Hold on.
I’m pretty sure that Muslims consider Jesus to have been “a Messiah,” as opposed to “the Messiah.” The term used isn’t the Greek “Christ” (Χριστός), but instead the Arabic “al-Masih” (المسيح).
Now, as for the exact meaning of the term “Messiah” in Islamic theology, I’m sure you’ve got a bunch of different dudes holding a bunch of different views - but then that’s true within Christianity as well.
The question is meaningless without first defining what, exactly, is meant by “the Christ.” I’m sure if you asked fifteen Christians from fifteen different churches in fifteen different countries and fifteen different centuries, you’d get (at least) fifteen different answers. So then who’s to judge who’s “really” a Christian?
Like I said: Tricky.
Humans? Humans are just temples for the Holy Spirit of God at least the ones that hear God calling them and then God through the power of the Holy Spirit comes and makes his home with what you call humans.
The Holy Bible was written by men of old with the Spirit of God within them. So you can honestly say that God wrote the Holy Bible. God wrote the first five books of the old testament through Moses and in fact told him at a very old age not to write too much, least he should become weary.
The body is dead without the spirit of life within them everyone has a spirit. That’s what God gave man when He created them both male and female.
God is a Spirit … the Holy Bible plainly states this, but to quote scripture and verse boars people that don’t know Him and doesn’t help if you don’t have a sincere desire to know Him. Christians (Christ followers) already know that what I say is true.
Christ is a title for the Anointed One by the way … I prefer to call Jesus the Promised One or the Messiah. When you become a baptized Christian you receive the anointing and the presence of the indwelling Spirit of God now resides in you unless you grieve him that is, but that is another subject.
Many people think that when they die that they go to heaven, but they don’t go any where, because the body is dead without the spirit … What really happens is that the Holy Spirit goes back to heaven from which He came and takes your personality with Him.
Flesh and blood can not inherit the Kingdom of heaven … it must be a long way from here or is it really just as close as you have faith?
I know what I say is hard to understand even for some Christians, but I am here for you if you wish to discuss the truth.
Well, I know some people who call themselves Christians but don’t think Jesus was the Christ/Messiah/Moshiach/etc./other.
If you don’t think Jesus was Christ-like even in your own definition of what “Christ” is, how can you call yourself a Christian?
Your particular fixation that the bible was written by humans is of little interest to me. I object to your persistent posting errors that the Council was called by Constantine to suppress all other forms of Christianity and that it was the Council of Nicaea that fixed the canon of Christian Scripture by throwing out everything that that particular group of bishops disliked. When you post those things, you are posting errors, not facts. I just wish you would take the time to learn the historical facts and stop misleading other people on those points.
As to your particular fixation that scripture was written by humans, I tend to agree with you, but even there you persistently overstep your beliefs and assert things as FACT that you cannot actually know. You simply cannot establish that God did not directly inspire the various authors to write what he wanted them to say. For that matter, you cannot prove that God did not write out the basics of the Law on stone. Yu cannot prove that the Holy Spirit did not guide the members of the councils to select, as scripture, those works that were directly inspired by God. I doubt that God whispered in anyone’s ear regarding what to write, but your fixation that men wrote the scriptures without any involvement by God, even if it is the most probable reality, is not FACT in the way that you keep pretending it is.
It’s as much “fact” as anything out of pure mathematics can be. If taken seriously this “you can’t absolutely prove it isn’t true” standard that many believers like to use to defend religion lead straight to solipsism. Nothing save pure mathematics and my own awareness is a “FACT” going by the standards you are trying to insist on. I can’t prove absolutely that God didn’t do those things; but I can’t prove absolutely that my left hand exists, either. Even to myself.
But, surely, once that number reaches some critical value, it means something. Language is fluid and definitions change constantly. The meaning of “Christian” is not immune to that.
The truth is not a popularity contest, and it is not unreasonable to seek a static definition for the term “Christian.”
Whether or not you think it’s unrealistic, you’re going to be disappointed.
And when it comes to labels or names of things, there is no unchanging truth. Whether or not you believe that there is an underlying eternal truth, that truth is not locked into place with a label. Language is defined by use.
At some point, the majority of people calling themselves “Christian” might not fit your preferred eternal definition. At that point, it really is moot.
(My use of the word “moot” is an illustration. At one point, “moot” meant “an arguable point.” Now, more often than not, means “a point that is no longer worth arguing over.” When it comes to language, popular usage always wins in the end.)
The truth isn’t a popularity contest, but there is no single objectively true meaning to the term “Christian”. Just a whole lot of popular or personal meanings, as this thread and others like it demonstrate.
nm.
Sorry-didn’t realize our housemate had signed in.
(bolding mine)According to most non-partisan dictionaries…and that is exactly what the problem is here. The dictionaries give the definition of the word as it is used around the world without giving deference to any particular religion or sect, but internally, within each religion or sect that describes itself thus, it is a power word used to show who is on the proper path and who isn’t.
I have given two different reasonable definitions of Christian so far, and could probably come up with twenty or thirty more that are equally reasonable…to a person that isn’t already emotionally invested in a particular religion or cult. It is, was, and always will be impossible to find a static definition for the term “Christian” for most those who consider themselves to be Christian because of indoctrination from their religious leaders.
Well now, I haven’t studied all, or even a majority, of all the (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) non-partisan dictionaries out there, so I don’t know if “most” of them define “Christian” in a way which clearly includes Muslims, which is an awkward fit no matter what the dictionaries say.
After all, Islam is generally not seen as a type of Christianity, but as a separate religion, though sprung from the same Abrahamic root. (One particularly tech-savvy Iranian once explained it to me thusly: “If religion is like operating systems, Islam is Windows XP!” This was, of course, back in the day when XP was the latest and coolest shit around.)
Except in this case, it doesn’t. “Christian” isn’t used “around the world” to describe Muslims. It is used, in my experience, to mean something like “one who self-identifies as a Christian and professes belief in the teaching of Jesus Christ however wackily interpreted expect if they’re Muslims or something because that’s, like, totally different.”
I certainly agree on this bit.
You can’t prove that anything was written or taught by God so you seem to believe what you have read and told. But you can’t prove it is the work, or word of God. In fact you can’t prove your sources are correct. I could well have been told and thought about the Council of Nicaea, and I admit I was given wrong information,. And is no different that accepting the Bible as the word of God!
Regardless of when the Idea that God wrote or inspired the Bible, it is a fact, that humans wrote and stated it.! Belief isn’t fact,be it mine, your, or anyone’s. Facts can be proven so you accept things that were written by God or about God is just as false as what you accuse me of doing!
Even on this board any people cannot tell who was Christian or not. Actions speak louder than words.
So the spirit of God taught some people differently than others, and How do you know or can you Prove this? According to the Psalmist all are gods and sons of god, or at least the Jewish people he was talking to! Jesus backs this up in John 10.
You are of course entitled to your believes, but they are just beliefs not fact!
Can you prove it was written by or inspired by God or a god? Why would God inspire people to see things differently, there should be no contradictions, Why can’t what I write be inspired by God? Can you prove that!
Of course, I cannot prove it was written by God. That is why I refrain from making claims about God, (either his existence or his non-existence), that pretend that my opinion is FACT. If I express a belief, I note that it is a belief. I would encourage you to do likewise.
Do you mean scientific proof, there’s none to be had. You’ve chosen to not be inspired by God, but of course you can change your mind.
From my dog-eared copy of the New World Dictionary (1980) Deluxe Color Edition:
That should expel Islam, they don’t profess belief in the religion based on Christ.
That definition certainly does seem to expel Islam…and it also seems to include Mormonism, which means that it, like every other dictionary definition given so far, will be rejected by Christians as a whole because Christians aren’t as a whole. Looking for a definition of “Christian” that will be commonly acceptable to a vast majority of Christians just is NOT possible.
Naah, there’s a clear qualitative difference between derived stories/alternate versions and a completely unrelated narrative that uses the same name. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used an analogy of the Second Coming though - OK, a sect that believes “Jesus” is a ice-worm that lives on Titan, doesn’t answer prayers and has no connection to Jerusalem and never did - that do?
It’s not about the unlikeliness of the story, it’s about the obviously unrelated-to-any-historic-narrative nature of it - and I say this as someone who can only be arsed to concede the historicity of Jesus 1 day out of 3.