“Belief in Jesus” would entail too many qualifiers such that it would lose any utility as a “definition” of Christianity.
Well, it depends what your purpose is.
It wouldn’t be hard to qualify this to mean something like “basing your religion on the person and/or teachings of Jesus.”
I obviously don’t just mean “believing that Jesus existed.”
Mormons would definitely be Christians by this definition, and Muslims not really but sort of on the margin. Which I think is just right *if *we’re really going for the broadest possible definition.
There’s also something to be said for having a much narrower definition of what the essential teachings of the faith we profess are.
I’m not the one who used the phrase “broadest and most basic.” I’m just saying that the Trinity certainly isn’t the broadest and most basic.
Allegra, lots of Christians consider Mormons to be Christians. It’s a serious debate in the Christian circles I’m familiar with. And I think it’s a semantic one. I think Catholics have the best approach by narrowing it down to valid baptism. Mormons aren’t validly baptized (though I believe it took the CDF a while to come to this conclusion and there was an early, tentative positive conclusion before a later negative one). And that very much has to do with the fact that while they speak of Father, Son, and Spirit, what they mean by this is clearly something quite other than the orthodox Christian Trinity.
So I would not say without qualification that Mormons are Christians–or that they aren’t. It depends on your definition. By the
broadest definition they are, but not necessarily by the *best *definition from a theological point of view.
As for Muslims: early medieval Christians spoke of Islam as a Christian heresy. It’s not that outlandish.
Edwin