I had been a christian for about twenty one years of the early part of my life, but it was only when I became a disciple of Jesus that It really hit me that despite being a christian for all of those years, that I didn't really know what it meant to be a christian.

For being a disciple of Jesus it was clearly defined to me what it meant to be a Jesus disciple, for it was said:

John 8:31 (KJV)

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Therefore to be a true disciple of Jesus, one must have to observe His teachings, for a true of Jesus is any one who keeps and obeys His Word.

And there is another saying of Jesus that clearly defines who His disciple is, and who it isn't, and it goes:

Luke 14:26-27 (KJV)

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Hence being a disciple of Jesus it was very distinct to me what made me to be His disciple, but when it came to being a christian, it was still very vague and ambiguous.

For I observed that just to be born to a family of Christians, going to church, answering a christian name, singing christian songs, believing that the Bible was the Word of God, believing that Jesus was the son of God, or even just not being a Muslim etc., were among the things that appeared to make one christian.

Hence it was not clearly defined as in the instance of being a disciple of Christ, where one cannot be a disciple of Jesus without his or her own consent, as one must have made a personal decision to that extent by meeting its requirements beforehand, hence it's absolutely hinged on the individual.

But in the respect of being a christian, one can be a christian without his or her own consent, or even knowing it and making a personal decision in that regard, for just being born into a family of Christians automatically makes one to be a christian, in other words it's can be an inherited title just as it is with being a Jew, for just by being born into the family of a Jew, makes one a Jew.

So it's more hinged on family lineage or ties as in a group thing, than that of the individual as it is In the instance of a Jesus disciple.

Hence I tried to trace the origin of the word to see if I could get more from there with respect to its definition, and this was what I got:

Acts 11:26 (KJV)

26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Now this was the first time the word "Christians" appeared in the Bible so perhaps it could offer a clue as to what it meant to be a Christian, but then it was the disciples of Christ that were first called Christians, so does that mean to say that a "Christian" means the same thing as a "disciple" of Christ?

If so, then why is it that a word "disciple" in the respect of Christ was hinged on the basis of the individual decision, while that of the word "Christian" isn't?

Hence I couldn't reconcile both, to mean the same thing, In spite of the fact that the disciples were the first to be called Christians, as the basis alone of being a disciple of Jesus clearly contradicted that of being a Christian among other things.

Therefore I took my research of the word Christian to the dictionary, online collins dictionary to be precise, and lo and behold this was what I got:

"A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ."

And I was like, really? For to be honest i never ever saw that definition coming, hence it completely caught me by surprise, because that was the definition of the word "disciple", so if that indeed also defined the word "Christian" then why would i yet be seeking the definition of the word?

For going by that definition that "it is someone who keeps the teachings of Jesus Christ", then that would mean that a Christian was also a disciple of Jesus.

But if that be the case, then why has it been a mission impossible for me to even get the Christians to believe that the standard of the church was supposed to the teachings and Words of Jesus Christ, even that which He used to found the church and not something else?

For the Christians believe it's the Bible that ought to be the standard of the church and nothing else, hence they keep insisting on the teachings of the Bible, which gives them the right to chose from every teaching or example in the Bible, inclusive of those that contradict the teachings and Words of Jesus in the Bible, such as the instance of Elijah commanding fire from heaven to destroy his enemies.

For that is now is their justification of the common practice of the christians commanding fire to kill all their enemies, and for all their enemies to die, even though it clearly contradicts the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, as was shown in this instance:

Luke 9:54-56 (KJV)

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

But despite that they are clearly disobeying the teachings of Jesus Christ and not following His example in this respect, there's nothing that can be said or done to make the Christians desist from such, because it is the Bible which they observe as the standard, and one of the greatest prophets of God in the Bible called Elijah, that they got such an example from, therefore it doesn't matter if Jesus had denounced such an act by His teachings as such, they would still follow the example of Elijah in that instance.

And such is the extent to which Christians are observed to disobey and go against the teachings of Jesus, by following other teachings and examples in the Bible even when it contradicts that of Jesus, since the Bible is observed as the standard by the Christians who now dominate the church, and not the teachings of Jesus with which He used to found His church.

And it has also gotten to the ridiculous extent that the teachings of Paul a disciple of Jesus who wasn't even there when Jesus founded His church, are now being observed by the Christians as the standard of the church more than the teachings of Jesus Himself who founded the church, as was pretty much illustrated by the saying of a nairaland christian which goes, "Jesus built the foundation of the church but Paul built upon it."

And then there is aspect of the leaders of the churches, whose words also now seem to be the standard of the Christians, as their words are now viewed to supersede that of Christ in the sight of the Christians. For even when their leaders clearly contradict the teachings of Jesus with their own teachings, it is the word of their leaders that they rather follow instead of that of Jesus.

Therefore it well obvious that that collins dictionary definition of the word "Christian" is merely cosmetic, as it doesn't to any extent define what a Christian is in reality and in practice, and that's why it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for the Christians to accept that the teachings of Jesus ought to be the standard of the church, and not something else.

So while to the Judaists, it is clearly the teachings of Moses that is the standard of their faith.

To the Muslims, it's clearly the teachings of Mohammed that is the standard of their faith.

When it comes to the Christians, it is completely different story, as it is clearly not the teachings of Jesus Christ that they observe as the standard of their faith, despite that they say with their mouth that He's their Lord.

But the Christians should feel free to prove this conclusion otherwise, and that the collins dictionary definition Is indeed correct, or they could help us clearly define what it truly means to be a christian, so that it can be distinctive as it is in the instance of a true Jesus disciple, who is distinctively someone that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:18-20 (KJV)

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

You should first of all define religion.

OnyeOGA:
You should first of all define religion.

Are you a christian?

Who is really a christian?

.

Is that true?

That's what the Collins dictionary says

False!

No!

Nah!

SMH!

jesusjnr2:
Are you a christian?

what's the meaning of religion?

OnyeOGA:
what's the meaning of religion?

I can see you're not ready yet.

The teachings of Judaism more or less.

I don't think so.

Not in practice!

Does it mean that one is a follower of the teachings of Jesus?

Question time.

What does it mean?

I already asked the question.

To turn your back against God almighty and his laws...

The true meaning.