"I am not religious - I believe in Jesus"

[JinglingAllTheWay]

This was the message my friend just sent me and I just wondered what others thought.

Do you say you are 'religious' if you believe in God/go to church/ life tour life according to the bible etc.

I would have said that said friend was incredibly religious! She has very strict views on what can be watched on tv / what books are allowed to be read etc

How do you define religious and would you say you are?

Live your life *

"religious" just means following rules. DH is not yet a Christian, but is definitely religious, goes to church each week, can quote the bible, behaves in a biblically sound way etc.
Likewise, I know people who are Christians but shun organised religion, preferring to keep their faith in their own way. Jesus wasn't much one for the pharisees rules either Note his "work on the Sabbath" and turning the tables in the temple.

I think that it is possible to view Jesus as a historical figure who had some interesting things to say without believing in God.

There's a clip going round on fb about this. It's quite good but I guess that's what's inspired your friend . It's on youtube

I like that youtube clip and agree - Jesus spoke very strongly against the "religious" of his day. I would describe myself as Christian but not religious - I read the bible, go to church etc because I want to, in response to God, not because I feel I'm expected to :)

As others have said, to me religion is more about rules and rituals and trusting in these Where as I believe in, love and trust in Jesus and try to live my life in response to this knowing that I am relying on him rather than on rules and routines.

I don't think it is possible to separate being a Christian from being part of a church community.

Cats, if you believe that Jesus was simply a very kindly historical figure without believing in God, then you have to believe that he was a 'madman, or something worse'.

No I dont. Why on earth would I have to believe that?

Because the historical figure claimed to be (the son of) God.

1. Did he? Do you have a convincing source for that?

2. If he did say it could he have meant it in a general sense of God having a paternal-type interest in people generally.

Is the New Testament convincing enough?

No. Not really.

Historical accuracy as we would understand it was not an aim of the new testament. It is a collection of writings designed to support a particular view.

I very much doubt that Jesus had any wish to be used as a religious figure by the non-Jewish world, and I suspect would be horrified at some of the things done in his name.

I totally understand what your friend means.
God existed before any religion was invented (Jesus is God or part of God).
To me religion exists just for us to have a general code of conduct, rules to follow, but you can follow God and Jesus without following any religion.
I follow the catholic church, but I think that any other belief system will take you to God's path. Religion is just a means to an end.

The New Testament has a very good historical pedigree, better than many accepted historical documents.

The Bible as a whole was not written to be a history book, but the NT is, apart from Revelation, pretty much a history book.

timetoask,

What did Jesus mean when he said, "I will build my church..." (Matt 16, vs 18 (I think))

If the NT is a history bok then its not a very good one. Not even internally consistent.

Well, it is a collection of books and letters.

If I look at my chldren's history textbooks, they refer to lots of individual documents (reports, letters, accounts). They are not just one book of original writing by one author, yet we have no trouble believing them.

cats I think that Jesus probably would be horrified by some of the things that have been done in his name. But not being a religous figure for non-Jewish people. He rejected the religious leaders of the time and as honisoit says talked about building his Church. He also talks about himself as 'the way, the truth and the light' and says that 'no-one comes to the father except through me (Jesus)'.

Thats not what I mean. Of course it is a collection of different documents. What I mean is that on a number of points they contradict each other.
The translation in parts is dubious.
The documents that are in the NT today would have been revised many times.
The bible is aimed at selling a particular message, it is not an impartial historical document.

Allthesanityinme

Jesus may have rejected religious figures of his time, but that does not mean that he wanted to start a religion for non-Jewish people.

Do you have any examples of how different translations contradict the basic Christian message?

I think it is pretty reasonable that scholars of Aramaic, Greek, Latin can add to their knowledge and provide updated translations. It is also good that translations of the bible are available to speak to people in this current generation. Translations, such as The Message, are not used to influence church doctrine but they can be helpful in transforming lives.

Why did he talk about building a church?

One basic translational controversy is whether Mary was described as being a virgin.

Did he talk about building a church? If it is something he actually said, then there are a number of possible interpretations of what that could have meant.