What Makes a Christian?

[watchwolf49]

@Steken

I was going to go for something along the lines of “a Christian is a religious person who considers his or her religiosity to be in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ,” but then that would also include Muslims.

Yeah, Buddhists and Jews think well of Christ too. The separation comes from acknowledging Christ as the “Son of God”, something the others refute.

[Steken]

@watchwolf49

Yeah, Buddhists and Jews think well of Christ too. The separation comes from acknowledging Christ as the “Son of God”, something the others refute.

But even that is tricky, because there are non-Christian folks out there who agree that Christ was the “Son of God,” or at least a “Son of God.”

(Think New Ages types of the “we are all the children of God!” variety.)

ETA: Plus I wouldn’t be surprised if there are folks out there who self-identify as Christians, but do not believe that Christ was the “Son of God.” Though I’ll admit I can’t think of any right away…!

[Der_Trihs]

@Steken

ETA: Plus I wouldn’t be surprised if there are folks out there who self-identify as Christians, but do not believe that Christ was the “Son of God.” Though I’ll admit I can’t think of any right away…!

I’ve heard people say that they don’t believe in the supernatural aspects, but think that he was a great teacher/philosopher/moral leader/etc. Some of them probably call themselves Christians.

[andros]

@Der_Trihs

I’ve heard people say that they don’t believe in the supernatural aspects, but think that he was a great teacher/philosopher/moral leader/etc. Some of them probably call themselves Christians.

I know of one person who self-describes as “Christian Buddhist.” She follows the teachings of Jesus as a bodhisattva, not a god.

Personally, I think she just likes going to church.

[CJJ]

@tomndebb

Constantine did intervene to stop Christian disputes. However, that was for the sake of keeping the Christians from tearing apart the empire from within. He first intervened in the disputes on Donatism, resolving it at the local level. He later called the Nicene council to resolve the most recent (to him) of those many disputes that affected the wider church–and for the same reason: to stop the Christians from killing each other off over theological disputes. The bishops were brought together from the far corners of the Roman Empire to judge whether Arius or Athanasius had a better understanding of who and what Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit were. In that council, they voted several hundred to two to support Athanasius over Arius. That decision stands to this day. What did Constantine do about it? He exiled Athanasius, called Arius back from his church-imposed exile, and went on to be later baptized by an Arian bishop. If Constantine was trying to make the empire uniformly Christian, why did he not, then, imprison the bishops who voted against his man while they were all gathered in Nicaea in his presence? Alternatively, if he wanted to rule through Christianity, why did he not support the bishops against Arius?

I agree with tomndebb’s account of the history, but it’s worth remembering that the Nicene Creed–while clearly aimed at Arianism–does include language meant to refute earlier (mostly settled) theological disputes. For example, the language about being “born of virgin Mary” by the power of the HS was included to refute specific claims of the Ebionites (and, probably, early gnostic notions about Christ). But again, this was not the point of the council; lines like these were included pretty much without controversy.

I should also note that much of what falls under the title "Nicene Creed’ today was not settled at Constantine’s council, but over the next 100+ years during subsequent councils. In particular, most of the later stuff about the Holy Spirit and the church came out of Constantinople and Chalcedon, which specifically dealt with a Macedonian sect who denied the divinity of the HS, a sort-of back-door Arianism. And as tomndebb says, disputes like these have gone on throughout the history of the Church; the acknoledgement of “one baptism” was added at Chalcedon to combat a revival of Donatism that insisted lapsed Christians had to be rebaptized.

[monavis]

@tomndebb

I have to correct you on this stuff at least once every year. Would you please go find some actual histories to read and stop harkening back to some New Age blather you vaguely remember from decades ago?

Constantine’s In hoc signo vincis (the Latin version; the actual Greek was supposed to have been ἐν τούτῳ νίκα), occurred when he was battling Maxentius to be sole emperor of Rome after the tetrarchy fell apart. There was no promise or imagined prediction of “ruling the world,” just a claim that he would beat Maxentius to rule Rome, leaving Persia, Parthia, Scythia, Ethiopia, and the lands of the German tribes unconquered.
While he appears to have been fascinated by Christianity on some intellectual level, he never pursued becoming a Christian until his final illness.

Your repeated claim, however, is that he was involved in suppressing other “scriptures” and other variations of Christianity. As presented, that claim is nonsense.
We have copies of lists of accepted Scripture that very closely match the version we have, today, dating to 170 C.E.–154 years before the First Council of Nicaea.
It is probably true that various books of the Gnostics, (and the Monophysites and the Manichaean and Montanists and others) were suppressed, but it had nothing to do with Constantine and nothing to do with Nicaea. It was an ongoing process going back to the time of Paul disputing what he called “Judaizers.” It was a process that included the author of the Epistle of James disputing with followers of Paul regarding faith and works. It was a process that included the many tracts of Irenaeus in the second century disputing people he identified as “heretics” (i.e., those taking a separate path). It included condemnations of some of the writings of Tertullian and Origen. It has gone on throughout the entire history of the church.
There was never a point at which dozens of independent minded individuals were shut down in their beliefs in order to “create” a single political entity and it certainly did not happen under Constantine.
Rather, Christians constantly examined one new idea or another agreeing with or disputing that idea and with one side prevailing at each dispute with the winning side being recognized as the (not capitalized) orthodox church.
The notion of some grand conspiracy in which some small group of empire-backed zealots suddenly suppressed dozens of other beliefs is imaginary nonsense.
How do we know this? Because, regardless whether the “winners” suppressed the writings of their opponents, they spent a lot of energy and paper condemning the beliefs of their opponents and we have the records of those condemnations to this day. They did not secretly suppress anything, but trumpeted the (perceived) errors of their opponents at every incident.

Constantine did intervene to stop Christian disputes. However, that was for the sake of keeping the Christians from tearing apart the empire from within. He first intervened in the disputes on Donatism, resolving it at the local level. He later called the Nicene council to resolve the most recent (to him) of those many disputes that affected the wider church–and for the same reason: to stop the Christians from killing each other off over theological disputes. The bishops were brought together from the far corners of the Roman Empire to judge whether Arius or Athanasius had a better understanding of who and what Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit were. In that council, they voted several hundred to two to support Athanasius over Arius. That decision stands to this day. What did Constantine do about it? He exiled Athanasius, called Arius back from his church-imposed exile, and went on to be later baptized by an Arian bishop. If Constantine was trying to make the empire uniformly Christian, why did he not, then, imprison the bishops who voted against his man while they were all gathered in Nicaea in his presence? Alternatively, if he wanted to rule through Christianity, why did he not support the bishops against Arius?

Your scenario makes no sense.

Further, I have posted a link to the decrees of the Nicene Council, above. Read it. There is no mention of suppressing Gnostics or Monophysites or Donatists or Manichaeans or Marcionites or anyone else except the teachings of Arius. In terms of theology, it was a one issue council. Further, there is not a single reference to scripture or creating a canon or suppressing other “scriptural” works.

It is rather frustrating to see you post this nonsense every few months without seeing you make the minimum effort to get it right.

I can only go by what I was told about how the NT was called the word of God,and that the Bishops of the Orthodox Churches decided what was of God ans what was not. That doesn’t cancel the fact that it was a decision made by human beings. I also had read that Constantine had called the conference to settle the difference s about the Trinity, but the RC and Orthodox didn’t split up until 1000 AD.so for 700 years they were in agreement.

So we are believing in the word of human beings and who we choose to believe. I was also told there was no actual writings until much later after Jesus was said to have died. But even using the Bible there are so many contradictions it would not seem that a Supreme Being would inspire such things. There have been and always will be the question of the Biblical translations over the years, and one wonders how much was put in by the translator to suit it’s own purposes. After people started to read the Bible and noticed the different ways of looking at things, and started to question them, just as people do now.

I agree what I had read was also written by human beings and the people who have discussed this with me could be wrong, but that doesn’t make the Bible the Word Of God because some person hundreds of years ago claimed that God had told him what to do, or not do certain things. This would surely be dismissed by most people today, if someone said or wrote that God told them he didn’t favor any religion nor want worship; believers would say that such a person was being instructed by the Devil!

If I can recall it correctly the News Paper I read was an Ad by the Knights of Columbus stating that the Bible was a RC book.

[Czarcasm]

@monavis

I can only go by what I was told about how the NT was called the word of God,and that the Bishops of the Orthodox Churches decided what was of God ans what was not. That doesn’t cancel the fact that it was a decision made by human beings. I also had read that Constantine had called the conference to settle the difference s about the Trinity, but the RC and Orthodox didn’t split up until 1000 AD.so for 700 years they were in agreement.

So we are believing in the word of human beings and who we choose to believe. I was also told there was no actual writings until much later after Jesus was said to have died. But even using the Bible there are so many contradictions it would not seem that a Supreme Being would inspire such things. There have been and always will be the question of the Biblical translations over the years, and one wonders how much was put in by the translator to suit it’s own purposes. After people started to read the Bible and noticed the different ways of looking at things, and started to question them, just as people do now.

I agree what I had read was also written by human beings and the people who have discussed this with me could be wrong, but that doesn’t make the Bible the Word Of God because some person hundreds of years ago claimed that God had told him what to do, or not do certain things. This would surely be dismissed by most people today, if someone said or wrote that God told them he didn’t favor any religion nor want worship; believers would say that such a person was being instructed by the Devil!

If I can recall it correctly the News Paper I read was an Ad by the Knights of Columbus stating that the Bible was a RC book.

You keep responding with “I was told” when refuting facts. Told by who?

[Beelzebubba]

The New Testament isn’t the Word of God, it’s the Word of the Council of Nicea. The process of what to include and exclude was made by men, many of whom had self-serving interests. It’s not much different than taking out your Bible today and marking through any parts you don’t like with a Sharpie!

[andros]

@Beelzebubba

The New Testament isn’t the Word of God, it’s the Word of the Council of Nicea. The process of what to include and exclude was made by men, many of whom had self-serving interests. It’s not much different than taking out your Bible today and marking through any parts you don’t like with a Sharpie!

Somehow I kinda feel like we’ve covered this. Like, recently. Really recently. Hmmmm…

Oh, right.

[Beelzebubba]

@andros

Somehow I kinda feel like we’ve covered this. Like, recently. Really recently. Hmmmm…

Oh, right.

Sorry, but my ADD prevents me from reading more than one or two previous replies. Please forgive my disability… :smack:

[Mr_Quatro]

What makes a Christian?

Precept upon precept, rule upon rule … inch by inch is a cinch, yard by yard is hard.

The first followers of Jesus Christ only had letters from the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Paul and Peter and the brother of Jesus … James.

Plus the author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown, but one thing they all had in common, besides the blood of Jesus, was the title of Saints.

These first few believers had to have a lot of faith that these Saints were not lying to them. They also had the manifestations of the gifts of God through the Holy Spirit. The gifts of speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, words of wisdom, words of knowledge, prophecy, healing, discerning of spirits and most important the gift of faith.

The first followers were Jews and then the gentiles through the preaching of Saint Paul was directed at them to allow the non Jews to follow the King of the Jews, now known as our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Jews that converted to Christianity were kicked out of the synagogue’s and even forbidden to sell in the market places. They were hunted down and even stoned to death in some instances.

The other followers were tormented by the Jews and the Romans over a period of time with torture and crucified on the cross, thrown into prisons and fed to the lions and blamed for the burning of Rome by Nero.

This is why Jesus had Saint John write in the book of Revelations that Jesus was the first and the last and that he that overcomes shall inherit all things and that he would be our God and that we would be his people.

Even if you call yourself a Christian … you still have to overcome something called fear. I figure it will be the same fear that the first Christians had to overcome.

We will be slaughtered and slain for our faith.

There is a casting call for Christians … sometimes it takes a life time to find out if you made it.

[Grey]

So a persecution complex is a requirement - that explains so much.

[Captain_Amazing]

@tomndebb

While he appears to have been fascinated by Christianity on some intellectual level, he never pursued becoming a Christian until his final illness.

I’m not necessarily contradicting you here, but remember that, because Christians at the time believed that baptism forgave all sins, a lot of Christians would put off being baptized until their deathbed, believing that they’d then die with pure souls and be guaranteed heaven. While it’s impossible to be sure, a lot of Constantine’s actions (favoring Christians for promotion, melting down statues of pagan gods, ending state support for pagan temples and subsidizing Christian churches, etc), seems to suggest that Constantine considered himself Christian for a while before he died, even if he didn’t get baptized until the last year of his life.

[tomndebb]

@monavis

I can only go by what I was told about how the NT was called the word of God,and that the Bishops of the Orthodox Churches decided what was of God ans what was not.

That is fine as far as it goes, but you always throw in your errors about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, points on which you have been corrected several times. So you are not limited to what you’ve “been told.” You are perfectly free, (indeed, encouraged), to actually read some genuine histories that will correct the errors you continue to repeat.
You have repeated the error regarding Constantine and the Council of Nicaea and then been corrected on at least the following occasions:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16353223#post16353223 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16353665&highlight=constantine#post16353665
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7095296#post7095296 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7101259#post7101259 (This latter post includes links to an even earlier error and correction.)

[Monty]

tomndebb: Have you by now considered the possibility that he is not interested in facts but rather has an emotional investment in what he’s touting being accepted by others?

[tomndebb]

@Monty

tomndebb: Have you by now considered the possibility that he is not interested in facts but rather has an emotional investment in what he’s touting being accepted by others?

Sure. I am just pointing out that I do find it frustrating to have to continually point out the errors so as to maintain the point of the Straight Dope.

[monavis]

@Czarcasm

You keep responding with “I was told” when refuting facts. Told by who?

I was told by different priests and relatives who are RC.

[monavis]

@tomndebb

That is fine as far as it goes, but you always throw in your errors about Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, points on which you have been corrected several times. So you are not limited to what you’ve “been told.” You are perfectly free, (indeed, encouraged), to actually read some genuine histories that will correct the errors you continue to repeat.
You have repeated the error regarding Constantine and the Council of Nicaea and then been corrected on at least the following occasions:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16353223#post16353223 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16353665&highlight=constantine#post16353665
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7095296#post7095296 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7101259#post7101259 (This latter post includes links to an even earlier error and correction.)

As I stated earlier. if what I was told and read was not true, the fact that humans wrote the Bible and said it was inspired by God, so regardless Of what I read and was told, it remains the work, word and teachings of other human beings. If I was told or read what wasn’t true, and I admit there are a lot of things that are not true. Or if it was a council or not, it is still taking the word of another human or humans.

[monavis]

@Monty

tomndebb: Have you by now considered the possibility that he is not interested in facts but rather has an emotional investment in what he’s touting being accepted by others?

The FACTS are: Humans wrote the Bible, Humans called it the word of God,So even at the council of Nicaea, or other councils and that still shows that Humans decided what was from God and what was inspired. We can believe that God talked to Moses, or any one nowadays.but our belief is in a person not God!

[monavis]

I would add that Monty is doing the same thing he accuses me of doing. Mind reading as to my intent.