Freedom of Religion

[tackattack]

---

Chris·tian noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Definition of CHRISTIAN
1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. ref

That's a meaningless definition anyway.

For example the very first question I can put to you is "What constitutes the teachings of Jesus".

Most "Christians" tend to support the entire Christian "biblical cannon" as the "Word of God". That's far more than merely professing a belief in the teachings of Jesus.

Moreover, about 75% of the New Testament actually constitutes the teachings of Paul, not Jesus.

In fact, if you reduce the Bible to only references of teachings made specifically by Jesus himself it would be a quite small cannon.

It would basically only contain the four gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John. And even much of those documents are nothing more than the narrative hearsay of the authors who wrote them. By the time you weed out all the background narrative hearsay and opinions about what Jesus might have meant and get down to actual verses that are supposedly regurgitated quotes of Jesus you don't have much left.

Finally, even those regurgitated quotes are highly suspicious since they are just the hearsay gossip of men who are claiming what this man Jesus might have said.

That's pretty shaky right there.

Also, where do these gospels ever claim that Jesus taught anyone that they should believe, or accept, the entire Torah as the official infallible "Word of God".

They don't. No such teaching exists.

Where does Jesus prophecize the some guy name Saul/Paul will come at a later date to finish his message and ministry?

He doesn't.

Yet I would think that if this was in God's plan he would have certainly made it clear that we should listen to the teachings of this guy named Paul as though he speaks for Jesus.

This is baloney. It's that simple. Much of the teachings in the Bible that are attributed to "Jesus" never even came from Jesus in the first place according to this very cannon of gossip.

So attempting to define a "Christian" as nothing more than a person who professes a belief in the teachings of Jesus isn't saying much.

I could easily qualify as a Christian myself based on that definition.

Jesus never taught anyone that he was born of a virgin. So you certainly wouldn't need to believe that.

Jesus never claimed to be the Son of the God of Abraham. So you wouldn't need to believe that.

Jesus never taught anyone that they need to believe that the Torah was the "Word of God". So you wouldn't need to believe that.

Jesus never taught anyone that he was going to send Paul to finish his teachings and ministry. So you wouldn't need to believe over 75% of the New Testament.

You wouldn't need to believe that Jesus rose form the dead, etc.

You wouldn't need to believe much at all really.

My belief that Jesus was a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist who actually taught against the immoral teachings of the God of Abraham would suffice as a "Belief in the teachings of Jesus". Thus by your superficial definition I would qualify as a "Christian" without even believing that Jesus was any special "Son of God" or that he was on a suicide mission to pay for he sins of mankind. I wouldn't need to have any belief in the God of Abraham or the Old Testament at all. And I could probably toss out the vast bulk of the New Testament as being unreliable hearsay gossip that really has nothing at all to do with the so-called "teachings of Jesus".

And I would be totally within rational rights to even highly question the verbatim validity of the hearsay quotes that even had been attributed to Jesus himself.

The "teachings of Jesus"?

What precisely would that even entail?

The gospels claim to "quote" Jesus as having taught that if any man hears his words and does not believe he will not judge them for this.

Yet, as a narrative opinion John proclaims that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is condemned already because they don't believe in the name of the Son of God. That's in total contradiction with what he claims that Jesus actually taught.

So who should you believe? John, or Jesus?

---

You have every right to believe whatever you like about the definition. The reason is simple is because it's a dictionary and words have meanings, and I won't go redefining words to suit my beliefs, which you seem comfortable with. Your question about what are Jesus' teachings are valid as they're posrt of the definition of Christian (however, because you don't like the answer doens't invalidate the definition)

To answer that first question regarding which teachings were the greatest Jesus answered it in Matthew 22:36-40

---

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

---

He had many other teachings attributed to him throughout the NT. He also claimed to be a fufillment of the OT prophesies of the Messiah and Son of God. John 4 for one example

---

"25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

---

.

The definition also implies within itself that you believe that Jesus Christ existed. It also implies that the teachings are the ones from the Bible. I could write a book with a whole bunch of faked teachings of Jesus, so I guess belief in the Bible is also a presumption of the definition. There are many religious sects that claim Christianity and believe Jesus wasn't the son of God, I don't consider them by this definition Christian because they're denying Biblical teachings of Jesus. That's why JW, Muslims and Jews are JW, Muslims and Jews , not Christians. It's not a superficial or useless definition, it a simple and inclusive one because it's a broad subject.

You obviously haven't done enough research on what the Bible actually said and are going off of a lot of hearsay yourself. I assume since you don't believe what Jesus said about himself that you wouldn't qualify as a Christian, according to the common definition.

To answer your question about Jesus and the OT:
1.Source of Authority
A.When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a source of authority by stating, "It is written," (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
2.Imperishability
A."For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished," (NASB, Matt. 5:18).
3.Unbreakability
A."The Scripture cannot be broken," (NASB, Jn. 10:35).
4.Source of Doctrinal Authority
A.Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).

Along with a slew of others.. just check out CARM for a more detailed list, I really can't be bothered for the time right now.

---

numbering by me
My original point stands:

1-My original point is that it's meaningless to try to make a religion out of Jesus alone. Jesus is nothing in a sense of divinity outside of being the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.

2-To claim to be a follower of Jesus without being a lover and follower of the God of Abraham is utterly meaningless.

To worship Jesus is to worship the God of Abraham.

Therefore a "Christian" must necessarily worship the God of Abraham and love him with all their mind, heart, and soul, just as the Old Testament demands.

3-To claim that they are merely "followers of the teachings Jesus" is a gross misrepresentation of what Christianity actually demands.

They must first be believers in the Old Testament and LOVERS of the God of Abraham.

If they aren't that, then any respect they might have for Jesus is a moot point.

---

1- Yet that is the definition of Christianity as I referenced

2- I agree that a Christians should Love God. As that's one of Jesus many teachings, the definition covers it. Unless you believe that JEsus never spoke of God (His Father) or the OT (which I referenced handily for you again)

3- No it's just a simplified definition because spelling out each of Jesus' teaching for ingorant people who choose not to read it for themselves would take far too long. We have a book for that, it's called the Bible. If you're interested read it, if not, stop making unfounded and incorrect asumptions about something you understand very little of. If you'd like we could have a Bible study via Email. However feel free to redefine as many words from the dictionary as you like, it makes whomever's side you're against seem that much more rational. Have a great day!