Who Here Is A True Christian?

So what is your definition of a christian?

 

Neutrally undecided ! That sums it up pretty well.

What is really hard to believe is that the author of Mark would leave out the physical resurrection story had he known about it.

If the author was a disciple of Peter, then surely he would have known.

The physical resurrection "Is the story" It is the "proof" statement for all of Christianity.

You can go on and on about the works of Christ and the crucifixion all day long but the big Hammer that "Proves" everything:

1) Jesus was the messenger of God, Son of God .. and so forth
2) The promise of eternal life exists and is real

is the physical resurrection.

To think that a disciple of Peter trying to detail the life and message of Christ would leave out the most important evidence is far far far beyond absurd. So absurd that it would put the state of mind of the author into question.

The only plausible scenario is that the long ending was there originally and somehow got lost.... or, the story was made up and added after the fact.

None of the early church fathers seem to know about the physical resurrection stories and this is problematic.

 

Really, I don't see the relation honestly. 'faith without works is dead' - compared to- "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (?) Sorry, I don't understand ..

EDIT: It either case, whether you believe because you saw for yourself or you believe because you have faith, does not dismiss you of your works.

 

One that puts faith in Jesus as the christ/messiah.
How else can it be defined?

I suppose one could refine in and just say, one who believes in christ/messiah and not assign a name to it, but for most of these threads it references Jesus.

 

What made him the messiah?

 

I have to go and won't be back for at least a week. I will answer to this asap and if somehow it goes over the post count, I will start a new thread.

Have a good day.

 

The most logical answer is the people who believe him to be.

 

Whome would those people be and
do you believe him to be messiah?

 

In John we have a nice summary of the physical resurrection.

The problem here is that there was no physical resurrection story in Mark so where did the writer of John which came much later get his story from, and was it even in the original version of John ?

The physical resurrection stories were obviously not known by the writer of Mark. Since Matt and Luke use Mark as a source document .. where did Matt an Luke get these stories from and why did the writer of Mark not know them.


Clement (roughly 100 AD) certainly had no knowledge of these stories and nor did any of early fathers that came before him.

Even Paul does not seem to know these stories, nor of any other gospel stories for that matter. His mention of witnesses to the risen Christ seem to be "spiritual" visions (just like his) rather than physical.

 

Right, ok so you don't know what you believe.

The Resurrection is in Mark, the guy in the empty tomb that said Jesus had risen and to meet him in Galilee as Jesus told them to.

Sure, I would think so. But we aren't talking about what the author "knew," we are talking about what he wrote,thus back to speculation about the ending.

Which brings us back to Matthew and Luke. They have the Resurrection "long ending" and while "Q" was Postulated as another source, you aren't limited to only two sources,it's just believed that Mark and Q were source documents for Matthew and Luke.

Before you circle this, remember Not to bring Mark into again, it doesn't serve a purpose to say "he would have known" when we are "back to speculation about the ending."

That's good... We are more on topic with the OP now. "Who here is a true Christian ?" Do you know what you believe concerning ALL scripture supporting Jesus' Resurrection ?

Are you kidding ? Oh no wait, I know where this is going because I KNOW you are't trying to say that the Church Fathers didn't know what the 'good news' was, you are saying that if the Church Father didn't mention "the longer ending" then they were unaware and it didn't happen, yes ?

 

This is in no relation to my post,please answer my question.

(I will respond in about a week if not tonight)

 

There is no physical resurrection in Mark. Only and empty tomb. That you want to delude yourself into thinking that the writer did not finish the story because he did not feel like it is about as weak as it gets.

I'm glad that you feel we are not limited to two sources.

Here is scripture supporting the resurrection of Jesus. In this case the writer does not leave out the important detail that the resurrection is spiritual as opposed to physical.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.html

 

To get back on the topic, a true Christian is one whose heart has been purified by the Holy Spirit.

 

this question has long fascinated me. so many Xtians seem to deliberately avoid thinking about, or exploring, the Jewishness of their faith. I can think of at least two know to me who, despite 70 odd years of very keen observance, were genuinly shocked at the mention. almost as though it had never occurred to them. very strange business.

otoh, Jews seem to know plenty about Xtianity and the common history.

 

Anyone who believe Jesus as the christ. RC to protestants, JW, mormons to individual who doesn't follow a man made doctrine.

I did, now not sure. I don't think God created mankind only to send more than 70% of his creation to eternal torment. So Jesus may be a messiah, the only one, don't know.

 

Who was more of a messiah than Noah? He saved the world. According to the story when Jesus returns he will kill all life and destroy the Earth. That makes him sound like a destroyer and not a savior.

 

So if God didn't create 70% to go to eternal torment, then what is the use in the messiah? So anyone that believes Jesus is the Christ is Christian? If they're real, do you think Satan and his demons are christian?

 

I guess there is no need, unless it was for non-jews or non-muslims?

Yes, IMO. Not all christians go to eternal bliss, by church doctrines and perhaps bible scripture, there are rules to follow to receive eternal bliss.

I wouldn't know. Somehow I don't think satan would believe christ as the messiah, and if he/she/they do, they see him as an adversary and not a way to God.

 

James say's that the "demons believe and shudder", so yes, they also believe He's the Christ. So believeing isn't enough, and revelations states that satan and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire. I don't think its a stretch to say that the demons would probably follow the devil and the false prophets into that eternal fire. Now we can all dance around scripture about whether Hell is real, but I don't think I'd take that chance with eternity on the line, but some do. If you want to get a good grasp of Hell and eternity, Jonathon edward's "Sinners in the hand of an angry God" is a good place to start for extra biblical lit.

I hope I didn't sound rude in that comment. I have found that on here, body language and facial expression can't be seen so I try and choose my words wisely. I have been taken wrong many times, and it may be my lack of writing skills, but in any case I don't mean any contentuosness at all.

 

None taken.
Since the jews don't believe in hell in the eternal fire pit sense, and christianity is based on that religion, I tend NOT to believe in the eternal fire pit. Outside of reveleations, hell is not referred to in that nature.

 

I'm glad I came across non-combatative. So you believe Ghenna is the "trash heap" that some people interpret it as? As far as the jews go, if you believe like they do about hell, then whats not to take that out to its next logical sequence of saying Jesus was not the Christ, right? And I know you stated earlier that you weren't sure about His messiahship, so basically you would then be jewish, right? Or do you have issues with judaism?

 

Ghenna is but 1 word used in the bible. Most of the time it is sheol. Shallow grave or hole in ground. Some even equate it to without God.
Right, I am not sure.
I don't know judaism well enough to have an opinion.

 

Free Dictionary:

be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.


The Greek word used in the NT is:

pisteuo- (Strongs G4100)

1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in

a) of the thing believed

1) to credit, have confidence

b) in a moral or religious reference

Note:

1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul

2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith

3) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith

2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity

a) to be intrusted with a thing

The word used in the NT for 'believe' just as with the free Dictionary means several things depending on how it is used:

1) To accept as true or real
or
2) To entrust, to have firm faith in, esp in Religion


An example as mere 'mental assent' would be in this analogy:

Someone puts a sturdy-looking chair in front of you, and then asks you, "Do you believe that the chair will support you?' You would say 'Yes' after visibly examining it in conjunction with your past experiences.

But..would you 'sit' in the chair and 'trust' that it will support you? The one who has 'faith' in the chair would say 'yes,' and would sit in the chair with confidence.

This is an example of mental assent vs. trusting in... the same with 'believing in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross for one's salvation.

The one who merely assents to a fact or even high possibility/ or even probability, may 'believe' but is not trusting in that belief, which is called 'faith.'

 

As in your example "sitting on a chair" ... if you were to try sitting on the chair called logic, you would find that the story of the physical resurrection has many flaws.

This is like sitting on a chair that is broken and expecting it not to collapse.

Here is some scripture that is thought by some to predate even Mark !

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/sophia.html

Now we know that Mark did not have a physical resurrection story. Here we have a resurrection story, but it is spiritual not physical.

Perhaps you should try this chair on for size !

 

One's 'faith' is rewarded and thus verified by 'sitting in the chair.' If the said chair 'holds up,' then the faith was shown as being valid..

Methinks you as previously stated, are operating in 'intellectual faith' and have not experienced the reward of real faith in your life. You have had to 'talk yourself into believing!'

And per scripture,

1 Corinthians 1:21 (yeah, that poor, foolish Paul again)

Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (again, foolish Paul )

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.