What is a True Christian?

But Jesus was not a Christian and Christianity is a creation of folk after Jesus death.

So what's your point?

My point is that the evidence shows the material that is called scripture varies based on the goals, era and culture of the authors and the interpretation of that so called scripture depends on the goals, era and culture of the reader.The idea of an inerrant Bible is modern. It's built around an extra Biblical cultural disconnect from both the actual texts in the so called scripture and the processes that were involved in creating the various Canons. It is a cultural concept peculiar to some chapters of Club Christian.A great example is the application of the "All scripture..." quote mine to the concept of scripture equally Bible. Of course even the concept of a Bible did not exist at the time that passage would have been written. Even then the only material canonized was likely the first five books of the Old Testament.Then there is Jesus. Again, the evidence shows the character Jesus not through a single God Breathed lens but rather through the biases, culture, era and goals of many different authors. The Synoptic Gospels present one point of view, John a different point of view and the Epistles are more about developing the basic structure (including the infighting of the various visions of what the new club would be like) of Club Christian; important issues like who could be a member, what initiation rites will be used, what will be the Mission Statement and Vision Statement of the new club.If you look at the passages attributed to the character Jesus in the different stories it would seem his vision was primarily two fold, to reform his religion, Judaism; and to outline a new set of moral and social guidelines that were oriented outwards as opposed to inwards, a secular view of mankind as opposed to the Jewish exclusive vision. It was a change from the concept of a People Apart and Chosen to the position of a People Among the Chosen but just one of many such Peoples.But even the above reflects my era, goals and culture. As we can see in this and so many other threads, other people with other goals and culture even from the same era interpret scripture differently.And that is the point.There is no True Christian, They are all True Christians.Edited by jar, : rally applin spallin fist ---------> fiRst

This graph is interesting: According to this, there were original manuscripts.

That is pretty much meaningless as the goal could just as easily represent an actual account or maybe even a thought that does come from God. You can't assume that everyone has an agenda. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. My understanding is that it grew out of the reformation. The Bible had been kept away from the masses for so long that some began to idolize it when they finally got their hands on it. As Luke points out the Gospels are a collection of the testimonies both written and oral of the original eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. The Epistles are written by the first Christian theologians as they worked out what it all meant, and how it applied to their life and the world. Essentially I agree although I don’t see any of it being new. They had just gotten off track. The whole idea of loving your neighbor was there in their Scriptures and the original Abrahamic promise was that what God was doing was for the world, but through the Jews. I suppose that if someone wants to call themselves a Christian then they are a Christian. However, just as there are cultural Jews, cultural Muslims etc there are cultural Christians.

I don't think anyone thinks there were no original manuscripts. What has been said is that we don't have them now to compare anything to.

But stop and think about what you find interesting.First, no one doubts that there were original manuscripts but as I and others have pointed out, not a single example has ever been found. We simply do not know what any original manuscript said.Second, look at the dates they claim.The earliest examples of written records we have found go back about 1500 to 2500 years before the earliest date they claim for original manuscripts.Before there were written records there was the oral history. Oral histories are known for evolving over time to fit the audiences desires.So there are a few conclusions based on the data you presented. Even if the Young Earth nonsense was accepted there were thousands of years worth of material transmitted only orally before getting put into written form. If we accept the Old Earth position there was hundreds of thousands of years of modern human history not recorded at all in the Judaic Original Manuscripts.Even when you move forward to the Christian Era we do not have any Original Manuscripts and we only have the few manuscripts that were selected for inclusion into the Canon. We know though that there were many other such documents since there are examples in what was included showing Jesus quoting from them.I made part of my living as a writer of both fiction and technical non-fiction and so can testify from first hand knowledge that what gets finally published often has only a general flavor of what was originally written.

Are you thus saying that if GOD ever existed apart from human imagination and that IF Jesus was a great prophet and messenger from GOD that we have no way to learn from the stories apart from revising them according to our own logic, reason, and reality? So in other words, whatever we make up and rewrite is the legacy to pass on to the next generation....got it.I realize that there is a lot of bad religion out there. You may have mentioned a time or two that one of the worst effects of modern Christian teaching is the shirking of personal responsibility for our daily actions and behaviors.I might argue that belief is more important than people think. You may think that helping folks out to the car with their groceries carrys a lot of moral weight, but I would argue that the example you are giving them also hinges on whether you are talking to them about the source of your daily inspiration rather than simply showing them the content..while perhaps joking about Donald Trumps sex habits.They see the overall character that you are.

Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What I said was that "Oral histories are known for evolving over time to fit the audiences desires." But I never argue or assert anything carries moral weight or that moral weight has any meaning or value.The inspiration for my acts is a perceived possibility to help someone else and has absolutely nothing to do with morals or morality.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

My name is Phat and I approve of this message! So you just do it because you are charged to do it. Correct?No other motives? I think I'm liking your response so far.Tell me though...does it matter how you behave while helping them?

I think it's best to be polite and try not to injure folk while helping them or forcing or imposing help where it is not wanted. But most similar stuff really just goes unnoticed. No one sees you put carts back in the rack instead of the parking space, bring in the neighbors trash can, pick up trash or any of the tiny little things we could all be doing everyday that would improve the quality of life for everybody.

My comment to friends when being philosophical is:
There are a few people who really change the world for the better. The rest of us should strive to just not make it worse. In the real, practical world that means I never litter and take the opportunity to pick it up when a trash can isn't toooo far away. When I go from the parking lot into Costco I take 2 or 3 carts with me so the pick up crew doesn't have to move quite so many. I am sure not going to save the world so I feel better if I just do as little damage as possible.

It's not a matter of doing the impossible or even the very difficult. It takes no more effort to push a cart sitting next to you car into the store than it does just to walk to the store. It takes no effort to help someone reach a package on a high shelf. It only adds a second to hold a door open for others. And it's far easier to squat so you are at eye level when talking with kids.No one needs to save the world, we just need to help within a ten foot circle.Edited by jar, : very vary

I don't accept that rather defeatist approach to life. Sure, most of us aren't going to do great earth shaking things but surely we can try to leave the world a better place than it was when we arrived. I think life is more than just maintaining the status quo and doing no harm.I know in our Anglican prayer book we ask forgiveness for things done, but also for things left undone. We all have the ability to help out one way or another at the local food banks, or to help support those in impoverished situations etc. Things like that can turn people's lives around so that they in turn help someone else. The idea of true altruism or sacrificial love is infectious, and we don't know how much good will be done when we have a positive impact on even just one other life.It is not a matter of saving the world on our own, but I suggest that it is a good idea to be part of the solution.