4 ms·

> Christians are what Christians do. This is generally not true. Try to replace "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Gnostic" and see how far this travels. While t

> Christians are what Christians do. This is generally not true. Try to replace "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Gnostic" and see how far this travels. While there are, I suppose, some distinctive practices that characterize various systems of belief (or disbelief), what distinguishes Christianity from, say, Judaism, is a set of irreconcilable beliefs (e.g., that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah). It is true that practices might distinguish religious groups (e.g., Orthodox Jews eat no pork, which is allowed to Christians), but those practices directly correlate to beliefs (Peter, citing Jesus, declares all meats clean in the New Testament). No, religions are not merely practice: they are creedal, too. One who rejects the virgin birth is per se not Christian, at least if the word "Christian" means anything.

goto11 6y ago
Lots of Christians reject the virgin birth. You can say they are not "real Christians", but they could say the same about you.
- memling 6y ago
  this sounds as plausible as saying that a lot of atheists believe in god. maybe it's a thing? but it's hard to imagine dropping someone in nicea in 380 and suggesting this. words mean things: Christians believe in more than the virgin birth but certainly not less.
  - keithnz 6y ago
    why not less? I think many see the "facts" as different. Their approaches to the texts are different, but "Christians" align themselves in someway with a entity called "Jesus". Different sects of Christianity tend to have their own definitions of what they think being a "christian" means and there are commonalities from sect to sect, and even some groups of sects have lots of strong commonalties, but there are still many ways they have incompatible beliefs as well. wikipedia has a reasonable list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination... and I'm pretty sure some "christians" in one of the sects would go "They aren't christians!" when it comes to other sects in that list.
  - goto11 6y ago
    Liberal Protestantism generally does not consider the virgin birth a critical article of faith. You can believe it if you want but it is not heretical to not believe in it.
plorg 6y ago
The meaning of "Christian" differs person-to-person and culture/tradition-to-culture/tradition, as well as over time. That Christ was born to a virgin, for example, was not necessarily agreed upon by early Christians, and it's certainly not agreed upon now. That Jesus was divine may not even have been universally accepted and also has its detractors today among Christians. Both creeds and practices do tend to identify differences between religious groups, but those differences may not be so clearly cut in practice. At the same time, various sects may define the boundaries of the religion more narrowly than others.
highmastdon 6y ago
I’m positive Peter is not citing Jesus when he said that all food is clean. This is an excellent example of how Christians take one or a few verses out of context and let them tell a story. If you would read the full passage about Peter, you’d find that the meaning of it was that whatever Gd has made clean shouldn’t be declared unclean by man. He goes on to explain it by saying that the Jews in his time weren’t allowed to go to a gentile, but, because Gd never said (when you study the Pentateuch) that any man was either clean or unclean (except certain circumstances), Peter shouldn’t consider gentile unclean by them being non-Jew. Much of this reasoning applies to Christians when explaining that Jesus freed them from the law (eating pork, keeping Shabbat, etc), by which they basically support the questioning of Him being the Messiah. Anyone who proclaims to not follow the law, cannot be the Messiah (Deuteronomy 18:20). However, if you’d read the NT carefully, combined with the scriptures of the scholars of that time (Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel and more), you’d find that he’s a law obeying person, and encourages everyone to do so. Even stronger; He has much of the same understandings that the rabbis of his time have. An example is Talmud (Shabbat 31a) where Hillel is asked to tell the Torah when the listener is standing on one foot. He answered by saying: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this—go and study it! This is remarkably similar to what Jesus said when someone asked Him, and Jesus responded with something that was in his time spirit, but also written in Leviticus 19:18 (Matthew 22) 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy Gd with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Also this very passage explains that Jesus didn't get rid of the law, even more so, He said that Love for Gd (in the ways mentioned and taken from the Sh'ma (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)) and love of your neighbour are the base on which you execute every law (and prophets) that's given. Without this base, everything you do is worthless, it's merely a disguise than being a righteous (Tsaddik)

goto11 6y ago

Lots of Christians reject the virgin birth. You can say they are not "real Christians", but they could say the same about you.

memling 6y ago
this sounds as plausible as saying that a lot of atheists believe in god. maybe it's a thing? but it's hard to imagine dropping someone in nicea in 380 and suggesting this. words mean things: Christians believe in more than the virgin birth but certainly not less.
- keithnz 6y ago
  why not less? I think many see the "facts" as different. Their approaches to the texts are different, but "Christians" align themselves in someway with a entity called "Jesus". Different sects of Christianity tend to have their own definitions of what they think being a "christian" means and there are commonalities from sect to sect, and even some groups of sects have lots of strong commonalties, but there are still many ways they have incompatible beliefs as well. wikipedia has a reasonable list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination... and I'm pretty sure some "christians" in one of the sects would go "They aren't christians!" when it comes to other sects in that list.
- goto11 6y ago
  Liberal Protestantism generally does not consider the virgin birth a critical article of faith. You can believe it if you want but it is not heretical to not believe in it.

plorg 6y ago

The meaning of "Christian" differs person-to-person and culture/tradition-to-culture/tradition, as well as over time. That Christ was born to a virgin, for example, was not necessarily agreed upon by early Christians, and it's certainly not agreed upon now. That Jesus was divine may not even have been universally accepted and also has its detractors today among Christians. Both creeds and practices do tend to identify differences between religious groups, but those differences may not be so clearly cut in practice. At the same time, various sects may define the boundaries of the religion more narrowly than others.

highmastdon 6y ago

I’m positive Peter is not citing Jesus when he said that all food is clean. This is an excellent example of how Christians take one or a few verses out of context and let them tell a story. If you would read the full passage about Peter, you’d find that the meaning of it was that whatever Gd has made clean shouldn’t be declared unclean by man. He goes on to explain it by saying that the Jews in his time weren’t allowed to go to a gentile, but, because Gd never said (when you study the Pentateuch) that any man was either clean or unclean (except certain circumstances), Peter shouldn’t consider gentile unclean by them being non-Jew. Much of this reasoning applies to Christians when explaining that Jesus freed them from the law (eating pork, keeping Shabbat, etc), by which they basically support the questioning of Him being the Messiah. Anyone who proclaims to not follow the law, cannot be the Messiah (Deuteronomy 18:20). However, if you’d read the NT carefully, combined with the scriptures of the scholars of that time (Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel and more), you’d find that he’s a law obeying person, and encourages everyone to do so. Even stronger; He has much of the same understandings that the rabbis of his time have. An example is Talmud (Shabbat 31a) where Hillel is asked to tell the Torah when the listener is standing on one foot. He answered by saying: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this—go and study it! This is remarkably similar to what Jesus said when someone asked Him, and Jesus responded with something that was in his time spirit, but also written in Leviticus 19:18 (Matthew 22) 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy Gd with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Also this very passage explains that Jesus didn't get rid of the law, even more so, He said that Love for Gd (in the ways mentioned and taken from the Sh'ma (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)) and love of your neighbour are the base on which you execute every law (and prophets) that's given. Without this base, everything you do is worthless, it's merely a disguise than being a righteous (Tsaddik)