What do Christians Believe?

[Shih Yo Chi]

As I read through these forums I've discovered that there is a great diversity of Christian thought that I hadn't known existed. My experience with Christianity comes from traditional Protestant thought which does not reflect what I've come to believe. I'd still like to consider myself a Christian, but wonder how much traditional Christian dogma I can reject and still be called a Christian by other Christians. This leads me to consider where other Christians' would "Draw the line". I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

Must I believe in the Christ as the "only" son of God?

Must I believe that Christ died for my sins?

Must I believe in an afterlife?

I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion. I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Shih Yo Chi!

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

... I've discovered that there is a great diversity of Christian thought that I hadn't known existed. My experience with Christianity comes from traditional Protestant thought which does not reflect what I've come to believe.

I want to believe I understand what you are saying here. I have seen many traditonal teachings that are contrary, or at best superfluous, to the Bible.

I'd still like to consider myself a Christian, but wonder how much traditional Christian dogma I can reject and still be called a Christian by other Christians. This leads me to consider where other Christians' would "Draw the line". I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

Does it really matter what other "Christians" think of you? For what it is worth, I could care less about what anybody else thinks of my beliefs. My concerns lie in how others view my actions towards them, and ultmately how God views how I live my life.

Must I believe in the Christ as the "only" son of God?

I suppose a lot deals with what it is you really mean. Every person who ever drew breath on this planet (and possibly those who figuratively drew breath anyplace else, like angels) are sons and daughters of God.

Must I believe that Christ died for my sins?

Christ's sacrifice was made to replace the sacrifice of bulls and goats commonly offered for remission of sin in the Holy Land at the time. There are some who disagree with Yashua's suitability for this purpose, and that is fine. You asked specifically from a Christian perspective. Try reading Psalms 22, keeping in mind these words were written 1000 years before Christ walked the earth. It is an amazing prophecy. And there are more prophecies in the Old Testament that Christ fulfilled pertaining to who should fill the role of the promised Messiah. In my humble opinion, I believe that Christ's sacrifice is crucial to the Christian faith, and is a fundamental tenet of that faith.

Must I believe in an afterlife?

I don't suppose one would have to believe in an afterlife, but it would seem to me a little, well, unusual. There is a great deal of emphasis in the Bible placed on the time of teaching to come, the 1000 year reign, after which the wheat will be separated from the chaff, and each will be sent to their destiny. Most of this is glossed over and ignored in traditional Christian teachings, I can only guess as to why. There are a lot of things commonly taught in churches that are simply not Biblical, like Easter.

I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion.

I try to be accomodating of others' beliefs, and I'm certainly not so pig-headed as to think I know it all and have it all figured out. I'm still learning too, but I'm having a blast while I'm in school!

I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

BINGO! You win the doorprize! I agree, wholeheartedly and in no uncertain terms.

I am certain there are others that view the fundamentals of the Christian faith in a different manner, and that is fine, until they try to force their views on me. Therein lies one of the big differences: I believe we can agree to disagree, and still remain friends.

I don't know if any of this will help you, but maybe it can start a sincere discussion.

[littlemissattitude]

First of all, Shih Yo Chi, welcome to the forum.

I've come to believe that to try to say what "Christians" believe is like trying to say what "human beings" believe. It just isn't possible to find one set of beliefs that applies to the whole group. As you say you have discovered, there is a huge diversity of belief among those who characterize themselves as Christians. That diversity is so great that there are constantly "Christians" trying to read other "Christians" out of Christianity entirely, based on the fact that they don't agree on every item of doctrine. I think this is unfortuante.

I did my upper division work at a Christian univeristy (run by the Mennonite Brethren, by the way; as a disclaimer, I am not personally a Mennonite), and as part of my program in Intercultural Studies, I did a survey of the undergraduate population of the university - all 912 of them, if I remember correctly. Even within that small group (I think I got something over a 20 per cent response rate, not bad for a first-time surveyer), there were respondents from a huge number of different denominations (at least 15 to 20 different denominations, if I recall correctly; I wish I had my data in front of me), plus a few who claimed no religious affiliation and one Wiccan. One of the reasons I decided to do that survey was that I had heard all kinds of "discussions" (some of them better characterized as arguments) over what constituted Christian belief.

In the classes I took, among them World Religions and Christianity in the Non-Western World, I was exposed to an amazing variety of belief systems, all of which professed Christianity. So, no matter what your set of beliefs, my bet is that you will be able to find some Christian body of believers out there who will fit most if not all of your beliefs. Good luck in your search.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

As I read through these forums I've discovered that there is a great diversity of Christian thought that I hadn't known existed. My experience with Christianity comes from traditional Protestant thought which does not reflect what I've come to believe. I'd still like to consider myself a Christian, but wonder how much traditional Christian dogma I can reject and still be called a Christian by other Christians. This leads me to consider where other Christians' would "Draw the line". I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

I'd like to start by saying that I don't wish to tell you your not a Christian but There are some things you must accept in order to be a Christian. 1. You must think Jesus was the messiah because Christ means messiah. And Christian is derived from Christ. besides that then you can believe what ever you want the remainder of my post is simply going to be answering the questions your wrote.

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

Must I believe in the Christ as the "only" son of God?

Well it depends what you mean as Juantoo2 has already stated. technically we are all the children of god. But I think it is safe to say that you’d pretty much have to believe God never actually conceived another child with another woman if you follow the teachings of the bible but Like I said you could think the Bible to be rubbish as long as you think that Jesus is a savior you are technically a Christian however I have never met a Christian who thought God conceived a child with a woman other than Mary.

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

Must I believe that Christ died for my sins?

No because of the savior thing I previously mentioned. However This act is what most people believe made Jesus a savior so I'd say it be really hard to get around believing that one.

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

Must I believe in an afterlife?

Not necessarily. Jesus often speaks of the afterlife in my opinion but you could interpret that anyway you want.

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion. I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

I think that this last thing is Good and I do to but it alone doesn't make you a Christian. All you have to do is believe that Jesus is Christ.

__________________________________________________ ________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

As I read through these forums I've discovered that there is a great diversity of Christian thought that I hadn't known existed. My experience with Christianity comes from traditional Protestant thought which does not reflect what I've come to believe. I'd still like to consider myself a Christian, but wonder how much traditional Christian dogma I can reject and still be called a Christian by other Christians. This leads me to consider where other Christians' would "Draw the line". I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

Must I believe in the Christ as the "only" son of God?

Must I believe that Christ died for my sins?

Must I believe in an afterlife?

I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion. I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

I am a Christian also, a postgraduate Catholic. I believe in everything you believe in, well at least the things you mention in your post.

But you don't have to quarrel with anyone over your beliefs and their beliefs.

If anyone tell you that your beliefs are wrong or stupid or crazy; avoid talking with him except for basic social courtesies.

But you don't have to get killed or kill for your beliefs. I certainly will not get myself hurt or hurt others for my beliefs.

I can give up my beliefs and pick them up again, no trouble there. Why? Because they are beliefs. I can't give up the law of gravity and jump out the window, can I? But if you give up your beliefs and you die without them, then you will go to the Christian hell?

Don't worry so much, that hell business is also a belief. If you want to be logical even in hell God is providential. Listen to this:

A guy was dying, and the priest or pastor was telling him to repent so that he won't get to hell where the fire burns so fiercely that you will scream and howl and gnash your teeth for the extreme agony. The guy
informed the minister that he had no teeth. "No to worry, God will provide", the minster assured him. So even in hell God is provident-ial. Hehehehe.*

In time you will be able to be a Christian without losing your intelligence and your independence. Religion should not make us slavish to a religion.


Susma Rio Sep

*I have told that joke in some other earlier posts.

[Shih Yo Chi]

Thanks for the insightfull replies. All of you have given me some things which I need to contemplate. In response to juantoo3's question, "Does it really matter what other "Christians" think of you?" this is the point that I understand about myself the least. I have had nearly the same beliefs for 20 years and for most of them I really didn't care, but something has changed recently. Possibly it's seeing my parents reach the end of their lives, but I am looking for something. If not acceptance then at least a healthy dialog with other "seekers". Wait, that's what I'm doing right now!

I guess where I need to spend the most time understanding my beliefs in relation to the traditional Christian is highlighted by JJM and alluded to by juantoo3's response. I'm trying to understand the difference between the "Son of God", and the children of God that we all are. Jesus was Christ, but as I read his words they seem to be telling me that each of us has that in us, so my interpretation is that all of us can achieve the same spiritual enlightment as Jesus. Would you say that believing God conceived Jesus physically, gives Jesus a different connection to God than we as not being physically conceived by God have?

As I'm writing this some things seem to be getting a little clearer. I need to think about the "Conception by God" issue. If one believes that Jesus was physically conceived by God and no one else ever has been, or if one believes that Jesus was spiritually concieved by God and that potientially we are all spiritually conceived by God, would seem to be an issue that I must resolve in myself as I walk down the path.

Thank you all again for you response.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Shih Yo Chi

I guess where I need to spend the most time understanding my beliefs in relation to the traditional Christian is highlighted by JJM and alluded to by juantoo3's response. I'm trying to understand the difference between the "Son of God", and the children of God that we all are. Jesus was Christ, but as I read his words they seem to be telling me that each of us has that in us, so my interpretation is that all of us can achieve the same spiritual enlightment as Jesus. Would you say that believing God conceived Jesus physically, gives Jesus a different connection to God than we as not being physically conceived by God have?

.

In most Christian teachings you would say that Jesus doesn't have a special relationship with God he is literally God The son and the father are one in the same. The same personalities and identities just different bodies at one point. (Assuming the Father has a body).


__________________________________________________ ________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Shih Yo Chi!

I'm trying to understand the difference between the "Son of God", and the children of God that we all are.

The difficulty I often see with this is semantic. We are all children of God, but Jesus is Messiah.

Jesus was Christ, but as I read his words they seem to be telling me that each of us has that in us, so my interpretation is that all of us can achieve the same spiritual enlightment as Jesus.

I forget now the linguistic distinctions that illuminate the term "Christ", but it boils down to "Messiah." The term "Son of God" is often used to denote Messiah, but other terms are used as well, such as "Son of Man." Yes, we have the capacity and capability of spiritual enlightenment, but to achieve "the same" (level?) of enlightenment, I personally do not think so. Otherwise, we would have no need of a Messiah or Savior. There cannot be multiple Messiahs, God only has so many right hands for Messiah to sit at.

Would you say that believing God conceived Jesus physically, gives Jesus a different connection to God than we as not being physically conceived by God have?

I need to think about the "Conception by God" issue. If one believes that Jesus was physically conceived by God and no one else ever has been, or if one believes that Jesus was spiritually concieved by God and that potientially we are all spiritually conceived by God, would seem to be an issue that I must resolve in myself as I walk down the path.

In this I struggle as well. The traditional explanation of "artificial insemination" by the Holy Spirit is a point of contention among non-Christians, and is tough to reconcile at face value. Immaculate Conception is not impossible in my mind, but it is difficult to rationalize.

There are other components I take into consideration as well, such as certain traditions in that region among "pagans" to deify certain mortals (such as Ceasar) in order to give them more authority. And anyway, does Messiah of necessity have to be Immaculately Conceived to fulfill prophecies relating to being Messiah? I already know the glib answers, I have yet to hear the matter addressed with clarity by Biblical scholars.

Even so, I do not allow these things to dilute in my mind the spiritual and moral teachings of Yashua ha Messhiach , Jesus the Messiah. Whether "just" a man, or a miraculous extension of God, he fulfilled a purpose (serving as the "once for all" sacrifice for the remission of our sins) and set an example (how to live our lives), for those of us who choose to follow in his footsteps.

[JJM]

I'd like to start off by correcting something. The Immaculate Conception is in reference to the conception of Mary not that of Jesus.

But I know you mean Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. Well I know of one "prophecy" that would imply that Jesus was Gods son. Mathew implies that the line in Hosea 11:1 is a prophecy of Jesus. Although I have my doubts if it really is a prophecy because it seems to be speaking of Israel the people leaving Egypt in Exodus. But if you assume that that it really is then Jesus must be the son of God.

[Susma Rio Sep]

The topic is what do Christians believe?

If this sentence below makes sense, then we can find out how much Christians do believe:

All Christians do not believe....

Now if we deduct what all Christians do not believe, then we are left with practically nothing that Christians believe.

Figure that out.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM!

Originally Posted by JJM

I'd like to start off by correcting something. The Immaculate Conception is in reference to the conception of Mary not that of Jesus.

I was not aware of an alternate definition of the term, thanks. The conception by Mary's mother is not addressed in the Gospels.

But I know you mean Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. Well I know of one "prophecy" that would imply that Jesus was Gods son. Mathew implies that the line in Hosea 11:1 is a prophecy of Jesus. Although I have my doubts if it really is a prophecy because it seems to be speaking of

Israel the people leaving Egypt in Exodus. But if you assume that that it really is then Jesus must be the son of God.

I looked up Hosea 11:1, reading before and behind to refresh the gist in my mind, and I fail to see the connection with Messianic prophecy. I am inclined to go along with what you thought about that passage being addressed to Israel. I did look up Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 9:6, and I can see where Isaiah can be viewed as associating Christ directly with God, but there is still wiggle room. After Jesus and the destruction of the Temple, the Jews did name Simon Bar Kochba as messiah. It seems the Jews were, and still are, by my understanding, looking for a political leader, not necessarily a spiritual one. I could stand to be corrected here, but I don't think the Jews viewed Bar Kochba as particularly supernatural in his "conception."

I took a few minutes to go through the appendices in my Bible (the Companion Bible is great for such things usually), but I did not find any list of the messianic prophecies. Can anyone provide a little help?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, JJM![/size][/color]
I was not aware of an alternate definition of the term, thanks. The conception by Mary's mother is not addressed in the Gospels.

[color=black]I looked up Hosea 11:1, reading before and behind to refresh the gist in my mind, and I fail to see the connection with Messianic prophecy. I am inclined to go along with what you thought about that passage being addressed to Israel. I did look up Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 9:6, and I can see where Isaiah can be viewed as associating Christ directly with God, but there is still wiggle room. After Jesus and the destruction of the Temple, the Jews did name Simon Bar Kochba as messiah. It seems the Jews were, and still are, by my understanding, looking for a political leader, not necessarily a spiritual one. I could stand to be corrected here, but I don't think the Jews viewed Bar Kochba as particularly supernatural in his "conception."

I took a few minutes to go through the appendices in my Bible (the Companion Bible is great for such things usually), but I did not find any list of the messianic prophecies. Can anyone provide a little help?

Sorry I've been looking for other prophecies about Jesus, but I haven't found any you haven't mentioned but I will continue to look. However I'd like to say something about the Immaculate Conception. The interpretation about it referring to Mary's birth isn't one interpretation of the term it is the only interpretation. The term was made to describe Mary. It was only used to describe Jesus by those who do not know it's true meaning. (please don't take this as an insult I've been thinking of other ways to write it and they all seem a bit rude. I feel kind of bad about it) However your right the gospels in the Bible do not speak of Mary being born. However it is in the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary which if you click on the link you will be taken to. It speaks of her birth. However I can’t seem to find who it was written by. However it is beside the fact. The term was created to describe the birth of Mary without original sin, not that of the birth of Jesus.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Since JJM brings in the matter of the Immaculate Conception, Mary being conceived humanly but without any trace of original sin from the very first moment of conception, I suggest you all Catholics here who are involved in this question should consult the Vatican about the incidentals of this doctrine.

Here is my contribution:

In 1854, with the Bull Ineffabilis, Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: ".. We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful".

What I have always found intriquing is that where Roman Catholics are very fervent in maintaining the perpetual virginity of Mary, before, during, and after of Jesus conception and birth -- of course this is not about Mary's conception, Protestants who are concerned about Jesus not being born with any incursion of human sexuality are also very fervent in maintaining the virginity of Mary before and during the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit, but not after Jesus' birth, meaning Mary's need not be any further a virgin afterwards: they would not care less.

Why? I think it's all a matter of emotion, in which they were brought up, the Catholics and the Protestants, that is.

What about me? I love Mary, I love Jesus, I love all men and women, whether they be virgins or not, conceived carnally or by the Holy Spirit (of which doctors can testify many pregnant women claim to be privileged with), or however brought into this world.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM!

Originally Posted by JJM

Sorry I've been looking for other prophecies about Jesus, but I haven't found any you haven't mentioned but I will continue to look.

That's OK. I'll keep an ear and an eye out to see if I can find any others.

However I'd like to say something about the Immaculate Conception. The interpretation about it referring to Mary's birth isn't one interpretation of the term it is the only interpretation. The term was made to describe Mary. It was only used to describe Jesus by those who do not know it's true meaning. (please don't take this as an insult I've been thinking of other ways to write it and they all seem a bit rude. I feel kind of bad about it)

OK, I stand corrected. Please don't feel bad, I'm generally thick skinned unless someone is blatantly rude, which I have not seen here.

However your right the gospels in the Bible do not speak of Mary being born. However it is in the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary which if you click on the link you will be taken to. It speaks of her birth. However I can’t seem to find who it was written by. However it is beside the fact. The term was created to describe the birth of Mary without original sin, not that of the birth of Jesus.

Just curious, when did the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary enter the cannon? It is not in any Protestant Bible I am familiar with, including the KJV, the 1611 reprint of the original KJV (with the Apocrypha), the Companion (effectively the KJV with commentary), the Interlinear, or the Peshitta. I know you earlier mentioned a Catholic Bible, which I do not have access to. Absolutely without any slight intended, my experience has been that the Catholic position has tended to shift as need arises. The Bull that Susma mentions is a portion of that to which I allude. Mary, at one time to the Catholics, was merely the earthly mother of Jesus. At some point it was deemed expedient to raise her in estimation in the eyes of the Catholic laity, and she became the perpetual virgin. I don't often hear the term "Queen of Heaven" used of her anymore, but it has been in the past. A very interesting and scholarly look at this aspect is presented in the book, "The Two Babylons" by Rev. Alexander Hyslop.

I realize this can become a serious point of contention between Catholics and Protestants, and I really don't wish this to turn into something that would embarass all of us. There are some that view this forum looking for ammunition in their personal war against Christianity in general. Might I suggest we keep the discussion focused on the things we can and do agree on? Besides, there is enough wisdom to go around that is the same or at least similar from both perspectives. It is that wisdom that makes Christianity a worthwhile path for its adherents.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, JJM!That's OK. I'll keep an ear and an eye out to see if I can find any others.

OK, I stand corrected. Please don't feel bad, I'm generally thick skinned unless someone is blatantly rude, which I have not seen here.

Just curious, when did the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary enter the cannon? It is not in any Protestant Bible I am familiar with, including the KJV, the 1611 reprint of the original KJV (with the Apocrypha), the Companion (effectively the KJV with commentary), the Interlinear, or the Peshitta. I know you earlier mentioned a Catholic Bible, which I do not have access to. Absolutely without any slight intended, my experience has been that the Catholic position has tended to shift as need arises. The Bull that Susma mentions is a portion of that to which I allude. Mary, at one time to the Catholics, was merely the earthly mother of Jesus. At some point it was deemed expedient to raise her in estimation in the eyes of the Catholic laity, and she became the perpetual virgin. I don't often hear the term "Queen of Heaven" used of her anymore, but it has been in the past. A very interesting and scholarly look at this aspect is presented in the book, "The Two Babylons" by Rev. Alexander Hyslop.

I realize this can become a serious point of contention between Catholics and Protestants, and I really don't wish this to turn into something that would embarass all of us. There are some that view this forum looking for ammunition in their personal war against Christianity in general. Might I suggest we keep the discussion focused on the things we can and do agree on? Besides, there is enough wisdom to go around that is the same or at least similar from both perspectives. It is that wisdom that makes Christianity a worthwhile path for its adherents.

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary isn't in the Cannon. It's part of the apocrypha (Note: The Apocrypha you speak of isn't considered Apocrypha by the Catholic church so when I use the term I mean Ones that aren't in our Bible.) but I believe it was only kept out because it would go in the front and the early church leaders wanted to stress that the new testament is about Jesus. Also the Gospel that is attributed to James (although he didn't write it) which is also apocrypha, the author writes of Mary in a way that Catholic view her now. It was most likely written in the early 2nd century A.D. that only about 40 (I think maybe 60) years after the last of the original disciples died. So it is hardly a new concept. And I believe the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary was written before then so it could hardly be new especially because Her virginity is mentioned in the Gospels that are in the Bible.

I'd like to say that it has not been the Catholic Bible that has been adding books but rather the Protestants that seem to take them out and please don't call what Susma wrote Bull I take that very seriously. Most of those thigns are not creating Ideas but rather making old ones efficial. "As for Queen of heaven" this term is used to Show that she is the most influential of the saints. (Saint= Someone in heaven.)