What is the sine qua non of Christianity?

[Puppycow]

In the thread Bill O'Reilly Comments on Atheists and Dawkins (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84235) it was revealed that Bill O'Reilly said:
I'm not positive that Jesus is God
My question is: Is this an acceptable theological position for a Christian?
If not what are the minimum criteria for Christianity?

I don't believe that anyone who says they are a Christian is, ipso facto,
a Christian, because then the term would essentially lose all useful meaning.

What is the sine qua non of Christianity?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

According to:
http://www.av1611.org/attack.html

One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ, that Jesus was God in the flesh, is 1 Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, clearly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh".

The New International Version (NIV) says, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc, change "GOD" to "HE". "He appeared in a body"? Big deal! Everyone has "appeared in a body"! The KJV is clear and definite, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT even make grammatical sense!

So the answer appears to be -- only if you have the faith that the KJV is the Revealed Word of God. Otherwise, YMMV. :boggled:

[Puppycow]

If "He" is capitalized, that means God, right?

So the answer appears to be -- only if you have the faith that the KJV is the Revealed Word of God. Otherwise, YMMV. So, is that it? A Christian must believe that The Bible* is the revealed word of God?

*inclusive of the original Greek and Hebrew, and its translations.

[slingblade]

"He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT even make grammatical sense! [/I]



I'm sorry, but whoever said that was wrong about the grammar part.

[JamesDillon]

I'm sorry, but whoever said that was wrong about the grammar part.


Of course it's wrong; it's an ultra-fundie website attacking the NIV as satanic. They've apparently never heard of context.

[fromdownunder]

I am not aware that Jesus claimed to be God anywhere in the synoptics. If anyone can quote a reference where he is said to have made this claim unamiguously, (please do not quote John) I would be interested in reading the context.

Norm

[Puppycow]

Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity): Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and they see the New Testament as the record of the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus.

How's that?

Of course, there is a question about which is the correct version of The Bible, so I suppose that there is no definition that will satisfy all Christians.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Probably the bare minimum requisite to being a "Christian" is following the word of Jesus opposed to specifically the words of his followers or more specifically the words of the authors of the gospels.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If somebody claims to be a Christian, I say call them a Christian. The distinction between Christian and non-Christian only matters if some version of Christianity is true and there is a god who will somehow segregate the two groups in the hereafter. Let those who self-apply the label bicker amongst themselves who is a true Scotsman. As a non-believer, I don't really care.

[Puppycow]

Normally I would agree. Let the believers fight over which beliefs are true and which are heretical. But in cases like O'Reilly trying to weasel out of defending a belief which is central to Christianity, while still claiming the label, I think there is some usefulness to having an objective definition, if only to keep them from moving the goalposts, so to speak. O'Reilly just wanted to do the easy part of the argument, which is attacking atheism, and not the hard part, which is defending religious dogma.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Nicene Creed is generally considered to be the "basics" of what constitutes a Christian. This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) does good job explaining it, and the FAQ page on Christianforums (http://www.christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_1) has links to Bible verses for each section.

And there's a difference between "not sure" and having heretical views like Arianism. I'd need to see Oh Really's comment in larger context to understand exactly what he's saying.

[Puppycow]

Thank you. Then it is a very basic pillar of most all popular Christian traditions. For context, here is the article (http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=21508). It's very brief, and there isn't much context other than I take it as a clever way of sort of sweeping away the whole topic with an offhand remark. Becuase he wants to stay on the offensive, not defend Christian dogma.O'Reilly is good at arguing, so he knows what positions are rationally defensible and which ones aren't. He just didn't want to defend what cannot be defended.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thank you. Then it is a very basic pillar of most all popular Christian traditions. For context, here is the article (http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=21508). It's very brief, and there isn't much context other than I take it as a clever way of sort of sweeping away the whole topic with an offhand remark. Becuase he wants to stay on the offensive, not defend Christian dogma.O'Reilly is good at arguing, so he knows what positions are rationally defensible and which ones aren't. He just didn't want to defend what cannot be defended.

After seeing his blog in more context I'm going to agree and disagree with you. I see his comment as a CYA for trying to avoid having to defend the Trinity because of how Dawkin's loaded the question in how he phrased it.

Dawkins replied: "You're the one who needs a leap of faith. The onus is on you to say why you believe in something ... you believe in, presumably, the Christian God Jesus."

"Jesus is a real guy," I said. "I know what he did. I'm not positive that Jesus is God, but I'm throwing in with him rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here."

As I read it, Dawkins is trying to claim that Jesus is God for Christians, but that doesn't jive with the Trinitarian... um, cunondrum... er paradox...well, whatever, but I can understand how someone who accepts the Nicene Creed could make a non-heretical statement about how he doesn't think "Jesus is God" and have solid Christian theological standing. The Nicene Creed makes it clear that there is God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Whether that makes any sense to anyone who claims that Christianity is a monotheistic religion (and ask Hindus, Jews and Muslims) is one thing, but if a practicing Catholic voices his reservations, I'm not about to suggest he is an Arian based on a quip.

So yeah, based on his off the cuff statement, he's not a Christian based on the Nicene Creed, but when you go through some of the bizarroworld twists of logic associated with the Nicene Creed, he's orthodox (small O).

[Marquis de Carabas]

Normally I would agree. Let the believers fight over which beliefs are true and which are heretical. But in cases like O'Reilly trying to weasel out of defending a belief which is central to Christianity, while still claiming the label, I think there is some usefulness to having an objective definition, if only to keep them from moving the goalposts, so to speak. O'Reilly just wanted to do the easy part of the argument, which is attacking atheism, and not the hard part, which is defending religious dogma.
It is central to, as you later say "most all popular Christian traditions". But not all. I think the best one could do is point out to him that his is a minority belief among those who call themselves Christians. His reply, I'm sure, would be something along the lines of that being between him and god.