View Single Post
Old 07-10-2003, 02:00 PM   #12
joydriven
joywriting in the rock river valley
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicagoland area
Posts: 41
defining terms uniformly

Quote:
Torrere: Is Jesus God, or was Jesus created by God? Are they similar, or are they the same thing? Christians warred and killed each other over this question for centuries.
Your statement reiterates the need to make sure we are all on the same page (sort of like getting our watches in sync) about the definitions for the terms we use. You say Christians warred and killed <b>each other</b> over the question of Christ's deity. Believing in the deity of Jesus is essential to being a Christian in terms of biblical Christianity. Although due to a misunderstanding that is shared by the majority of the world, this is nonetheless untrue.

By the popular definition, "Christianity" is a term used for any faith that includes Jesus Christ to any extent. Therefore, all kinds of religions (notice I say religions, not denominations) get lumped into the religion Christianity. Examples of this lumping phenomenon would be the fact that Christianity is also said to include Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Nazis, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. I say to you, these are <b>other</b> faiths/religions. Personally, I don't really care to claim a particular label--but I recognize the inevitable fact that I will be categorized somehow and that labels are (if defined consistently) useful. Maybe I shouldn't call myself a Christian if I feel that "my brand of" Christianity differs so from that of others who are mentally bundled with me into the same group. Historically, I am quite justified in calling myself a Christian (followers of the biblical Jesus were first called Christians/"little Christs" as a derogatory label in Antioch, which is located in present day Turkey, and those early disciples' faith is still the faith that I follow). However, so many of the distinguishing lines are being rubbed out, and so many other groups are being given this label today that it is confusing, to say the least (especially in scenarios like this--an online, cross-cultural, open-ended, all-inclusive discussion).

You see, the deity of Jesus Christ is one of those basic fundamentals in the Christian Bible. It is one of those black and white issues that are not negotiable for "good Christians" to differ over. The Jesus Christ of the Bible claimed in the Bible to BE the God of the Bible, incarnate. He is indeed the Son of God. He is also God. There are many who believe that Jesus was merely a prophet or a good man. I say only that these do not follow the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Whether our human minds can grasp the possibility of a triune God (made up of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is not the issue. The issue is that the God of the Bible revealed himself and the essential components of the Christian-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it-faith IN that Bible.

Therefore, it is impossible to conceive that true Christians (i.e., people who "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and "confess with [their] mouth[s] that Jesus Christ is Lord") would fight and kill other true Christians (i.e. people who "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and "confess with [their] mouth[s] that Jesus Christ is Lord") over the issue of Christ's GODness. Is that really what happened, or is that just the popular viewpoint (i.e., the lumping in and blurring of definitions from the perspective of outsiders looking in)?

Maybe one side of the battles was comprised of true Christians, or maybe there was a mix of true or duped Christians on either side. Maybe both sides of Holy War crusades were stocked full of ignorant men who could not read the Bible because it was not available to them in their own languages and they had been relying on pulpiteers and rumors and traditions to teach them their doctrine.

Either those fighters/killers believed in the Christ of the Bible--wherein he claims to be 100% holy God + 100% sinless man and therefore able to become the only sufficient/adequate sacrifice for sin--OR they believed in only the historical ambiguities (i.e., some guy who was really nice and maybe did some scientifically-explainable miracles or maybe the witnesses just had sunstroke that day and were hallucinating...i.e., some really good man who was just a little loony or a liar with loyal followers who stole him out of his grave so people wouldn't think he was insane for teaching what he taught or cruel for leading them on).

Last edited by joydriven; 07-10-2003 at 02:07 PM.
joydriven is offline   Reply With Quote