Mithraism…so,
sorry off topic, I just wanted to know if there were other sites that may talk about that.
SDF, instead of being all cryptic, why don’t you tell us who or what “the Christ” is or was, if not Jesus? And how do you know about this Christ, if not from the New Testament?