Follow Christ but not Christian

[TheLightWithin]

What I don't understand is why they would care what trinitarians think?

I think it's looking to avoid some reactions, arguments, and debates.
One example that came up whenever for some reason I had to describe or explain my grandfather's religion, or it came up that an aunt of mine was a JW. If I somehow had to explain what was different about them, say to somebody who was curious and just didn't know, more often than you would think someone would say "I don't see how they can call themselves Christian if they don't believe in the trinity!" That even came up when I had to do a presentation about my family background for a required graduate school class. (Diversity class, interestingly enough) Almost everyone described their family's religion in their presentation. I mentioned some things about the diversity of religious orientation in my family, including non-Trinitarian Christians, and someone from the class interrupted me and said "I don't see how anyone can call themselves Christian if they don't believe in the Trinity!" Here I was trying to get through a presentation in front of the class. What was I supposed to do? Were they expecting me to agree? Argue? Defend? I wasn't expecting it from that crowd, and not in that class. So, I guess what I wish, is that the classmate had remained polite and just not shot their mouth off about my family members' religion like that. Or that in general the majority didn't so often feel it was their place to correct the minority.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If I believe in a Triune God and don't consider someone a Christian who denies the trinity or Christs deity that's just my opinion based on my beliefs..

Mmm .. but we need to consider WHY we hold said beliefs..

I get that people want to be validated and have their beliefs acknowledged and I can do that except to lie and say I believe that those beliefs are true. That would be denying what MY faith teaches. A Muslim would not admit Jesus is God for the same reason..

You're probably right .. most Muslims and Christians do not have a great deal of knowledge, and
hold fast to their congregation/tribe, and proudly deny other faiths/creeds.

satan loves causing division and insecurity.
I personally, do not like playing "his" game.
Those that are successful in the next life, will be humble people, who know that God forgives whomsoever He wills.

An Atheist would not admit there's a God for the same reason. People believe what they believe. What we can do is respect and love each other in spite of all that.

Yes .. we must love our fellow creatures, and respect them, as we would like to be respected ourselves.
G-d knows why we say what we say, and do what we do.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I think it's looking to avoid some reactions, arguments, and debates.
One example that came up whenever for some reason I had to describe or explain my grandfather's religion, or it came up that an aunt of mine was a JW. If I somehow had to explain what was different about them, say to somebody who was curious and just didn't know, more often than you would think someone would say "I don't see how they can call themselves Christian if they don't believe in the trinity!" That even came up when I had to do a presentation about my family background for a required graduate school class. (Diversity class, interestingly enough) Almost everyone described their family's religion in their presentation. I mentioned some things about the diversity of religious orientation in my family, including non-Trinitarian Christians, and someone from the class interrupted me and said "I don't see how anyone can call themselves Christian if they don't believe in the Trinity!" Here I was trying to get through a presentation in front of the class. What was I supposed to do? Were they expecting me to agree? Argue? Defend? I wasn't expecting it from that crowd, and not in that class. So, I guess what I wish, is that the classmate had remained polite and just not shot their mouth off about my family members' religion like that. Or that in general the majority didn't so often feel it was their place to correct the minority.

Ok I think I understand this now. It's personal. Im sorry you had to experience that disrespect while giving a presentation.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Mmm .. but we need to consider WHY we hold said beliefs..

What?

You're probably right .. most Muslims and Christians do not have a great deal of knowledge, and
hold fast to their congregation/tribe, and proudly deny other faiths/creeds.

Faith is faith.

satan loves causing division and insecurity.
I personally, do not like playing "his" game.
Those that are successful in the next life, will be humble people, who know that God forgives whomsoever He wills.

God is Good.

Yes .. we must love our fellow creatures, and respect them, as we would like to be respected ourselves.
G-d knows why we say what we say, and do what we do.

So let's be kind to one another shall we?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

What I find most regrettable about it is how the minority of Christians who are nonTrinitarian are dogmatically dismissed as not even Christian, or as heretics, rather than their being the flexibility to acknowledge some space for heterodoxy in one form or another. Nope, for some people it is all or nothing.

Maybe there's a difference between American Protestants and European Protestants: In the Americas, each shade of doctrine has its own church, whereas the Swiss Reformed and the Lutheran Churches in Germany and Scandinavia comprise a large variety of interpretations already among the theologists, and even more among the members. Although the founders kept the trinity doctrine, many modern theologists may and do even openly say that the infancy narratives are only legends and that they don't believe in virgin birth.

 

[wil]

and that they don't believe in virgin birth.

There are many that see the translations as maiden or young woman. And explain that early zealots promoted miracles because that is exactly what folks need to prove to themselves that any godman has any divinity, gotta do some miracles....plus their guy had a virgin birth and flew...what does your guy do? Not have to go to the liquor store...Come on ya gotta raise the dead or something!

Even today believers way heavily on the miracles, clinging tightly to the pick up your cot.and follow me. They find it necessary
...which makes me a heretic....the words attributed to the man are more than enough for me to have a desire to follow those words.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Ok I think I understand this now. It's personal. Im sorry you had to experience that disrespect while giving a presentation.

Well, there's an element of personal experience to it, woven in with the intellectual considerations. It's hard for me to understand why it is so hard for at least some trinitarians to extend Christianity as an umbrella term to individuals or groups who believe in Christ and the New Testament, but interpret things differently and do not accept the creeds etc. I mean I have learned enough to know that historically, the church was very jealous of its doctrine and hounded out any group or teachings they did not consider orthodox... but I didn't always know those things. So between my intellectual questions and personal interactions, I feel like I was permanently like this To the extent I feel like that's what I must look like IRL.

 

[Thomas]

I suppose generally I'd say, with regard to the OP: Follow Christ but not a Christian – is whether in 'following Christ' one follows a specifically Christian message / teaching, or is it a generic message / teaching that can be badged 'Christian' or, equally, as something else?

I mean 'love thy neighbour' is not particularly Christian – it's there in the Hebrew Scriptures, it's there in other Traditions.

The Golden Rule is universal – I applaud anyone who tries to follow the rule, and I'm sure Christ does, too. But does that make the person 'a Christian'?

In a sense yes. As a Christian, I believe we are all His, no matter how far we might stray.

The danger, as ever, is that the term 'Christian' becomes a subjective reference, and runs the risk of becoming romantic, anodyne and meaningless.

And Christ, whoever or whatever He is or was, was never that.

 

[juantoo3]

Don't be lonely. I acknowledge your beliefs as different from mine, but I would never let that stand between us.

Amen

 

[juantoo3]

...for some people it is all or nothing.

That appears to be standard practice across the board.

 

[juantoo3]

It's a precarious thing having to navigate around other people's feelings these days and this is just one thing I personally cannot budge on.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion...as long as you agree with what we say. If you don't agree, you are not diverse, equitable or included. Nevermind that those of us who decide who is and who is not included don't even believe in G!d, and ridicule those who do.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That appears to be standard practice across the board.

That would be satan .. he particularly opposes those that have faith and knowledge..

 

[Thomas]

I have already explained .. I find it divisive.

It's a great shame, but that divisiveness needs be seen in an historical context.

And no Faith is without diversity – Sunni and Shia being a case in point.

In the beginning, there were clearly churches who did not follow what became established as the Apostolic teaching. The book of Acts infers as much, and later groups like the Ebionites diverged from Apostolic belief. This was not a Trinitarian dispute per se.

Later, Subordinationism, Monarchianism and Arianism emerged, but these agin are not necessarily anti-trinitarian. Arius believed Jesus was Divine, of similar but not the same divine substance as the Father.

Then we go on to the likes of Cathars, Bogomils, Paulicians, the former believe in binitarianism – two opposed 'divine' forces, one good, one evil – and all are general 'gnostic' in their teaching.

Really, if one looks at anti-Trinitarian doctrines, then by far and away most appear in America from the 19th century on. Many of these share a common belief that they somehow got right what orthodoxy had got wrong for centuries, a dubious assertion on its own – and others sought to 're-invent' Christianity in light of contemporary ideas in rationalism, spiritism, mentalism, etc.

So I would argue that it's not Trinitarians who are divisive, so much as newly emerging denominations challenging the existing orthodoxy?

I can agree the doctrine is challenging – but that's a different kettle.

..but when it comes to the Qur'an, they reject it as "false scripture".
..so it's respectable to be a Jew, but to be a Muslim is to be astray?
I find that regrettable.

My belief is that the Prophet acknowledged 'The People of the Book' and that anti-Jewish or anti-Christian interpretation of the text emerged some time later, under the sway of politics and expansionism – and I find that regrettable.

 

[Thomas]

There are many that see the translations as maiden or young woman.

Interestingly, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, uses the term for virgin, and indeed the Hebrew term used elsewhere in the text implies a virgin, so it remains an open question.

Even today believers way heavily on the miracles, clinging tightly to the pick up your cot.and follow me. They find it necessary
...which makes me a heretic....the words attributed to the man are more than enough for me to have a desire to follow those words.

Yeah, but as you say, you follow the words, not the man ... and the words you follow tend to be generic – is that fair?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

It's a great shame, but that divisiveness needs be seen in an historical context.

And no Faith is without diversity – Sunni and Shia being a case in point.

In the beginning, there were clearly churches who did not follow what became established as the Apostolic teaching. The book of Acts infers as much, and later groups like the Ebionites diverged from Apostolic belief. This was not a Trinitarian dispute per se.

Later, Subordinationism, Monarchianism and Arianism emerged, but these agin are not necessarily anti-trinitarian. Arius believed Jesus was Divine, of similar but not the same divine substance as the Father.

Then we go on to the likes of Cathars, Bogomils, Paulicians, the former believe in binitarianism – two opposed 'divine' forces, one good, one evil – and all are general 'gnostic' in their teaching.

Really, if one looks at anti-Trinitarian doctrines, then by far and away most appear in America from the 19th century on. Many of these share a common belief that they somehow got right what orthodoxy had got wrong for centuries, a dubious assertion on its own – and others sought to 're-invent' Christianity in light of contemporary ideas in rationalism, spiritism, mentalism, etc.

I don't really agree. It seems that the Aramaic Church of the East (in opposition to the Aramaic Jacobites) never saw Jesus as an incarnation of God. This attitude has later been identified with the teachings of Nestrios, who was Greek, so that his teachings were known to the Greek-speaking public who dominate the discourse. In fact, he hasn't founded the Church of the East; rather he found it and joined.

I have ventured to study writings of Nestorios, which are quite hard to read. Trying to put it in a nutshell, he says that Jesus was entirely human, but/and he received divine teaching and was empowered by God; going with John 7:16-18:

16So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17If anyone’s will is to do God’se will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. (translation ESV)

This has later been labelled "Subordination".

I see the Quran confirming this teaching and discarding Jacobite and Trinitarian teaching, affirming that the Holy Spirit is entirely part of God but denying that Jesus is himself divine and that Mary is "the Mother of God".

So I would argue that it's not Trinitarians who are divisive, so much as newly emerging denominations challenging the existing orthodoxy?

There would be less division if the churches accepted diversity in belief.

I can agree the doctrine is challenging – but that's a different kettle.


My belief is that the Prophet acknowledged 'The People of the Book' and that anti-Jewish or anti-Christian interpretation of the text emerged some time later, under the sway of politics and expansionism – and I find that regrettable.

I agree basically. He criticised both, Jewish and Christian practice and dogmatic. He confirmed a restricted part of the Torah Law, as it has always been a point of discussion among Christians as to what extent the Jewish prescriptions have to be followed by Non-Jewish people, and he confirmed that Jesus is the Messiah, the vigin birth and the resurrection. And the Quran never states that the Injil (Gospel) or the Tawrat (Torah) are wrong; on the contrary, it states to confirm them (where some teachings of the Torah are explicitly declared replaced, but no teaching of the Gospel is).

 

[Thomas]

I don't really agree. It seems that the Aramaic Church of the East (in opposition to the Aramaic Jacobites) never saw Jesus as an incarnation of God.

I'm not sure ... do you mean the Assyrian Church of the East? I'm not sure there is an Aramaic Church, although there is 'Aramaic Christianity' – but generally, either way, the difference is a nuanced distinction with regard to the co-existence of the Divine and human in Christ – but the churches are essentially Trinitarian?

This attitude has later been identified with the teachings of Nestrios, who was Greek,

Again, is this the same person as Nestorius? He, two, upheld the two natures in Christ (but opposed the Chalcedonian definition) but did not refute the Trinity ... so I'm at a bit of a loss ...

This has later been labelled "Subordination".

Again, this is essentially a Christological dispute, but doesn't actually refute the divinity of Jesus, rather Subordinationism affirms a hierarchical Trinity, as opposed to an equality in the Trinity.

I see the Quran confirming this teaching and discarding Jacobite and Trinitarian teaching, affirming that the Holy Spirit is entirely part of God but denying that Jesus is himself divine and that Mary is "the Mother of God".

He rejected Theotokos, but preferred Chistotokos – Christ-bearer – and drew a firmer distinction between the Divine and human natures in Jesus, but he did not deny his divinity nor His humanity.

 

[wil]

Yeah, but as you say, you follow the words, not the man ... and the words you follow tend to be generic – is that fair?

Generic like this beatitudes discussion...yes

The Beatitudes

Matthew 5:3-12Comment:There is no brief way to discuss the Beatitudes, which are like the Overture to the entire ministry of Jesus, including themes that will be developed in his life and ministry. I am including here the first chapter of my book on the Sermon on the Mount, The Secret According...

www.unity.org

 

[talib-al-kalim]

I'm not sure ... do you mean the Assyrian Church of the East? I'm not sure there is an Aramaic Church, although there is 'Aramaic Christianity' – but generally, either way, the difference is a nuanced distinction with regard to the co-existence of the Divine and human in Christ – but the churches are essentially Trinitarian?


Again, is this the same person as Nestorius? He, two, upheld the two natures in Christ (but opposed the Chalcedonian definition) but did not refute the Trinity ... so I'm at a bit of a loss ...


Again, this is essentially a Christological dispute, but doesn't actually refute the divinity of Jesus, rather Subordinationism affirms a hierarchical Trinity, as opposed to an equality in the Trinity.


He rejected Theotokos, but preferred Chistotokos – Christ-bearer – and drew a firmer distinction between the Divine and human natures in Jesus, but he did not deny his divinity nor His humanity.

If you have such a wide definition of trinity that even the Quran fits into it, of course, every Christian scholar was trinitarian.

 

[Thomas]

Generic like this beatitudes discussion...yes

Quite ... but a theist like myself will read them in an entirely different light to yourself.

To me they speak of actualities, to you analogies.

Different folks, different strokes ...

 

[wil]

Quite ... but a theist like myself will read them in an entirely different light to yourself.

To me they speak of actualities, to you analogies.

Different folks, different strokes ...

Naw...both...like the dictionary and meanings of words...there is the firsr...and second..and third and so on...

There is the literal, the colloquial, the allegory, the intent, the mystical...we look at it all.

Everytime I read it it changes some...as I have changed, the world has hanged, time had gone on, you can't step in the same river twice.

Surely you have had scripture thar has one meaning in primary school, a new understanding later in your studies, and again today? Some get deeper, and others become slap your forhead simple...and then deeper again in another moment.

We keep traversing the road to Damascus...