Defining What is Christian

How do we define a Christian and why is that important? It would seem that the definition of Christian is ambiguous, having been watered down my countless denominations that continually redefine Christian theology. Why is this important? It is important to define what a Christian is because if we do not then anyone can call themselves a Christian and be misled or mislead others into incorrect teachings. It is important to define what a Christian or Christianity is so that people can know the truth. If we accept anyones profession that they are a Christian without having first investigated then we will be held accountable.

The easiest way is to contrast everything against the sacrament of sacraments, the Eucharist. In the Orthodox Church this sacrament is considered to be the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, not as in the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, but a mystical or spiritual transformation, not a transformation of substance. It is not considered symbolic at all in Orthodoxy. It is not considered symbolic by Christ in the Gospel of St John either, He says: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

Christ does not say that this is symbolic in any way, He is literal, in fact when the people were grumbling He reiterated that He was being literal. This caused many to desert Christ, so why didn't He explain that He was only speaking symbolically? To further prove this point, when Christ instituted the Eucharist in Mt 26:26 He said: “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Notice that Christ does not once say that this is a symbol but that this is My Body and this is My Blood. He then refers to this as His blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins. This is literal, not symbolic in any way.

Christ says in John 6:53 that: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." This again is clear in that we must partake of the Eucharist, which Christ instituted and said is His Body and His Blood. Christ says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we will have no life in us, meaning we cannot receive salvation unless we partake of the Eucharist.

So it stands to reason, whomever rejects the Eucharist rejects Christ and in turn rejects their own salvation. This we cannot consider to be Christian. Any denomination that either rejects the Eucharist or teaches that it is merely symbolic cannot be considered Christian. For any Orthodox to suggest that one who rejects the Eucharist is Christian is heresy because they are stating that a person who rejects Christ is in some way a Christian. This is in no way a condemnation of the people who may believe this as most probably do it out of ignorance. It is important for Orthodoxy to strictly define what it means to be Christian, and this is one way of doing that.

Why the Apostles were not liars

There seems to be a lot of denial when it comes to Christ and Christianity these days and more often than not the Apostles and their accounts are portrayed as unreliable and fanciful tales of magic. If one did not stop and think critically this would seem to be the case. How could someone be brutally tortured, crucified and then raise themselves from the dead? Where is the evidence for such a claim? I will tell you, it is in the lives of the Apostles and disciples of Christ. If anyone knew that the resurrection, and other claims in scripture, were false, it would be them. So why is this important and how does it prove anything? Generally speaking when some religious person makes outrageous claims they do it for a purpose and that purpose is power, money, women, fame, or any of the trappings that come with the ability to manipulate people. But this is not the case when it comes to the Apostles nor the disciples. Many of them were martyred for their faith and all of them lived very poor and meager lives, hardly reminiscent of cult leaders.

If anyone had a reason to steal the body of Christ it would have been the Apostles, this would have given weight to their claims and the claims of Christ. So that means they would have been living a lie, but for what reason? They gained nothing. Every Apostles, aside from St John, was either tortured then martyred or just martyred. I could see maybe one Apostle doing this and being so delusional to think that his lie was real and being martyred for it, but 11 of them? Surely one of them would have broke and admitted this to save his own skin. What of St John the Apostle? Why wouldn't he admit that this was a lie to save himself from being exiled an old man to the obscure island of Patmos? St Peter, who seemed to have been a weak in faith at times, was crucified upside down at his own request. Now why didn't he break and admit this was a lie? After all it was him who denied Christ three times out of fear for his life, if anyone were to break it would have been him, but he didn't.

It makes little to no sense for a group of people to maintain a lie like this for no reason. None of them gained anything. They were constantly persecuted and ridiculed. They were poor and ended up dying miserable deaths. Unless all of them were totally insane I see no purpose for them to lie. The probability of all of them being insane has to be off the charts, and then you would have to explain how these insane and unstable people were convincing educated and uneducated, rich and poor of their claims. The only logical conclusion is that the Apostles were not lying about the things they saw, that these things were not some fanciful musings of an insane person, but reality.

One also has to understand that Christ did these things in full view of the public, for all to see and hear. If the Gospel writers were lying surely someone would have come forward to discredit them, but even the jews did not deny that Christ did something, calling Him a "sorcerer" (Sanhedrin 43a). They aren't denying the existence of Christ or that He indeed did miracles or some kind. If Christ did not exist certainly the jews would not admit to His existence. If Christ and or his followers were lying about His "miracles" certainly the jews would have made no reference to it, but they instead try to explain it as being sorcery.

We know from several sources outside scripture that Christ existed historically, I don't even think people cognizant of the facts would deny this. What is in question is, was He who He and His followers claimed? There is enough evidence to suggest that Christ was who He and His followers claimed He was. This is not indisputable evidence, it is inferential evidence that one could base their conclusions upon.

It defies logic that the Apostles would have knowingly upheld a lie and not buckled under the pressure of persecution and a life of poverty. It also defies logic to say Christ did not exist at all and that all the stories are made up. If Christ did not exist surely the jews wouldn't admit to it and if Christ did nothing that could be considered a miracle then why would the jews attempt to explain it away as sorcery. To say there is no evidence is to state a falsehood, there is evidence. It is inferential evidence, not undeniable truth. But one could easily take these facts and base their faith on it as the foundation of their faith. There is truth there. It is not as if there is nothing to base faith on, there clearly is, this however is the choice one must make based on what we know.