What is Christianity?

Would that include an atheist who from culture and nurturing follows Jesus' teachings? How about a Muslim?

That doesn't mean anything unless Jesus was resurrected into a new physicality. This is absolutely fundamental to Christianity. The whole NT is written trying to make sense of the fact.If Jesus was not resurrected then he simply dies a criminal's death as a failed messiah who had accomplished nothing and was highly delusional to boot.You cannot read through the NT without seeing that the writers firmly believed in Jesus' bodily resurrection. There is no motivation for them to lie and the NT if they had the Gospel stories are not what they would have told.Many 1st century Jews believed in a ultimate mass resurrection for the Jews themselves at some point in time, presumably the end of it, but none of them anticipated it happeneing in the middles of time.Simply put - no resurrection - no Christianity.

They had just seen Jesus brutally tortured and killed by people who were really good at it. They either saw Jesus alive and well but different after that or they didn't. It would be pretty hard to be mistaken about that.To use the "Last Temptation of Christ" as an argument against it is just a tad peculiar. It is a work of fiction based on nothing but the writer's imagination.Amongst a zillion examples do you really think that a woman would have been able to take him off the cross before he died? There is no evidence for anything in that story. It is simply conjecture built on conjecture.Edited by GDR, : dumb mistake

Again you confuse resurrection with resuscitation. Sure there are stories that people were brought back to life but not in a new physicality and without their death being put off permanently. The resurrection of Jesus was seen as a foretaste of the resurrection of the cosmos at the end of time.The whole NT is made up of people trying to understand just what it was that God had to say and what He was doing by resurrecting Jesus.Sure you don't have to believe in the resurrection but if you are right the whole NT isn't worth any more than the writings about Mahattma Gandhi. It also means that Jesus was highly delusional and I would see no reason to follow someone like that.

You can claim that they are wrong but there is no evidence for the idea that they believed they were writing fiction.

True, unless He was resurrected. Not true. He chose to go into Jerusalem and do the things that He did knowing full well what those with the power did to someone who was going to do what He did. He did not have to go into Jerusalem at all. If He hadn't done that He would not have had to face the crucifixion. It was a choice. He went in as an act of faith believing that somehow God was going to work it all together for good. With the resurrection God did just that.I have no idea why you insist on calling yourself a Christian. Your beliefs line up perfectly with the agnostic view. I know you belong to a church but Christianity is a belief, not a social group.

Of course it is a belief. Everyone on that list believes something specific to Christianity except you. You have even said that your beliefs are consist with Buddhism, and as I have pointed out, even consistent with agnosticism. Name anything that you believe that couldn't just as easily be believed by either one of those two groups.

Sorry for not replying but I have been having health issues and will astonish you with my wisdom when I return.

Sure but an agnostic or even an atheist can believe that Jesus actually existed. It is hardly a belief held simply by Christians. Jesus is even written about in the Qu'ran. I agree that Jesus was born fully man with a time of birth and a certainty that there would be a time of death. However my view on about where God fits in is quite different from you. To start with I'll go to John 1.

quote:

---

1/In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2/He was with God in the beginning. 3/Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4/In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5/The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. /14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

---

You say that God became man, in this case Jesus. I don't see how you make sense of that. If Jesus was God then who was Jesus praying to? John explains it. The Word or wisdom of God has always existed. Jesus embodied that Word or wisdom of God. If you want o understand the nature of God we can do it by looking at the man Jesus. Jesus perfectly lived out the life depicted by my signature. It is not as if God left His place of residence and settled in here. When it talks about Jesus existing at the beginning it is the Word that existed form the beginning and the Word became flesh. John and others treat the Word and Jesus as 2 sides of the same coin.Yes, I believe in Christ's divinity and His place in the Trinity but I come at it very differently than you do. There is a slight difference. The other 2 were on the cross because of one crime or another. Jesus went to the cross as an act of faith believing that it was necessary to do the things that He would say and do. By riding into Jerusalem on a donkey He was making a messianic claim as per the book of Jeremiah. As He had done nothing that people thought a messiah should do that would set people against Him. He upset the money traders in the Temple, He upset the Pharisee and the Herodians. He upset pretty much anybody with power and a bunch more besides. Jesus knew what the result would be of His words and actions and even prayed in Gethsemane that He wouldn't have to go through with it.I don't imagine that either of the other two on their crosses were there because they thought that they were doing something that would wind up with them being crucified because they did what they believed to be the right thing. SureIncidentally the Nicene Creed was written when it was to make a definitive statement on the Trinity. It was to answers the controversies of the time. It goes right from Him being born to Him being crucified. If you look at this as a summation of Christianity then it makes everything He did between birth and death a meaningless. Well I contend it matters a great deal. I'll talk more about that in answer to another your points later. As I have pointed out resurrection is not the same as resuscitation. nor do I accept that because there are mythological tales involving Roman or other gods that that is any criteria for rejecting Biblical resurrection. The Gospels are written such they are intended to be read as factual and that they read as 4 final writers trying to make sense out of what they and others have witnessed. Jesus' mission was to establish God' Kingdom. We are to carry on that Kingdom work. It is as Jesus taught us to pray, Thy Kingdom Come on Earth as in Heaven. The resurrection affirmed and vindicated Jesus' life and the ascension enthroned Him as told allegorically in Daniel 7 with the Son of Man being presented to the Ancient of Days. Jesus was not a failed messiah. He reshaped what it meant to be a messiah. Most believed that a messiah would lead the Israelites against their enemies and defeat them. Jesus said that they didn't get it. As far as The Romans, their primary enemy at the time was concerned, He told them to go the extra mile, turn the other cheek and even to love their them. Jesus' claim was that it wasn't Rome that was the enemy. The enemy was evil itself. Evil did it's worst to Him on the cross and Jesus came out the other side in a similar but a more complete physicality. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, evil was decisively defeated.The messiah was to rebuild the Temple. Jesus rebuilt the Temple but this looked very different as well. The Temple was no longer to be made of stones and mortar but the Temple was to be planted in the hearts and minds of people and the to infect the world with God's love. You no longer had to go to a physical temple to meet God. God meets us where we are.The early followers understood and were able to say that Jesus really was the Messiah and it was a messianic movement. I agree with judgement but not in the way you describe it. The Biblical, particularly Paul's understanding is that our hearts are judged. Would you consider it fair to judge my actions on the same basis as someone who grew up in an unloving abusive home? Our doctrinal beliefs are a factor only to the extent that they influence the humaness of our hearts. Certainly I would agree that answering an altar call is not a get out of jail free card. I used this before, but I love this CS Lewis quote on that.

quote:

---

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

---

I understand Jesus as the new Adam for New Creation. It has opened up a new Kingdom and a whole new world for us. It is a Kingdom largely built on forgiveness as emphasized in The Lord's Prayer. It is a door through which all human sin , whether it be individual or societal can be forgiven. It is always by God's grace. Our entire existence is by God's grace. Actually the Bible is not at all clear on what happens after death. The biblical focus is on the idea at the end of time as we know it that this world and God's world, dimension or universe (call it heaven if you like) are permanently and fully combined and that all is renewed. It is interesting to speculate but there really is no clear message concerning what happens right after tie time of our physical death. We don't have an understanding of eternity so possibly we are resurrected into New Creation on death. In way that's not the point. All religions are mankind's genuine attempts at hearing and understanding that Still Small Voice' and applying it to our lives. No religion has a lock on all truth and we would agree that we aren't hellbound because of believing bad doctrine.The difference with Christianity is Jesus Christ. Is Jesus Lord? Does He sill exist? The key to that is Hid bodily resurrection. Without the resurrection God has not confirmed or vindicated His life and message, the Church as Hid body is a waste of time and resources. One of the things that was not controversial amongst the early Christians was that Jesus was seen touched and was communicative after the crucifixion. No resurrection, no Jesus followers and no Christianity. My own point of view that the only two essentials for the faith is that God's true nature is pure goodness and that He resurrected Jesus' whom He had embodied with His pure goodness and grace. What do you mean by the path. I don't see Christianity's focus on where it is that you ultimately wind up. The focus is on renewed hearts with a mission to spread God's love to God's creation. As I said earlier, it's neither our beliefs or our action. It is our hearts Out of loving hearts, but not about hearts that do those things because they figure there's a payout in the end. I doubt that there are two Christians anywhere who have put any thought into it who won't find something to disagree on. As far as I know I'm the only one who has it completely right. I certainly don't see my faith as something I market. No matter how imperfectly I do it my faith is something I live. Jesus tells us that God's Holy Spirit will lead us in all truth and I certainly believe that continues. I don't think Christianity itself has been a destructive force. It is only when it is misused and no longer Christianity that it becomes destructive. Remember - Love Your Enemy? How are the crusades for an example and example of that relatively basic command. Really well done I think I have complied with that and congratulations to all who make it through this tome. Edited by GDR, : missed part of a quote

My point is though that they are written in a manner that is obviously not to be understood as fiction.AbE: I also contend that they believed it themselves. I suggest that the question is not truth or lies but right or wrong, and I guess the varying degrees of right or wrong.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Hello petrophysics1I would answer your post but it is patently obvious that you have not taken the time to read anything that I wrote, and have gone with your assumption of what I think and wrote.

I don't think it is the difference between fact and fiction. Certainly in terms of giving accounts of something historical, things weren't written down factually in the way we would expect today. Yes, my beliefs have remained Christian but my understanding of how to understand the Bible has evolved as I've learned, so I don't accept that my beliefs completely overrule my objectivity. CS Lewis has an interesting take on the Gospels.

quote:

---

I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage... Or else, some unknown writer in the 2nd century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn’t see this has simply not learned to read.

---

The Gospel of Luke starts like this:

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

There may be Gospel writers who wrote from first hand knowledge but certainly all of them used other written and oral accounts from a variety of sources. There certainly is the possibility that there is some embellishment in the accounts. Good, then you must finally have it right.

This was his specific area of expertise.