What is Christianity, Who is Jesus?

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So please forgive me God (swt), Jesus (pbuh), and Holy Spirit for repeating what some people try to teach. I'm sure God (swt) knows that I too am guilty of trying to fabricate explanations for what some ancestors have taught. The phrase 'Trinity' is NOT in the bible, so I simply ask the Trinitarians, "Who or what authored your belief?"

I think the issue is not whether the notion of a Trinity is right or wrong, but whether it is essential and legitimate. So there are two questions here:

1. Is the Trinity essential?
2. Is the Trinity legitimate?

In my view, the Trinity is not essential. It's just an approach to our spiritual journey. I've come to think that the primary purpose of the Trinity is perhaps to conceptualise an experience of God, rather than God himself. It's just that it perhaps degraded into a quantitative, technical definition of God rather than a qualitative expression of one's experience of God. People treated it as something concrete rather than something abstract. They asked questions like whether God is three-in-one and one-in-three.

But if we think of the Trinity as just a way of expressing how one experiences God, then it's no longer a question of "is God three or one or both?" but "how does God reveal Himself to me and how do I relate to Him?" The Trinity could, perhaps, be summed up like this:

An experience of the Son is an experience of God.
An experience of the Father is an experience of God.
An experience of the Holy Spirit is an experience of God.

Was Jesus God? I think it depends how you approach that question. What exactly would I mean by "Jesus being God?" If I swapped bodies with my friend, am I my friend or is my friend me? The way I would explain that situation is that my personality is projected through my friend's body, and my friend's personality is projected through my body.

The situation with God and Jesus is certainly not body swapping, but it has to do with personality. Most of us conceptualise God as holy. Holiness is not a property one's knowledge, power and abilities, but one's personality. God's holy character gives him the moral authority and moral justification to do what he does. If Jesus had the same kind of personality, then his holy character also gave him the moral authority and justification to do what he did. It gave an honest man like Jesus the justification to criticise the religious leaders of the day for being phonies. (That's assuming Jesus was that kind of man to start with.)

However, if Jesus had the same kind of character and personality as God, being honest and accountable, seeing people as they really were, not as society judged them and treating people fairly, then could Jesus' character and personality also be seen as a demonstration of God's character and personality? Jesus didn't have to have God's knowledge, power and abilities, only his character and personality, to demonstrate what God was like.

This is where "an experience of the Son" could have been seen as "an experience of God." The titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are quite vague. They aren't really defined in the Bible. We only see their usage. Yet, "Son of God" and "Son of Man" could refer to a human being that demonstrates what God is like so that God can be understood by human beings. Sure, we can never know everything about God and will never be able to define Him completely, but we can at least understand Him personally.

So what, really, is the Trinity? I think of it as a mantra that we recite. A signpost that tells us where to go and how to get to our destination. It is perhaps not really a definition of God, or that "God is three," but could, possibly, have started off as "the Three Experiences of God."

Just like the idea of the "Four Corners of the Earth," the Five Elements (water, metal, earth, air and fire) and what Western Medicine calls "the Five Basic Senses" of human beings, the Trinity could be a mantra, a saying that we chant. We know the earth doesn't really have Four Corners, but we sometimes mention the Four Corners because it's ancient tradition that has sentimental value. Modern chemistry has revealed that there are more than five elements. We also know from modern physiology that the body doesn't really have five kinds of senses!!! The Five Basic Senses are really just a way of describing something we can relate to personally. Some of the senses actually overlap. Taste and smell both involve detection of chemicals (a shared sense). Taste and touch both involve discerning the shape and texture of objects, and their temperature. Sight, sound, smell, taste and touch relate to an "experience" of our environment, not the actual physiological instruments used to capture the information used to generate that experience.

The universe is a lot more complicated than the simplifications we make. Same with God. We know we can never define God. We can understand and explain what he's like, but not define Him. God gave us a mind to think in the abstract. Abstractions are concepts we use to simplify things that are more complex. Life revolves around meaning but meaning must be put in context.

The Trinity, I reckon, was never meant to be a definition of God, and was never supposed to make faith more complicated. I think it's the exact opposite. We're not trying to conceptualise some grandmaster concept that advances our level of sophistication. The Trinity was probably more of a simplification (experiencing God) rather than an "advancing to the next level of complexity" concept. Because God was too complex to define, we resorted to a way of describing how the experience took place. So it's probably not really "God has three parts/Persons" but "the Three Experiences of God" mantra.

The Trinity was supposed to be a signpost, not the road itself!!! It's just an approach to faith.

The Trinity should not be essential, but at the same time it shouldn't be an illegal concept. The Trinity has a lot of critics, as well as a lot of proponents who insist that it be invoked. We expect to find spirituality in certain times, places, people and concepts. We expect spirituality to be systematic and rule-based. We expect to find spirituality in numbers, but yet it's not supposed to be a numbers game!!! It's supposed to be a standard way to explain something personal. In that sense, the Trinity is a legitimate concept for those who want to make it a part of their spiritual journey. I guess what we have to remember is that if it's just a mantra, there's nothing wrong with having and not having it in one's belief system.

I guess the problem only begins when we treat it as a technicality rather than a personal faith issue . . .

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I think the issue is not whether the notion of a Trinity is right or wrong, but whether it is essential and legitimate. So there are two questions here:

1. Is the Trinity essential?
2. Is the Trinity legitimate?

In my view, the Trinity is not essential. It's just an approach to our spiritual journey. I've come to think that the primary purpose of the Trinity is perhaps to conceptualise an experience of God, rather than God himself. It's just that it perhaps degraded into a quantitative, technical definition of God rather than a qualitative expression of one's experience of God. People treated it as something concrete rather than something abstract. They asked questions like whether God is three-in-one and one-in-three.

But if we think of the Trinity as just a way of expressing how one experiences God, then it's no longer a question of "is God three or one or both?" but "how does God reveal Himself to me and how do I relate to Him?" The Trinity could, perhaps, be summed up like this:

An experience of the Son is an experience of God.
An experience of the Father is an experience of God.
An experience of the Holy Spirit is an experience of God.

Was Jesus God? I think it depends how you approach that question. What exactly would I mean by "Jesus being God?" If I swapped bodies with my friend, am I my friend or is my friend me? The way I would explain that situation is that my personality is projected through my friend's body, and my friend's personality is projected through my body.

The situation with God and Jesus is certainly not body swapping, but it has to do with personality. Most of us conceptualise God as holy. Holiness is not a property one's knowledge, power and abilities, but one's personality. God's holy character gives him the moral authority and moral justification to do what he does. If Jesus had the same kind of personality, then his holy character also gave him the moral authority and justification to do what he did. It gave an honest man like Jesus the justification to criticise the religious leaders of the day for being phonies. (That's assuming Jesus was that kind of man to start with.)

However, if Jesus had the same kind of character and personality as God, being honest and accountable, seeing people as they really were, not as society judged them and treating people fairly, then could Jesus' character and personality also be seen as a demonstration of God's character and personality? Jesus didn't have to have God's knowledge, power and abilities, only his character and personality, to demonstrate what God was like.

This is where "an experience of the Son" could have been seen as "an experience of God." The titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are quite vague. They aren't really defined in the Bible. We only see their usage. Yet, "Son of God" and "Son of Man" could refer to a human being that demonstrates what God is like so that God can be understood by human beings. Sure, we can never know everything about God and will never be able to define Him completely, but we can at least understand Him personally.

So what, really, is the Trinity? I think of it as a mantra that we recite. A signpost that tells us where to go and how to get to our destination. It is perhaps not really a definition of God, or that "God is three," but could, possibly, have started off as "the Three Experiences of God."

Just like the idea of the "Four Corners of the Earth," the Five Elements (water, metal, earth, air and fire) and what Western Medicine calls "the Five Basic Senses" of human beings, the Trinity could be a mantra, a saying that we chant. We know the earth doesn't really have Four Corners, but we sometimes mention the Four Corners because it's ancient tradition that has sentimental value. Modern chemistry has revealed that there are more than five elements. We also know from modern physiology that the body doesn't really have five kinds of senses!!! The Five Basic Senses are really just a way of describing something we can relate to personally. Some of the senses actually overlap. Taste and smell both involve detection of chemicals (a shared sense). Taste and touch both involve discerning the shape and texture of objects, and their temperature. Sight, sound, smell, taste and touch relate to an "experience" of our environment, not the actual physiological instruments used to capture the information used to generate that experience.

The universe is a lot more complicated than the simplifications we make. Same with God. We know we can never define God. We can understand and explain what he's like, but not define Him. God gave us a mind to think in the abstract. Abstractions are concepts we use to simplify things that are more complex. Life revolves around meaning but meaning must be put in context.

The Trinity, I reckon, was never meant to be a definition of God, and was never supposed to make faith more complicated. I think it's the exact opposite. We're not trying to conceptualise some grandmaster concept that advances our level of sophistication. The Trinity was probably more of a simplification (experiencing God) rather than an "advancing to the next level of complexity" concept. Because God was too complex to define, we resorted to a way of describing how the experience took place. So it's probably not really "God has three parts/Persons" but "the Three Experiences of God" mantra.

The Trinity was supposed to be a signpost, not the road itself!!! It's just an approach to faith.

The Trinity should not be essential, but at the same time it shouldn't be an illegal concept. The Trinity has a lot of critics, as well as a lot of proponents who insist that it be invoked. We expect to find spirituality in certain times, places, people and concepts. We expect spirituality to be systematic and rule-based. We expect to find spirituality in numbers, but yet it's not supposed to be a numbers game!!! It's supposed to be a standard way to explain something personal. In that sense, the Trinity is a legitimate concept for those who want to make it a part of their spiritual journey. I guess what we have to remember is that if it's just a mantra, there's nothing wrong with having and not having it in one's belief system.

I guess the problem only begins when we treat it as a technicality rather than a personal faith issue . . .

Dear Saltmeister,

Great points you made. I think these verses best sums up what I want to say.

"He who is joined to the Lord is one Spirit with Him."

1 Corinthians 6:17


"Now, the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty."

2 Corinthians 3:17

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I think the issue is not whether the notion of a Trinity is right or wrong, but whether it is essential and legitimate. So there are two questions here:

1. Is the Trinity essential?
2. Is the Trinity legitimate?

In my view, the Trinity is not essential. It's just an approach to our spiritual journey. I've come to think that the primary purpose of the Trinity is perhaps to conceptualise an experience of God, rather than God himself. It's just that it perhaps degraded into a quantitative, technical definition of God rather than a qualitative expression of one's experience of God. People treated it as something concrete rather than something abstract. They asked questions like whether God is three-in-one and one-in-three.

But if we think of the Trinity as just a way of expressing how one experiences God, then it's no longer a question of "is God three or one or both?" but "how does God reveal Himself to me and how do I relate to Him?" The Trinity could, perhaps, be summed up like this:

An experience of the Son is an experience of God.
An experience of the Father is an experience of God.
An experience of the Holy Spirit is an experience of God.

Was Jesus God? I think it depends how you approach that question. What exactly would I mean by "Jesus being God?" If I swapped bodies with my friend, am I my friend or is my friend me? The way I would explain that situation is that my personality is projected through my friend's body, and my friend's personality is projected through my body.

The situation with God and Jesus is certainly not body swapping, but it has to do with personality. Most of us conceptualise God as holy. Holiness is not a property one's knowledge, power and abilities, but one's personality. God's holy character gives him the moral authority and moral justification to do what he does. If Jesus had the same kind of personality, then his holy character also gave him the moral authority and justification to do what he did. It gave an honest man like Jesus the justification to criticise the religious leaders of the day for being phonies. (That's assuming Jesus was that kind of man to start with.)

However, if Jesus had the same kind of character and personality as God, being honest and accountable, seeing people as they really were, not as society judged them and treating people fairly, then could Jesus' character and personality also be seen as a demonstration of God's character and personality? Jesus didn't have to have God's knowledge, power and abilities, only his character and personality, to demonstrate what God was like.

This is where "an experience of the Son" could have been seen as "an experience of God." The titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are quite vague. They aren't really defined in the Bible. We only see their usage. Yet, "Son of God" and "Son of Man" could refer to a human being that demonstrates what God is like so that God can be understood by human beings. Sure, we can never know everything about God and will never be able to define Him completely, but we can at least understand Him personally.

So what, really, is the Trinity? I think of it as a mantra that we recite. A signpost that tells us where to go and how to get to our destination. It is perhaps not really a definition of God, or that "God is three," but could, possibly, have started off as "the Three Experiences of God."

Just like the idea of the "Four Corners of the Earth," the Five Elements (water, metal, earth, air and fire) and what Western Medicine calls "the Five Basic Senses" of human beings, the Trinity could be a mantra, a saying that we chant. We know the earth doesn't really have Four Corners, but we sometimes mention the Four Corners because it's ancient tradition that has sentimental value. Modern chemistry has revealed that there are more than five elements. We also know from modern physiology that the body doesn't really have five kinds of senses!!! The Five Basic Senses are really just a way of describing something we can relate to personally. Some of the senses actually overlap. Taste and smell both involve detection of chemicals (a shared sense). Taste and touch both involve discerning the shape and texture of objects, and their temperature. Sight, sound, smell, taste and touch relate to an "experience" of our environment, not the actual physiological instruments used to capture the information used to generate that experience.

The universe is a lot more complicated than the simplifications we make. Same with God. We know we can never define God. We can understand and explain what he's like, but not define Him. God gave us a mind to think in the abstract. Abstractions are concepts we use to simplify things that are more complex. Life revolves around meaning but meaning must be put in context.

The Trinity, I reckon, was never meant to be a definition of God, and was never supposed to make faith more complicated. I think it's the exact opposite. We're not trying to conceptualise some grandmaster concept that advances our level of sophistication. The Trinity was probably more of a simplification (experiencing God) rather than an "advancing to the next level of complexity" concept. Because God was too complex to define, we resorted to a way of describing how the experience took place. So it's probably not really "God has three parts/Persons" but "the Three Experiences of God" mantra.

The Trinity was supposed to be a signpost, not the road itself!!! It's just an approach to faith.

The Trinity should not be essential, but at the same time it shouldn't be an illegal concept. The Trinity has a lot of critics, as well as a lot of proponents who insist that it be invoked. We expect to find spirituality in certain times, places, people and concepts. We expect spirituality to be systematic and rule-based. We expect to find spirituality in numbers, but yet it's not supposed to be a numbers game!!! It's supposed to be a standard way to explain something personal. In that sense, the Trinity is a legitimate concept for those who want to make it a part of their spiritual journey. I guess what we have to remember is that if it's just a mantra, there's nothing wrong with having and not having it in one's belief system.

I guess the problem only begins when we treat it as a technicality rather than a personal faith issue . . .

Brilliant post Saltmeister.

lunamoth

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

As far as I know, everyone can learn by reading, brain-storming, imagination, and making mistakes. But Christianity is by definition NOT defined by brain-storms or imagination. Christianity is defined by God (swt) and Jesus Christ (pbuh). Agreed?

The real purpose of Christianity is unknown. Different groups of Christians see different things as important. Can we blame them? As human beings, our knowledge and experience is quite limited, so perhaps not. Christianity can't be defined by anyone, I guess. Christianity is probably best seen as something personal, a Mystery that we explore. Anything impersonal isn't compatible with the way we function as human beings. We can't be justified following an "impersonal Christianity" where people feel compelled to conform to something they don't understand.

That's why I would think that brainstorming, imagination and mistakes should be a legitimate approach to something spiritual. God gave us an ability to think in the abstract. That's a recipe for diversity. God made us all to be different. Yet that doesn't mean we can't be "one." Christianity is perhaps one religion that can't be defined because we were probably never meant to define it. It can be explained and described, but just not defined.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If the author was someone other than God (swt) or Christ (pbuh), then I do NOT consider it Christianity. For me, Christianity means the teaching from Jesus Christ (pbuh). What does it mean to you?

I think Christianity can be viewed as a bit more than just the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's if your agenda is to be "a follower of Christ." There could be, however, a slightly different way of thinking -- "the spiritual descendant of Christ."

If you're merely a "follower of Christ," you might reject anything other than Jesus' teachings. In the other words, the writings of Paul, Peter, James and John would go out the second-storey window.

If you're a "spiritual descendant" then that's a different story. Descendants inherit things from their ancestors. They inherit their property, wealth and perhaps even their status. With regard to "spiritual descendants" I guess it would mean that we are regarded as "spiritually equal" to Christ. We inherit everything God gave to Jesus. Jesus was condemned as a heretic and blasphemer. Yet God accepted him. Jesus was justified by God. If we seek to have the same attitude Jesus had, we too, will be justified by God. God will accept and justify us the same way he accepted and justified Jesus.

God gave Jesus a home in heaven. That home could just as well be our's too.

"Spiritual descendants" (at least my use of the term anyway) are not followers of teachings, but inheritors of status. If we're spiritual descendants, we're not particularly concerned about what he taught, but what makes us equals with Christ. Sure, we're not identical with him and we're not faultless as he was, but our aim is to be given the same level of dignity as Christ himself.

People like that could be considered "Christian" even though they follow teachings that are not the original teachings of Christ. Jesus, Paul, Peter, James and John all developed their own teachings, but Paul, Peter, James and John wrote on the legacy of Christ as a "spiritual ancestor" from which we could inherit a home in heaven. The idea is that we can share Jesus' home just because "we're considered equal" with Jesus. Paul, Peter, James and John's teachings were teachings about Christ. Christ was "honoured" not just as a teacher, but also as a spiritual leader that led the way and shared his path with others. They wrote in honour of Christ rather than themselves.

In that sense it's not necessarily Jesus' teachings that make us "Christian." It's what makes him our leader that makes us "Christian." We read the Bible to remind ourselves of what Jesus did. Just as there are teachings that came from Christ there are also teachings about Christ. These teachings may not have come from Christ himself. Yet they are legitimate as they conceptualise a "spiritual leader."

In a sense, because there are teachings that came from him and ones about him, the teachings don't have to come from him. They don't even have to come from Paul, Peter, James and John. They can come from you and me, or anyone who has or appears to have, the Spirit.

Christianity, I would think, is not about the teachings of Christ, but Christ being our leader. That's perhaps why John in 1 John 4:1-3 says to "test the spirits," as so-called "teachings" can come from anyone -- and the door is open to everyone to explain Christ, using whatever approach they want. God gave us a mind to think in the abstract, and likewise, the issue is open for us to come up with whatever reasoning our minds can imagine. The reasoning may be wrong, but it is our own responsibility to detect the fault.

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The real purpose of Christianity is unknown.

Dear Saltmeister, I think it is to be conformed into His image by (Sanctification) through the Holy Spirit. What do you think?

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by JustifiedByFaith

Dear Saltmeister, I think it is to be conformed into His image by (Sanctification) through the Holy Spirit. What do you think?

I agree, but what I personally think is not necessarily what everyone else thinks, so the issue can be open to anyone aligned to the label of "Christianity." Everyone approaches it differently, and due to our limited knowledge and experience as humans I guess even Christianity can't be summed up in a single view but must be explored (both in written texts and in reflective thought). Some people see a different purpose for Christianity and have a different agenda. We all have agendas.

Who is to say what's essential/unessential and what's legitimate/illegitimate in Christianity when what we've explored is but a small piece of Christianity?

Some of us will agree on the central concept(s). But others may have something different. Can we, or they, say that either is wrong?

For example, not everyone believes Jesus should be special. Some do. There is the temptation to either think that those that treat Christ as special are doing it wrong, or that those who think he's not special are doing it wrong. I could disagree with someone's view, but that's only because they're not aligned to the same agenda as I am.

So who is to say what Christianity's real purpose is? Let's just share what we think. Let it just be a matter of explaining and justifying ourselves. Personal experience can go a long way.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I agree, but what I personally think is not necessarily what everyone else thinks, so the issue can be open to anyone aligned to the label of "Christianity." Everyone approaches it differently, and due to our limited knowledge and experience as humans I guess even Christianity can't be summed up in a single view but must be explored (both in written texts and in reflective thought). Some people see a different purpose for Christianity and have a different agenda. We all have agendas.

Who is to say what's essential/unessential and what's legitimate/illegitimate in Christianity when what we've explored is but a small piece of Christianity?

Some of us will agree on the central concept(s). But others may have something different. Can we, or they, say that either is wrong?

For example, not everyone believes Jesus should be special. Some do. There is the temptation to either think that those that treat Christ as special are doing it wrong, or that those who think he's not special are doing it wrong. I could disagree with someone's view, but that's only because they're not aligned to the same agenda as I am.

So who is to say what Christianity's real purpose is? Let's just share what we think. Let it just be a matter of explaining and justifying ourselves. Personal experience can go a long way.

I believe what is being asked here is an exercise in "apologetics"...

v/r

Q

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I agree, but what I personally think is not necessarily what everyone else thinks, so the issue can be open to anyone aligned to the label of "Christianity."

Dear Saltmeister,

That's right, thank God for the 1st Amendment. This way people can share thier opinions when asked, and not get ruffled when others have opposing views, huh?

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If the author was someone other than God (swt) or Christ (pbuh), then I do NOT consider it Christianity. For me, Christianity means the teaching from Jesus Christ (pbuh). What does it mean to you?

As Saltmeister pointed out, Chrisitanity is much more than just the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the NT. In case you have not noticed, Jesus taught nothing new. He just repeated common philosophy of the day. Christianity to me means a certain culture that Caucasians in North America inherited from their European ancestors. That's because I'm a North American Caucasian.

Church history reveals the mistakes of men and I read that it's teaching has often been 180 degrees away from Christ (pbuh).

If you think a certain teaching is not Christian, all you are doing is expressing your personal opinion. You have a right to that opinion but you have no right imposing that opinion on me as a truth of Christianity.

I may not be a good Christian by the majority, nor a good Muslim, but I will pray in a mosque on Friday and attend church on Sunday.

I will pray at any street corner or bus stop and also in my home or abywhere else I go. Prayer for me is not a formal thing. It is a constant relationship with God. Like the apostle Paul said, "Pray without ceasing."

Do you know many who will?

I don't know too much about the religious life of the people I see. You are the first person who tells me he prays in a mosque on Fridays. If that is a Muslim custom, then I assume many of the Muslims I know do it. I don't know what the Mennonite Muslims do on Fridays.

What church do you attend?

Do you mean as in organized religion? Or as in spiritual communion with God? I have not been in a church building in a long time. Churches don't minister to my spiritual needs. Like I said, I am in constant communion with God. That means "church" can be anywhere.

I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... albeit with a sprinkle and not the dunk.

So was I.

My children were baptized.

As infants or as adults? I have no idea where your family is at.

Yet, I can easily reject the Trinity as commonly expressed. So if you know what I understand and accept, is that by my post alone?

I am not sure what you mean here. If I remember correctly, you did not state a personal position in your post. What you wrote sounded like a person who is making fun of traditional Christian tenets. I cannot correctly judge a person's behaviour and beliefs by one internet post, if that is what you mean. Thus, your posts are one indication of who you are. Over time, an individual's posts show a pattern of thought and behaviour. A human being is so complex that only God can fully know a person. You come across to me as one of the more complex humans around with a very complex intellect. I will not pretend to know you fully. Nor your beliefs. I had no idea you went to a Christian church. I just somehow or other got the impression that you are a Muslim.

You know what I find truly sad? There is no open confession of sin at the baptisms in the churches that I have seen, as described in Matthew 3:6 and Mark 1:5. It scares away the masses. Why? Do you know a church that combines confession of sins and baptism?

Yesssss. Of course I do. I guess you will have to try the Mennonites. They sure believe in public confession of sin. Read my post 44 on this thread. To see an English translation of the Confession of Faith by which I was instructed for believer's baptism see the Dordtrecht Confession of Faith.

I see that confession and repentance is the most important part. Don't you?

Depends what you mean by this. I don't believe in it the way the conservative Mennonite churches teach it. It debases the human being and that is not what Jesus was about.

At least the RC has confession somewhere, albeit wrongly hidden away in a dark and secretive closet. Can you show me where in the bible it teaches to confess a sin in a closet?

Yes. Matt. 18:15 15 “If another member of the churchd sins against you,e go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. d Gk If your brother

e Other ancient authorities lack against you

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989 (Mt 18:15). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

You're supposed to talk in privacy with a person who has offended you. The flip side of the coin is that the offender can confess in privacy. Thus, confessing one's sins in private is very much appropriate. Matt. 6:6 also speaks about things that should be performed in privacy.

6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.b b Other ancient authorities add openly

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989 (Mt 6:6). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

As far as I know, everyone can learn by reading, brain-storming, imagination, and making mistakes. But Christianity is by definition NOT defined by brain-storms or imagination. Christianity is defined by God (swt) and Jesus Christ (pbuh). Agreed?

Exactly what do you mean by "defining Christianity"? Here you can see the method by which one organization defined Christianity. It's probably one of the more civil methods by which Christianity has been defined over the millennia. For much of its history Christianity has been defined by the war weapons of the age. This continues to the present day.

One or two other members have also responded to this so I won't go into what they have already covered. Why do you put those letters in brackets after God's and Jesus' names? That is not a Christian tradition; it's something Muslims do. So anyway, that's a major reason I responded to you as a Muslim and not a Christian. Also, if you as a Muslim-Christian do it, you are defining Christianity in yet another way. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to do this so it seems that you yourself draw on traditions that are not mandated by the Christian God or by Jesus. Thus, I think by the time everything has been said and done you have few fingers of blame left to point at Christians and how they define their religion.

[Quahom1]

Moved part of the Trinity of Christianity thread to this new one, as we were really heading in a direction of addressing Christianity, Jesus, and what He may or may not represent.

v/r

Q

[kenod]

"And man said: "Let us make God in our image ..."

I think I need to be careful when my definition of Christianity is whatever "resonates" with me as an individual. It is true that we each have a personal relationship with God - it is a loving relationship, but not an equal one. He's the Man!

I know there are different interpretations of the Scriptures, but our relationship with God, the Lord Jesus Christ, must first of all be soundly based in God's Word. Our daily walk with Him, as we face varying situations, is then guided by that understanding.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I believe what is being asked here is an exercise in "apologetics"...

v/r

Q

What do you mean by "apologetics?"

It's not that I don't have some idea of what "apologetics" is about. I am aware of a certain group of Christians that go around with an approach to "explaining Christianity" called "apologetics" but I have no real idea of what "apologetics" really involves. I thought it was just a system of thought . . . or something like that.

I looked up the term in the dictionary and all it says is that it's about making apologies.

Oh I see, it must be what I said in the last paragraph about "explaining and justifying ourselves."

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

What do you mean by "apologetics?"

Oh I see, it must be what I said in the last paragraph about "explaining and justifying ourselves."

[Dor]

Easy answers to thread title.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life and teachings in the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah and God incarnate and refer to him as Jesus Christ.

from wikipedia seems to answer both questions. If I had to add to it I would add Savior.

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The true Humanist has only one God...himself. There is no room for the supernatural, there is no tolerance for a "being" that determines what will be for an individual, save for the individual themself. To a Humanist, "God" is dead, long live the new god...

Quahom1,

Not only that, but everything in life for the Humanist is based on what works best for each individual and meets our individual selfish needs. There is absolute tolerance for everything....as long as it's not Christian based ideas of course.