Can you be a Christian if you don't believe in Jesus? - Page 3

[junipermuse]

Well I am a Christian and I don't think I believe in Jesus as the literal Son of God. I certainly believe in the idea metaphorically. I believe in the mythology of Christ. I don't however believe in the bible literally. I don't believe in the literal virgin birth. I'm not even decided on whether there was an historical jesus. I do honor the bible as the collection of sacred stories of my people. I would be happy to come back and expound more clearly on my specific beliefs and why I still consider myself a Christian if you'd like, OP, but at the moment I have to go put dd down to bed. I'll come back later.

[NicaG]

You might want to check out Marcus Borg's books, especially Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time.

[EdnaMarie]

OP, can you clarify?  Are you asking, "Does anyone own the term "christian" or can I define it for myself?"  Or are you asking, "Does the community known as "Christians" accept those who do not think Jesus as God, as Christians?"

If it's the former, sure, call yourself a Buddhist if you like, there aren't any laws about it.  ;)

If it's the latter, no.  You all could form a splinter group of heretics and you wouldn't be the first... as a PP pointed out, Muslims and some other groups splintered off like this originally.  But no, the Christian Church does not accept Jesus as a mere prophet.

[shanniesue2]

some will probably view this post as "running away" or whatever, and that's fine.  But I'm going to bow out of this conversation. 

OP, I wish you peace on your journey.

[revolting]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie 

If it's the latter, no.  You all could form a splinter group of heretics and you wouldn't be the first... as a PP pointed out, Muslims and some other groups splintered off like this originally.  But no, the Christian Church does not accept Jesus as a mere prophet.

Which Christian Church? There seem to be a lot of Christian churches with a whole lot of different beliefs.

[Linda on the move]

When I hear some one say they are a "christian," I assume they believe something special about Jesus. Exactly what seem to vary a great deal.

If someone told me they were a Christian but didn't believe anything was special or unique about Jesus, I would wonder what they meant by "christian." It really wouldn't be very clear.

[EdnaMarie]

I mean the body of Christ, all the people that believe they are Christian, from Mormons to Catholics to Orthodox to Lutherans to Pentacostals to everyone else.  I think the vast, vast majority believe they are Christian because Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He died to save us from our sins.  John 3:16 and all that.

Which Christian Church? There seem to be a lot of Christian churches with a whole lot of different beliefs.

[Shami]

I think a couple of things come into play when people pick and choose what they believe from the Bible. 

1) They view the Bible as possibly a great work of literature or some kind of a myth.  Or, they may think that the Bible was written only by man and not divinely inspired.  Or, the Bible was divinely inspired, but because it was written by man it likely has mistakes/contradictions.  Maybe some think of it as a historical reference only, but with possible mistakes. 

This was how I viewed the Bible before I came to believe in Jesus and asked Him to live inside of me, which leads to my next reason that people feel free to choose verses.

2) Honestly, if a person has not prayed or asked the Lord Jesus to come into them to be their Lord and savior...asked for forgiveness of sins...etc. then that person cannot possibly have an intimate relationship with Jesus.  To get to know Jesus in an intimate way, He has to live inside of you.  The Bible talks about Christ IN you...  You (general you) may be able to get some head knowledge about the person of Christ, but if you want Him to be real to you, you have to let Him in.  Without the Lord Jesus being the  real God to you and living in you, then you can easily pick and choose whatever verses you want. 

Then there is the group of Christians (this is how I believe) who believe that the Bible was written through men who were inspired by God and there are absolutely no mistakes or contradictions. In addition, the Bible, the entire Bible, has the final say on every matter.  Every verse matters and is True.  The Bible is actually God's word and I go to the Bible to get to know God, to get some spiritual food to sustain me, to see His purpose, and to hear his speaking.

I said all that because the OP read the doctrine on the Trinity provided by Tradd? and decided that it wasn't what she believed and therefore she wasn't a Christian.  The problem with that, OP, is that to understand the Bible or the Trinity doctrine you have to FIRST know Jesus and ask Him to live in you.  Once Jesus is inside of you, then Jesus will shine light on the Bible as you read it.  Then as Jesus shines light on the Word, He will give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in order for the Bible to begin to make any sense.  To receive revelation from the Bible it requires a rolling away of the veils.  We are all veiled when it comes to the Bible.  It's like we're an onion with many layers that have to be peeled away.  As we seek to know Jesus and pursue Him through reading the Bible, He enlightens us and peels away layer by layer.  The fact is we are all spiritually blind, and we need Jesus to apply the eye salve to heel our spiritual eyes.  Again, this requires us to have a real and an intimate relationship with Jesus. 

We can get a lot of help from Christian writings or doctrines, but it is the Lord Himself that enlightens us.  So, if you really want to be "christian" in the sense of having an intimate relationship with the Lord, pray and ask for it.  This should be your priority over understanding the doctrine on the Trinity.  If you need help, find Christians who have Christ inside of them already and ask them to help you pray. 

Now as I am typing this I realize that the way I see it is that there are two kinds of Christians: those with Christ living inside of them and those without Christ living inside of them.

[Shami]

I came back to add something regarding the Bible being much more than a book of ethical teaching.  I'll try to be brief!

God's intention in creating man is to flow Himself (His essence) out (through Christ and by His Spirit) and to dispense Himself INTO man to produce the Body of Christ for His expression on the earth.  This Body of Christ, with Christ as the Head of the Body, will carry out God's intention through out the whole earth by flowing Him out to every continent.  This is why we share the gospel with people.  It's is for people's salvation to receive God's life and nature  AND for God to have His expression and purpose carried out on earth.

Insert sidebar:

The problem is that this Body of Christ has become divided and splintered and we Christians argue over doctrines, blah blah blah...so people cannot see God's original intention in the Bible.  What many people experience in the religion of Christianity is a bunch of do's and don'ts, arguing over doctrines/practices, hipocrisy, fear based preaching, prosperity based preaching, yada yada yada...  So people say 'forget this, I'm outta here!'   And I don't blame them.

Continuing my point:

This Body of Christ that is spread all over the world will eventually match (I don't mean match in the sense of we will be worshipped in the Godhead. I mean we will share the life of God, but He is still God and we are His children) God's life and nature because He is flowing His essence out into man.  Once God is satisfied, at some point He will return (Christ, the Messiah)  and fully set up His kingdom and over throw all who are not for HIm, all evil.  (This is very basic.  A lot happens before and after this point.)   There are all kinds of views on the Great Tribulation.  I'll skip that.

The main point of the Bible is that God loves man so much, He wants to flow Himself into man to give us His life and nature until eventually we become the bride of Christ to marry Him for eternity.  I promise...it is in the Bible.  I am not making this up.

So, when folks talk about the Bible being a book of good teaching, just a history/literature book, or a way to get more spiritual as it's sole purpose, it's a little frustrating and sad to me because it is sooooo much more than that!  It's frustrating because the OP is truly considering her views on what the Bible is and what it says.  Some of you, although well meaning, haven't seen the deeper meaning of the Bible. Therefore, you are inadvertently making the Bible seem rather insignificant.  I realize the Bible is not significant to everyone and that's fine, but if the OP is seeking the Truth and instead she gets these replies that make the Bible seem so shallow, well,  I felt like I had to say something.

Edited by Shami - 11/16/10 at 7:36am

[Shantimama]

The way this discussion has evolved it is more appropriate to have it continue here in the Religious Studies forum.

[AtYourCervices]

OP, I would say you sound like a Unitarian Universalist to me. See if there are any UU fellowships in your area and check it out! I've known UU Christians, UU Jews, UU Pagans, UU agnostics & UU atheists. Basically, the UUs I have known are interested in learning about religion and spirituality. They may feel connected to a certain religious label (such as Christianity) due to their upbringing or societal pressures, however they still have the freedom to accept or reject parts of any religion. They create their own belief system and respect others' freedom to do the same.

[EdnaMarie]

  The problem with that, OP, is that to understand the Bible or the Trinity doctrine you have to FIRST know Jesus and ask Him to live in you.

The problem with THAT is that some people truly do seek--and you can't say, if you didn't find what I found, you weren't seeking, because that's begging the question--and yet... somehow it's not there.  And that even some people who claim to have Jesus in their heart, and by all appearances (charity-wise and so on) seem to have found him, do not believe in the Trinity or the infallible nature of scripture.

Now, I do think that the Trinity and sola scriptura and the infallible nature of scripture are all debatable.  Not the divine nature of Christ.  If it were not for the divine nature of Christ, well, Christianity may never have splintered from Judaism and almost certainly could not have supplanted paganism in the Roman Empire, etc. etc.  Not to mention that doctrinally, it doesn't make sense, since no human is without sin, soooo...

On the other hand, I guess a lot of us would say that if fully human beings can't be without sin, but Christ was fully human, then wth?

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie 

  The problem with that, OP, is that to understand the Bible or the Trinity doctrine you have to FIRST know Jesus and ask Him to live in you.

The problem with THAT is that some people truly do seek--and you can't say, if you didn't find what I found, you weren't seeking, because that's begging the question--and yet... somehow it's not there. 

Honestly, I think it is always problematic to say you must believe before you have the option of understanding what it is you believe.

[Shami]

To Edna Marie and Liquesce:

The principle that I am referring to is this:

To truly understand what a person (God)  is saying, it is of great benefit, and I would say, even necessary, to KNOW the  person (God)  in an intimate way in order to understand what they are speaking to you.  In this case, it is the written word of God.

In my own experience, the Bible was just a bunch of gobbledy-gook until I received Him into me.  Then, after that the Bible made sense because the writer/source of the Bible was the one showing me what He means.  It's just my own experience and no one else is required to have this experience too.

I do think that a lot of the misconceptions, misunderstandings, and heresies or related to this matter of not having a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus.  I do not claim to know who has Jesus in their heart or not, but I'm just sayin...it's most helpful to get to know the source of the Bible. 

My friend received the Lord Jesus by reading Ecclesiastes (all is vanity, there is nothing new under the sun) alone with no other people around.  Reading the Bible is always a good thing whether you have Jesus in your heart or not. My suggestion to the OP is to read the Bible to get to know God rather than focusing on a doctrine.  Or, find other Christians who read the Bible and have received Jesus and ask them for help.   By help, I don't necessarily mean doctrinal help.  I mean help in touching the Lord Jesus in a real way.

[Smokering]

Quote:

On the other hand, I guess a lot of us would say that if fully human beings can't be without sin, but Christ was fully human, then wth?

Being sinful isn't an intrinsic part of being human. Adam and Eve were fully human before they sinned. We'll still be human (side note: not angels, a pet peeve of mine!) when we're perfected in Heaven. So it doesn't make Christ any less human to have been created sinless.

Honestly, I think it is always problematic to say you must believe before you have the option of understanding what it is you believe.

I agree. I'm suspicious of knowledge that you have to accept before you have determined it's rational - that should be the first gate, surely? There are plenty of scholarly works out there on the Trinity and Incarnation, which explain them in non-mystical, logical terms which an unbeliever could intellectually follow just as well as a believer.

There is a Biblical principle that people can't accept Biblical truths without the transforming work of the Holy Spirit - intellectual assent isn't the same thing as saving faith. (Sort of like the difference between recognising that a man would be the perfect husband for you "on paper", and falling in love.) But that's not quite the same thing. DH was converted after he became convinced of the rationality of the Christian worldview, and if anyone had told him to "just become a Christian and it'll make sense later", he'd have laughed them out of town. At least for people with a certain way of thinking, I think that could be a very damaging point of view, basically conceding that Christianity is at least arational, if not downright irrational. Which I don't believe is the Biblical position at all.

ETA: Just read Shami's clarification, which sounds like the bolded sentence. I have no problems with that at all.

[Shami]

It seems like you are making my point, but not making my point at the same time.  You have decided the the divinity of Christ is non debatable, but the Trinity is debatable? 

I was one of those who was really seeking something 'real'.  Something that would satisfy this nagging feeling or my itchy inward parts.  I didn't like the religion aspect of Christianity (still don't).  Once I finally experienced having a relationship with Him, I realized that we all can misunderstand the Bible or passages, but there are core items, such as the divinity of Christ that became real to me once I had Him to teach me.  What I mean is that I think there would be a lot less heresy if folks who have never received the Lord Jesus would stop trying to understand the Bible without God.  
 

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie 

  The problem with that, OP, is that to understand the Bible or the Trinity doctrine you have to FIRST know Jesus and ask Him to live in you.

The problem with THAT is that some people truly do seek--and you can't say, if you didn't find what I found, you weren't seeking, because that's begging the question--and yet... somehow it's not there.  And that even some people who claim to have Jesus in their heart, and by all appearances (charity-wise and so on) seem to have found him, do not believe in the Trinity or the infallible nature of scripture.

Now, I do think that the Trinity and sola scriptura and the infallible nature of scripture are all debatable.  Not the divine nature of Christ.  If it were not for the divine nature of Christ, well, Christianity may never have splintered from Judaism and almost certainly could not have supplanted paganism in the Roman Empire, etc. etc.  Not to mention that doctrinally, it doesn't make sense, since no human is without sin, soooo...

On the other hand, I guess a lot of us would say that if fully human beings can't be without sin, but Christ was fully human, then wth?

[Shami]

These two footnotes in my study Bible explain what I am trying to say regarding the need to know God (Christ) inwardly in your spirit, rather than only rationally in your head.  Hope this helps.  Notice the capitol 'S' for the Spirit of God and the lower case 's' for the human spirit within man.  From my understanding, the original Greek text does not have capitol and lower cases, but the translator must determine if the text is referring to God the Holy Spirit or the man's human spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14

14 ¹But a ^2asoulish man does ^bnot receive the ^3cthings of the Spirit of God, for they are ^dfoolishness to him and he is ⁴not able to know them because they are ^5ediscerned ⁶spiritually.

---

14⁶ Spiritually here refers to the spirit of man that is moved by the Spirit of God to fully exercise its function and thereby replace the human soul's rule and control over man. It is only by such a spirit that man can discern the things of the Spirit of God. A man who is ruled and controlled by his spirit is a spiritual man, as mentioned in the next verse. Since God is Spirit, all the things of the Spirit of God are spiritual. Therefore, to discern, to know, the things of the Spirit of God, man must use the human spirit (John 4:24).

John 4:24

24 ¹God is ²Spirit, and those who ³worship Him must worship ^ain ⁴spirit and ⁵truthfulness.

---

24⁴ This is our human spirit. According to typology, God should be worshipped (1) in the place chosen by God for His habitation (Deut. 12:5, 11, 13-14, 18), and (2) with the offerings (Lev. 1--6). The place chosen by God for His habitation typifies the human spirit, where God's habitation is today (Eph. 2:22). The offerings typify Christ; Christ is the fulfillment and reality of all the offerings with which the people worshipped God. Hence, when the Lord instructed the woman to worship God the Spirit in spirit and truthfulness, He meant that she should contact God the Spirit in her spirit instead of in a specific location, and through Christ instead of with the offerings. Since Christ, as the reality that issues in the human virtue of truthfulness, has come (vv. 25-26), all the shadows and types are over.

Edited by Shami - 11/16/10 at 2:17pm

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

Quote:

On the other hand, I guess a lot of us would say that if fully human beings can't be without sin, but Christ was fully human, then wth?

Being sinful isn't an intrinsic part of being human. Adam and Eve were fully human before they sinned. We'll still be human (side note: not angels, a pet peeve of mine!) when we're perfected in Heaven. So it doesn't make Christ any less human to have been created sinless.

Honestly, I think it is always problematic to say you must believe before you have the option of understanding what it is you believe.

I agree. I'm suspicious of knowledge that you have to accept before you have determined it's rational - that should be the first gate, surely? There are plenty of scholarly works out there on the Trinity and Incarnation, which explain them in non-mystical, logical terms which an unbeliever could intellectually follow just as well as a believer.

There is a Biblical principle that people can't accept Biblical truths without the transforming work of the Holy Spirit - intellectual assent isn't the same thing as saving faith. (Sort of like the difference between recognising that a man would be the perfect husband for you "on paper", and falling in love.) But that's not quite the same thing. DH was converted after he became convinced of the rationality of the Christian worldview, and if anyone had told him to "just become a Christian and it'll make sense later", he'd have laughed them out of town. At least for people with a certain way of thinking, I think that could be a very damaging point of view, basically conceding that Christianity is at least arational, if not downright irrational. Which I don't believe is the Biblical position at all.

ETA: Just read Shami's clarification, which sounds like the bolded sentence. I have no problems with that at all.

I do think there are people who meet God, in a personal kind of way, before they have an intellectual understanding of Him.  Just like I met people and had relationships with them, and even knew what sort of people they were, before I had any abstract idea of what a person was, or how I could know one, or even what made someone good or bad or trustworthy or not.  I think many children have this experience of God.

I also think that understanding any system of thought requires that you take a somewhat passive approach of "accepting" what it says, at least in a notional kind of way.  When we are critical at every turn, it is quite possible to repel even the most logical system of thought through misunderstanding of one kind or another.

It is interesting to me how often people convert in concert with falling in love, even when they consider themselves to have done so due to intellectual assent.  Somehow love - of another person in this case - allows us to look at the same facts in a different way - we're prepared to consider that they might really have something to them. 

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Shami 

To Edna Marie and Liquesce:

The principle that I am referring to is this:

To truly understand what a person (God)  is saying, it is of great benefit, and I would say, even necessary, to KNOW the  person (God)  in an intimate way in order to understand what they are speaking to you.  In this case, it is the written word of God.

In my own experience, the Bible was just a bunch of gobbledy-gook until I received Him into me.  Then, after that the Bible made sense because the writer/source of the Bible was the one showing me what He means.  It's just my own experience and no one else is required to have this experience too.

I do think that a lot of the misconceptions, misunderstandings, and heresies or related to this matter of not having a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus.  I do not claim to know who has Jesus in their heart or not, but I'm just sayin...it's most helpful to get to know the source of the Bible. 

My friend received the Lord Jesus by reading Ecclesiastes (all is vanity, there is nothing new under the sun) alone with no other people around.  Reading the Bible is always a good thing whether you have Jesus in your heart or not. My suggestion to the OP is to read the Bible to get to know God rather than focusing on a doctrine.  Or, find other Christians who read the Bible and have received Jesus and ask them for help.   By help, I don't necessarily mean doctrinal help.  I mean help in touching the Lord Jesus in a real way.

Something that worries me about some of this language about "receiving" Christ, as if it were primarily an emotional experience, and as if Christ didn't already dwell within us.  I don't always outright disagree with it - but I have seen people argue that a person who believes in all the things a Christian is supposed to, and is striving to live a Christian life, is not really a Christian without having some rather subjective experience of felling connected to God, or some sort of emotional change.  This seems to reduce God to the level of any kind of chemical activity in the brain that produces some nice feelings of love or friendship or enlightenment.  Whereas many very saintly people have only had such feelings intermittently or rarely.  And we know Crista himself experienced feeling totally alienated from God, though clearly he wasn't. 

I really feel that one has to be terribly careful using such language.

[Shami]

Receiving the Lord doesn't have to be an emotional dynamic experience, but one does need to pray to the Lord, accept/receive Him as Lord and Savior, ask for forgiveness of sins.  I wonder if this is just a terminology issue.  Here are two verses that I am using with the word 'receive' in it.

John 1:12-13

12 But as many as ^1areceived Him, to them He gave the authority to become ²children of God, to those who ¹believe into His name,

13 Who were begotten not ¹of ²blood, nor ¹of the ²will of the flesh, nor ¹of the ²will of man, but ¹of God.

John 20:22

22 And when He had said this, He ^abreathed into them and said to them, ^bReceive the Holy ^1cSpirit.

What do you think about Saul's conversion?  It was quite dramatic, he heard a voice, he said who are you Lord, and the voice said I am Jesus whom you persecute.  After that, he was blinded for three days until Ananais showed up.  When Paul said, "Christ in you, the hope of glory" he was speaking to adult believers.  There is no indication in the Bible that Christ is already in babies and very young children.  I know you and I differ on this point.  I don't believe a person can receive the Lord Jesus until they are old enough to understand their own sinful nature and ask for it them self.  This is why I say a person must ask and receive.

Wouldn't you agree that there are the objective truths in the Bible and the subjective application of those truths in our daily life?  I think too many people sit in the pue (spell pue? lol) with a lot of objective facts and no inward reality of those facts.  No?

My honest feeling is that people need to know that the Lord Jesus needs to be real to you regardless of what you 'call' your self.  You can call your self Catholic, Protestant or Purple, and not have received Christ.  What people need is a real and living relationship with the living God.  In addition, I tell people you don't need religion, and that might be offensive, but there is a lot of Biblical background for why I say that.  For brevity sake I am not going into it.
 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

Originally Posted by Shami 

To Edna Marie and Liquesce:

The principle that I am referring to is this:

To truly understand what a person (God)  is saying, it is of great benefit, and I would say, even necessary, to KNOW the  person (God)  in an intimate way in order to understand what they are speaking to you.  In this case, it is the written word of God.

In my own experience, the Bible was just a bunch of gobbledy-gook until I received Him into me.  Then, after that the Bible made sense because the writer/source of the Bible was the one showing me what He means.  It's just my own experience and no one else is required to have this experience too.

I do think that a lot of the misconceptions, misunderstandings, and heresies or related to this matter of not having a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus.  I do not claim to know who has Jesus in their heart or not, but I'm just sayin...it's most helpful to get to know the source of the Bible. 

My friend received the Lord Jesus by reading Ecclesiastes (all is vanity, there is nothing new under the sun) alone with no other people around.  Reading the Bible is always a good thing whether you have Jesus in your heart or not. My suggestion to the OP is to read the Bible to get to know God rather than focusing on a doctrine.  Or, find other Christians who read the Bible and have received Jesus and ask them for help.   By help, I don't necessarily mean doctrinal help.  I mean help in touching the Lord Jesus in a real way.

Something that worries me about some of this language about "receiving" Christ, as if it were primarily an emotional experience, and as if Christ didn't already dwell within us.  I don't always outright disagree with it - but I have seen people argue that a person who believes in all the things a Christian is supposed to, and is striving to live a Christian life, is not really a Christian without having some rather subjective experience of felling connected to God, or some sort of emotional change.  This seems to reduce God to the level of any kind of chemical activity in the brain that produces some nice feelings of love or friendship or enlightenment.  Whereas many very saintly people have only had such feelings intermittently or rarely.  And we know Crista himself experienced feeling totally alienated from God, though clearly he wasn't. 

I really feel that one has to be terribly careful using such language.