cyberpi said:
As far as I know, Christianity means to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ (pbuh). Whether or not that shows up in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or any other person here, in the world, or in history, is all up for grabs. Alledged 'Christianity' does NOT define Christianity... Jesus Christ (pbuh) does. To learn Christianity. I place in order of importance:
1. Jesus (pbuh)... Gospels... I tend towards the KJV, Greek, or Latin.
2. The twelve apostles.
3. Teaching from prophets which Jesus (pbuh) referred to, and John the baptist.
4. My understanding from comparing life lessons, hopefully from God (swt), relationships with people, and measured science.
5. The teaching from anyone who claims it to be from God (swt), the messenger Muhammad (pbuh)... provided interpretations do not conflict with 1 and 2.
6. People who knew and saw Jesus (pbuh) in the flesh.
7. People who studied Jesus (pbuh) teachings around the time shortly thereafter, and led Christian lives at some point, such as Saul from Tarsus.
8. People who studied Jesus (pbuh) and led Christian lives, including a number of Muslims or people from other religions.
9. The teaching of churches, denominations, and alledged Christians alive today.
10. Anyone from history or today who comments about Christianity or their life's lessons, such as people from other religions and those who post here.
So if placing Saul of Tarsus 7th discredits him... there's the order of relevance for me. The order for Islam would be different, placing the Qur'an and messenger Muhammad first. I think Paul was clearly a smart and guided person, but the Gospels are golden and I think stand on their own.
cyberpi said:
Nope, but your argument is against the teaching of Jesus (pbuh)... not me.
I would have thought that was the purpose of Christianity, to put one's
trust in Christ, taking into account the
meaning of Christ.
That may be seen as one flavour of Christianity, but obviously you're in tune with a different flavour of Christianity. What I believe in is "Trust-in-Christ Christianity."
Christ did say, according to the Four Gospels, that "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." That's another way of saying, "Trust Me. Believe in Me." The Gospels were first in your order of relevance . . .
Unfortunately, Christ isn't here to define Christianity. Or is he? Does he now live in the hearts of his people? He once said that those of the world could not see him, that those who belonged to him were the only ones who could see and understand him.
For me personally then, nothing but Christ defines Christianity, not even the Bible. That's a strong statement I guess. But don't get the wrong idea. I am not saying I have no use of the Bible. It's just that Christ is more important than the Bible, not the other way round. The writings in the Bible simply serve to remind us of what Christ meant. Once we understand what Christ meant we theoretically have no further use of it, except to explore what others have said about him in the past.
In that sense, the Bible helps to maintain contact with Christ. I have to read the Bible because I am a mortal, not a transcendent being. I have a single-minded thinking capacity. My life is driven by experiences. The experiences in the Bible don't perish with use. Each read of the Bible can be a new, fresh experience.
I don't officially have an order of relevance, or at least a formal definition of one. I rely more on intuitive, lateral and divergent thinking.
But who and what, then is Christ? Jesus is supposed to define Christianity, but he's not physically present here. We can't understand Christianity if we can't see Christ.
The Gospels, Epistles, the Bible, apostles, Paul, Mohammed don't speak for Christ unless they are serving his agenda, and anything that doesn't serve Christ's agenda is not Christianity. Whoever is not for him is against him.
For me then, I judge the Bible, Paul, the apostles and Mohammed as equals. There's no order of relevance for me. Each of them must prove their case. They must demonstrate that they serve Christ's agenda. Otherwise what they taught would not be Christianity. Not even the Gospels, the first in your list, can stand unless they serve that agenda. In that sense, nothing stands on its own. It's Christ that holds it all together.
They must prove that they speak on behalf of the
Logos.
But once again, that's one flavour of Christianity. Some people pursue written texts more passionately than Christ. I guess it's hard to really capture an experience of Christ when we don't really have an idea of what he's like. So instead of pursuing Christ, we pursue written texts instead. Christ is often too abstract to grab hold of, but then again, I don't think it was God's intention for us to ever get hold of Christ. Because Christ is an image of God, he is impossible to capture because God cannot be captured.
