Sure. That is a 'belief' of many. But those opinions ABOUT the original manuscripts should not take precedence over the manuscripts themselves, in defining the term. Say you decide to start a religion. You speak at length about your views, & your disciples write them down. Later, after you are dead, the new religion flourishes. 'Gornians' proliferate & begin to teach about the wisdom of the founder. But some critics say, 'He didn't say those things! He said 'such & such', instead!' Who is most credible? The eyewitness accounts of your disciples, or the new critics? What basis is there for believing one over the other? Is it whichever one 'sounds' better to the hearer? Is it the one that fits within the latest pop opinion about the mysteries of the universe? Or is there a historical basis for giving credence to the eyewitness accounts of the disciples? Why should the opinions from a critic (who wasn't there) carry more weight than the eyewitness accounts of those who were there? If anyone wants to dismiss the manuscripts or their credibility as historical evidence, they are certainly welcome to do so. But the question then comes up, 'Why?' From what basis are the manuscripts dismissed? Incredulity? Bias? Prejudice? But even if you dismiss the manuscripts concerning Jesus, why should a distant critic from another time & place be given preference for defining the term? It should still go with the original definers of the term, & not some johnny come lately with an agenda. Would not the Gornians from the future be rightly offended if some anti-Gorn propagandists pitched lies & falsehoods about their founder, & were not faithful to the exact teachings from him?
But if the accounts are subjective...and therefore suspect....how can we know HOW to "have a relationship with Christ"? Again, Catholics believe in "faith plus works"...based on the Gospels. Protestants believe in "faith alone"...also based on the Gospels. Which was Jesus' position???
You need to take a step back. "Gorn" (me)...isn't saying or writing anything. FRIENDS of mine (or those claiming to be) are the ones discussing "Gornism". My buddies St. Johnzilla and St. Luke-tile and St. Mark of the Sleestak and St. Matthew Geico Gecko. I...Gorn....have written down NOTHING. I SUPPOSEDLY have been "quoted" by my friends. So any criticism of "Gornism"...is simply criticism of THEM.....not necessarily me.
I see what you are talking about, but I think you have a misunderstanding of what Christianity is. I gave you the very foundation of what it means to be Christian. I can't speak on other religions but Christianity is the belief that each person has a unique one to one relationship with God. To set a definition of what the word Christian means is akin to applying guidelines/rules to be Christian. How can one have a personal relationship with God if another person applies rules to that relationship? Such is the same for the bible, if you read it with someone else saying to you, this is how it is inturperated and what it means. Now, one could take advice but make a decision within your own mind/heart.
Jesus didn't have a theological position. Nor was he legalistic. He was a realist to the core. His instructions were simple and straight forward: "Love one another". And how do you know HOW to have a relationship with anybody? You just have one. Jesus is quoted in Revelation as saying that he stands at the door and knocks and all we have to do is let him in. I always challenge people to invite Jesus in and you will accept him even if you don't believe--you give him permission to help you believe. You can't put any conditions on it, no time frame, no dictates of how it has to be. You just invite him in. And sooner or later, it happens.
The supposed person writing in revelations was not quoting Jesus. He was in prison on some island, per the story of John of Patmos.
The writer listed as John was living in exile on the island of Patmos, presumably to escape persecution by Emperor Domitian. Many of the Church believe the apostle John to be the author, and other scholars have attributed it to an unknown person called John. However, the Second Century fathers who were instrumental in selecting the manuscripts that would in fact eventually become scripture either knew the apostle John personally or knew people who knew him personally and I doubt they would have given the apocalyptic manuscript titled Revelation its authority if it did not have the authority of a known person. So there is no good reason to believe the apostle did not write it himself. But whoever wrote it is quoting Jesus revealed to him in the Revelation.
2nd Century? Knew John? Some 70+ yrs after the crucifixtion. John would still be alive? Revelations, wasn't that added to the canon many years, decades, even a century or more later? And under very much concern?
Certainly he could have been alive. John would have been little more than a youth in Jesus day. Domitian died in 96 A.D. and most scholars date Revelation around that time so the apostle John would have likely been in his late 80's or early 90's. It is of little importance other than curiosity for most of us, however.
80s or 90s in an era where 40 was the norm. And he writes a book like revelations? How many 80 or 90 yr olds today could even do that. And what kind of memory from 70yrs earlier can they have to accuracy? To say it was a quote of Jesus, a stretch 70 yrs later.
It was not a quote of Jesus from 70 years earlier. It was a quote of Jesus from the Revelation. And a LOT of 80 and 90 year olds can do amazing things.
On the contrary, 'Gorn' has said a lot of things. Your disciples diligently wrote them down. You had a specific message, from a specific time, with a specific meaning. When you pontificated about linguine being the only valid pasta for an alfredo sauce, your disciples knew exactly what you meant, & wrote it down. Now, there are 'redefiners' of Gornism.. they claim that you didn't really 'mean' that linguine is the only pasta for alfredo, but that you would have been thrilled with angel hair or even spaghetti. 'Heresy!!' your disciples cry, but the heretics increase, & they ruin your message of pasta purity, with their inclusions & reinterpretations. So instead of Gornism being a representation of alfredo sauce & linguine, it now means any pasta, at any time, with any sauce. The nuances of your specific teaching are lost in the muddled down revisions of some 'Pasta Correct' tyranny. Gornians are just another set of pastafarians, with no specific teaching or message of their own. I don't see what you are criticizing in my definition. I am not providing specific lists of tenets of faith, just a basic one for general christianity. If it is all based on feeling.. what each person 'feels' that the bible says, or what each person 'feels' what God says to them, personally, then there is no standard for christianity, & it is a free for all of feeling. There is no objective truth for the term 'christian' and it depends completely on how you, personally, feel. IMO, that is an extreme interpretation of the christian faith, & is an overreaction to the naturalism of the day. Christian faith is BOTH mystical & empirical. There is an element of the supernatural, but it is also based on REAL events, with REAL persons, in REAL time. It is a disservice to christianity to make it all into a subjective dream world of personal belief.
Not a lot. Most never get there. But anyone can believe whatever. 2000 yrs ago, 40 yrs old was considered old. Most dead before 50. Probably some sort of hallucenation.
The disciples didn't diligently write them down. Not until he was dead at least 40 yrs. And they wrote of things that not a single one of them were around to know about. Like when he was being questioned while imprisoned. Not a single one was in the interrogation room. But there are only 1 or 2 generalities. Jesus as savior. Man needed a savior because of sin. All else if pastafarism.
Works should never be the foundation. Saving grace & faith produces good works. Gods grace through Jesus Christ is free. Some who blatantly use grace or misunderstand it as a pass to do whatever they please isn't the point either....obviously
Matthew & John were the only eyewitnesses who penned a gospel. But i don't see how that would invalidate Luke's account, for instance. Here is his introduction: Luke 1:1Many 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. As an aside, 'Theophilus' means 'friend of God', so his account here is not necessarily addressing a single person. Since the sequence of events is in agreement with the other accounts, there is no reason to doubt this testimony as an accurate depiction of the events. As to the '1 or 2 generalities', i agree with the summary, but the other factors are there, implied, & part of the message of Christ, even if they are not laid out as the 'path to salvation'. for example. 1. If there is no God, & if Jesus was not 'God in the flesh', then what is the purpose of a sacrifice? 2. If there is no sin, what need is there for a savior? 3. If there is no response required, what is the need for the message & the call to 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, & you shall be saved'? 4. If no further action or 'proof' of the transaction is needed, it is just empty words, with no meaning. That is why i include all the factors i did in the definition of christian. Not all of them are stated, but they are there, whether they are mentally acknowledged or not. Without God, there is no Savior. Without sin there is no atonement. Without belief there is no transaction. Without follow through there is no reality. I always like to make things as simple as possible..to boil things down to their essence, & see the basics in any philosophical concept. But i can't remove any of these, as they all tie together to make the message. The fundamental assumptions about God & man are necessary for there to be a Savior, and the rest build upon that. Even if they are not all verbalized, they are there in the transaction. But as far as the religion of Gornism, as long as the disciples corroborate the things said, whether they wrote them on the spot, or later, is not significant. 'At least 40 yrs after His death' is a guess, & not a very good one. Both Matthew & John were immediately relating quotes & stories of the events, as well as many others who witnessed them. We do not have an exact time of the writings from them, but it is just as flawed to say '40 yrs later' as to say, 'at the time'. We have eyewitness accounts, with corroboration from other eyewitnesses.. those in the crowd, Mary, & many others. If Gorn's disciples remembered clearly him speaking of the importance of alfredo sauce with linguine, but centuries later some crack pot claims he meant 'any pasta can go with alfredo sauce', why should that opinion be given credibility? Instead, it exposes an agenda.. a diluting or changing of the true tenets of Gornism, for other purposes. It is not faithful to the teachings of Gorn, & his true followers know it. He CLEARLY taught that ONLY linguine should go with alfredo sauce, not that anything can go with it. So it is heresy to suggest otherwise. And, if there is no 'revival' of the principles of Gornism, then it will be lost in the muddled history of philosophical thought, & perhaps no one will ever be made aware of the metaphysical significance of linguine & alfredo sauce. Everyone sinks into the PC version of pastafarianism, with their brains muddled with redefinitions, distortions, & thc. Reality becomes a blur & an unknown & unknowable quantity. The clarity & insight that Gorn brought is lost in a watered down caricature of his message.
In some stories Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses.. but they report as if they were.. Very curious.
1. Your 1 used to reference the trinity of God, not if a God exists. I don't see a need for a trinity of God for a christian 2. I agree, christians need sin in order for their to be a savior. Without sin, there is no christianity 3. Your original 3 was I forget, but I agree on 2 and 3 as the need to be called a christian. I think it referred to Jesus as the savior. So 3 is required to be a christian. 4. They are not empty words, they may have meaning to some, but not to all. I am sure you've heard the game of telephone. 2nd, 3rd, or later recounts of an event rarely accounts for it in the orginal. Same as writing things down some 30+ years after the fact. Memory won't have an exact remembrance. Corroboration isn't the same as having what Jesus actually said. It is what some agree on to what he said and who knows if the context remains to the original meaning.
If the word Christian is coupled with a defined set of absolutes then most people can not say they are Christian. Most Christians do not worship the way the bible teaches. This is because, IMO, the bible is based on a 2000+ year old set of ideas. Gods word is in the bible but to each reader truth is based on that readers spiritual ideology. Take for example the animal sacrifices in LEVITICUS. Now, we as modern Christians do not sacrifice animals. Time changes what is acceptable for a good Christian to do. If there were a set rule that states someone is not Christian unless they sacrifice an animal upon an alter then the Christian faith would dwindle to almost no one. The problem that I have noticed about Christianity is that throughout its history bible interpretations by people of faith have been used to set rules upon others as to how they should live in order to be Christian. So, if the word is defined with rules then we would be falling back into the ages and not moving forward with changing societal evolution. There are however good Christian principles that are understood by everyone but they are not rules. What you have talked about in the OP is to create a set defined way to live if you want to be considered Christian. This is counter productive in order to spread the faith amongst an endless variety of people's belief structure. Personally, I would like to see Christianity spread because of its openness to everyone. This is the reason I have suggested that the very basics belief in God and to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior is all that is needed to be considered Christian. This is in fact how one is saved. The bible is based on real people, with real problems. The mystical nature of the bible is to each reader's judgement on the possibilities of what life is. There is to much about it that does not seem just and good. Each person who reads it should read it with the understanding that 2000 years ago life was completely different for people. They were not as smart as the average person today. Thus, subject to manipulation.
I don't presume the wisdom or knowledge to know the methods or intentions of God. And I sure don't possess the intellect to pretend that any of us can fully interpret or explain the Book of Revelation though we do know some of the history that almost certainly inspired it. It sure is fun to study and speculate on though.
The historian Josephus spoke of one religious sect in which the life expectancy was around 100. Infant mortality of course was very high in the First Century, but if one survived birth and childhood, he or she could conceivably live to be a ripe old age. And the elderly were much more respected and honored then than they are now. And I personally know quite a few octogenarians and nonagenarians who are sharp as tacks and who can still teach me a thing or two. If you do not, you are a seriously disadvantaged person. But whatever you think of the Book of Revelation--the wisest scholars have been trying to crack that code for many centuries now--the fact remains all that is required to be Christian is a relationship with Jesus the Christ.
That illustrates what i see as the "problem" Here you have something proposed as the inerrant word of god THE WORD OF GOD But how inerrant can a book be if everyone is required to come up with their own idiosyncratic view of what that book is saying. If god had some inerrant thing to say, he should certainly have found a less subjective way of expressing it... Imo
I have never personally described the Bible as representing the inerrant Word of God. But I believe that the inerrant Word of God can be found within the Bible among all its many nuances including the history, metaphor, poetry, instruction, allegory, symbolism, correspondence etc. as well as through other means. There were many who came face to face with God and did not believe even though he spoke to them plainly. He is quoted in The Gospel According to Luke: "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'' Again I do not presume to understand why God does things they way God does things, and appreciate small glimpses into that process that we have. I do know that until one gives God permission to teach that person; i.e. establishes a relationship, it is very difficult for people to understand. Fortunately, everybody can have that relationship who wants it.
1 was 'the nature of God', which includes the concept of the trinity, as taught by Jesus. I don't know if it is essential as a doctrine, but for the whole package to work, it is interwoven with the rest. 1. The sacrifice of Jesus only makes sense if He is God, with infinite ability to atone for the sins of humanity. 2. The indwelling Spirit is the engine for the rebirth.. it is the proof & Cause of the life of the christian. 3. The 'triune' nature of God is taught by Jesus.. it is not something humans can easily grasp, which is why it has been so controversial. But it is there, so we have to deal with it. I am not saying that people need to parrot certain things, but that there is a message that Jesus brought, with consistent reasoning & a clear pathway. It carries with it all of these factors, whether they are clearly enumerated or not. So while i do not consider UNDERSTANDING the nature of God, or even man, to be essential to reaping the benefits of salvation, the details of the transaction are still there. It is like flying in an airplane. It is not necessary to understand aerodynamics to fly. You take the step of faith, board the plane, & away you go. In the same way, the METHOD & propulsion of the believer's life does not require full understanding of the event or the engine for it, just the step of faith in accepting it. I am merely expounding on the event, parsing a few details, so the transaction is understood. That transaction is the basis for the term, 'christian'.. not the mental assent for it, but the transaction itself. The biblical record is included in the picture, because it is the only historical record of the life & teachings of Jesus. Only that message can have any credibility or historical validity. Of course, not all believe it, but any who revise the account should not use the term, 'christian', since they are altering the message & mission of Christ. Anyone can start a religion, but the teachings should be faithful to the founder, & any offshoots should carry disclaimers, instead of claiming authenticity from the original.
