Christians: What does it mean to be a "Christian"?

[Tranquil Servant]

I recently decided to refer to myself as a follower of the messiah (or Christ) and the reason was because I'm so tired of being labelized (as a Christian) and categorized into a group who is so divided, it causes confusion and conflict within the "religion"? (which is another word I despise)
I don't regard the "doctrine" (or theory) of the trinity. In the Old Testament, God repeatedly states that he is ONE God. I do believe God is all-powerful and can do whatever he pleases but does whatever he does for a reason and with a purpose. In the Old testament God appeared to man and manifested his attributes and power in many ways; One, was through the Holy Spirit. However, I don't recall anyone referring to God as being two persons in one being. With that being said, I believe God manifested many of his attributes in Jesus or Jesus is his greatest manifestation. This may sound crazy but I believe Jesus is like a clone of God; except Jesus was sent in a form (of flesh) which we humans could understand...(I'm only using this analogy in an attempt to simplify my interpretation). This is why Jesus is the greatest example to mankind because Jesus showed mankind the true definitions of the attributes God wanted us (humans) to imitate. So Jesus is God but while on earth not God in his entirety; a portion of God. Since I believe God is all-powerful, I also believe god can multiply and/or distribute his powers like with the holy spirit. I apologize if my description sounds confusing; that's the last thing I want to do but How could we mere humans understand God the almighty and his infinite power. It's as simple as that!!

 

[savagewind]

Well said. I agree.

 

[ChristineES]

I call my faith (I also don't use the word "religion" very much) "Follower of Y'shua (or Yeshua) because people think negative things about my faith. Not that most Christians do those hypocritical things, but those few are the ones people notice.

To be Christian, you must follow the commandments of Jesus. It's as simple as that- and not as easy as one would think.

 

[lunamoth]

To be Christian means to accept Christ as the savior of humanity, and that his incarnation, death and resurrection changed our relationship (or, our understanding of our relationship) with God in such as way as we are now always in his Grace and Love.

 

[Shiranui117]

For me, the definition of being a proper Christian is adherence to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Adoptionists, Docetists and Arians CAN be termed "Christians" in a looser sense, but overall, to be Christian not only means to accept Jesus' teachings, but also to accept the truth about Who God is--and this includes professing the Trinity.

 

[Me Myself]

A christian is a person who loves everyone, and above evethat, loves peace, intelligence, joy and love itself.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

For me, the definition of being a proper Christian is adherence to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:

So...you adhere to the creed and doctrine set by Constantine....O-K

....and this includes professing the Trinity.

...So says the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

 

[Shiranui117]

So...you adhere to the creed and doctrine set by Constantine....O-K

Except Constantine himself probably didn't even believe in the Trinity, and was most likely an Arian, given that he was baptized on his deathbed, not by Trinitarians, but by Arians. So no, Constantine didn't set any doctrine or creed. The Nicene Creed was purely a product of the Church.

...So says the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

So say the majority of the early Christians.

 

[Me Myself]

Except Constantine himself probably didn't even believe in the Trinity, and was most likely an Arian, given that he was baptized on his deathbed, not by Trinitarians, but by Arians. So no, Constantine didn't set any doctrine or creed. The Nicene Creed was purely a product of the Church.

So say the majority of the early Christians.

Werent the disenters killed? Wouldnt that have impacted on what the "majority" would be?

There were A LOT of christian sects in the first century. If you think the third century is early...

 

[Shiranui117]

Werent the disenters killed? Wouldnt that have impacted on what the "majority" would be?

On the contrary, it happened quite often that it was the Orthodox who were persecuted; the Arians had a LOT of political clout, and gained the favor of several emperors, even after the Council of Nicaea (including Constantine's son). Arianism persisted for quite a while in Germania, and even wrapped around to Spain in the 5th or 6th centuries (in fact, that's where the Filioque clause comes into the Latin text of the Nicene Creed--more about that another day). Likewise, the iconoclasts also fiercely persecuted the Orthodox during the 8th century and that general time frame.

There were A LOT of christian sects in the first century. If you think the third century is early...

I'm looking more at the first and second centuries.

EDIT: It's worth noting that a lot of the so-called "Christian" sects in the first century weren't even Christian; they were syncretists, blending Jesus into their pre-existing religions. Case in point, the Gnostics.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

During the rule of Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (reigned 306–337), Christianity became a dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Historians remain uncertain about Constantine's reasons for favoring Christianity, and theologians and historians have argued about which form of Christianity he subscribed to. Although Constantine had been exposed to Christianity by his mother Helena, there is no consensus among scholars as to whether he adopted his mother's Christianity in his youth, or gradually over the course of his life,[1] and he did not receive baptism until shortly before his death.[2][3]
Constantine's conversion was a turning point for Early Christianity, sometimes referred to as the Triumph of the Church, the Peace of the Church or the Constantinian shift. In 313, Constantine and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan legalizing Christian worship. The emperor became a great patron of the Church and set a precedent for the position of the Christian emperor within the Church and the notion of orthodoxy, Christendom, ecumenical councils and the state church of the Roman Empire declared by edict in 380. He is revered as a saint and isapostolos in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church for his example as a "Christian monarch."
While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[68] This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.[68]
Despite Constantine's sympathetic interest in the future of the Church, he did not actually undergo the rite of baptism himself until some 11 or 12 years afterward. Christianity at this point had been legalized (by Constantine's predecessor, Galerius, on his deathbed), but was not to become the official state religion of Rome until 380. Constantine's coinage and other motifs, until the time of this Council, had affiliated him with the pagan cult of Sol Invictus, and only four years before Nicea, Constantine had declared Sunday to be an Empire-wide day of rest in honor of the Sun, which led to its replacement of Saturday as the sabbath in European Christendom.
The Council declared that the Son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance, arguing that such a doctrine best codified the Scriptural presentation of the Son as well as traditional Christian belief about him handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,[40] this belief was expressed by the bishops in the Nicene Statement, which would form the basis of what has since been known as the Nicene Creed.
Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[16]

Persecution of early Christians in the Roman EmpireThe first recorded official persecution of Christians on behalf of the Roman Empire was in 64 AD, when, as reported by the Roman historian Tacitus, Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome. According to Church tradition, it was during the reign of Nero that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. However, modern historians debate whether the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the Fiscus Judaicus in 96, from which point practicing Jews paid the tax and Christians did not.[4]
Christians suffered from sporadic and localized persecutions over a period of two and a half centuries. Their refusal to participate in Imperial cult was considered an act of treason and was thus punishable by execution. The most widespread official persecution was carried out by Diocletian. During the Great Persecution (303–311), the emperor ordered Christian buildings and the homes of Christians torn down and their sacred books collected and burned. Christians were arrested, tortured, mutilated, burned, starved, and condemned to gladiatorial contests to amuse spectators.[5] The Great Persecution officially ended in April 311, when Galerius, senior emperor of the Tetrarchy, issued an edict of toleration, which granted Christians the right to practice their religion, though it did not restore any property to them.[6] Constantine, Caesar in the Western empire and Licinius, Caesar in the East, also were signatories to the edict of toleration.[7] It has been speculated that Galerius' reversal of his long-standing policy of Christian persecution has been attributable to one or both of these co-Caesars.[8]---Wikipedia

 

[Shiranui117]

Thank you for posting this, but was there a point in particular that you wanted to make by quoting all this? Or is it simply to benefit the reader's historical knowledge?

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Thank you for posting this, but was there a point in particular that you wanted to make by quoting all this? Or is it simply to benefit the reader's historical knowledge?

A bit of both......
There was massive persecution on the earliest Christians...the title Christian was given to the earliest followers of Christ by the ones carrying out the persecutions in an attempt to degrade and cast them out of society (kind of like how people now in days associate Muslims and Islamists with terrorists). The "majority" of Christians of whom you speak of, are the religious leaders Constantine invited to assemble at the council for political reasons; not necessarily true religious leaders. After all, how could someone who (was Pagan) knew nothing about Christianity and who probably murdered true followers of Christ, know who to invite to a Christian consensus unless it would benefit him and his rule. The Trinity theory was another attempt to define and put a label on something those "leaders" would never fully understand. The Christian movement was a strong and expanding one; one that Constantine felt threatened by. So, in order to control it he had to pretend like he wanted peace and equality by declaring HIS Christian doctrine and "favoring" Christianity.

 

[Shiranui117]

A bit of both......
There was massive persecution on the earliest Christians...the title Christian was given to the earliest followers of Christ by the ones carrying out the persecutions in an attempt to degrade and cast them out of society (kind of like how people now in days associate Muslims and Islamists with terrorists). The "majority" of Christians of whom you speak of, are the religious leaders Constantine invited to assemble at the council for political reasons; not necessarily true religious leaders. After all, how could someone who (was Pagan) knew nothing about Christianity and who probably murdered true followers of Christ, know who to invite to a Christian consensus unless it would benefit him and his rule. The Trinity theory was another attempt to define and put a label on something those "leaders" would never fully understand. The Christian movement was a strong and expanding one; one that Constantine felt threatened by. So, in order to control it he had to pretend like he wanted peace and equality by declaring HIS Christian doctrine and "favoring" Christianity.

I'd suggest re-reading your own source.

While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[68] This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.[68]
. . .
The Council declared that the Son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance, arguing that such a doctrine best codified the Scriptural presentation of the Son as well as traditional Christian belief about him handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,[40] this belief was expressed by the bishops in the Nicene Statement, which would form the basis of what has since been known as the Nicene Creed.
Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[16]
​

So your own source completely debunks the idea that Constantine foisted the idea of the Trinity onto the Church; Constantine himself would later go on to agree with the Arian heresy, which is anti-Trinitarian!

 

[Shiranui117]

Also, the fact that you stated that there were no real Christians at the Council of Nicaea shows that you don't know much, if anything, about who was actually there, nor about the history of Christianity, which had had bishops since the time of the Apostles (St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. James of Jerusalem, to name a few). Here are a few of the legitimate bishops, elected by the Church herself, who attended the First Council of Nicaea:

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius.[26] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[27]
Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church historian; circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Claus legends); Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[28] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd.[29][30] From foreign places came John, bishop of Persia and India,[31] Theophilus, a Gothic bishop and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt of Georgia.
The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul,[28] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.
Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.[28]
The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from the Libyan Pentapolis. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia,[32] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicea.[28][33]

The idea that Constantine didn't know any leaders in the Church and therefore would have had to install false bishops is also preposterous; it would have been nothing for him to send out an imperial edict and gather the names of the bishops of the Church, or to simply say "All leaders of the Christian Church are hereby invited to attend a council in Nicaea to settle matters of faith and practice."

Plus, it would have been the job of the Church to select who would go and represent them; Constantine invited all bishops of the Church. Regional synods decided for themselves who they would send as representatives, whether they be bishops, priests, deacons or laymen. They also decided what issues would be discussed at the Council.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

I'd suggest re-reading your own source.

While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[68] This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.[68]
. . .
The Council declared that the Son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance, arguing that such a doctrine best codified the Scriptural presentation of the Son as well as traditional Christian belief about him handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,[40] this belief was expressed by the bishops in the Nicene Statement, which would form the basis of what has since been known as the Nicene Creed.
Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[16]​

So your own source completely debunks the idea that Constantine foisted the idea of the Trinity onto the Church; Constantine himself would later go on to agree with the Arian heresy, which is anti-Trinitarian!

First off, I have read it...many many times.
Second, Constantine was willing to "foist" any idea that would reassert his authority and control...

...While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons...

...and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church...

...Under Constantine's influence,[40] this belief was expressed by the bishops in the Nicene Statement, which would form the basis of what has since been known as the Nicene Creed...

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Also, the fact that you stated that there were no real Christians at the Council of Nicaea shows that you don't know much, if anything, about who was actually there, nor about the history of Christianity, which had had bishops since the time of the Apostles (St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. James of Jerusalem, to name a few). Here are a few of the legitimate bishops, elected by the Church herself, who attended the First Council of Nicaea:

You know....It was "educated" men like yourself who thought up the theory of the Trinity.
"...since the time of the apostles" huh...?
The first council of Nicaea 325?...you're saying there were Bishops who attended that council who were alive since the time of the apostles?...in the year 325?...325 years after the death of Christ...??
Note: I only consider the Apostles who were chosen by Christ including Paul to be the true Apostles.

The idea that Constantine didn't know any leaders in the Church and therefore would have had to install false bishops is also preposterous; it would have been nothing for him to send out an imperial edict and gather the names of the bishops of the Church, or to simply say "All leaders of the Christian Church are hereby invited to attend a council in Nicaea to settle matters of faith and practice."

Plus, it would have been the job of the Church to select who would go and represent them; Constantine invited all bishops of the Church. Regional synods decided for themselves who they would send as representatives, whether they be bishops, priests, deacons or laymen. They also decided what issues would be discussed at the Council.

I wonder....? what kind of "Christian leaders" were left; after so many of them were murdered; including the true Apostles.:sarcastic Also, I wonder what kind of "Christian leaders" attended the council since the invites were limited...

"Derived from Greek oikoumenikos (Greek: οἰκουμέν&#951, "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire..."

"Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended."

AND...Constantine invited Bishops to represent their Church. However,....
"The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons;...."

Let's not forget; the creed changed many times after that council because of unresolved issues.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

This is why I am no longer a "Christian"; Just a servant and follower of the Messiah.
who can label and define mysteries of the Lord? I definitely won't waste my breath arguing; attempting to do so.
Understanding The Almighty is just that....understanding him through the knowledge the Holy Spirit provides but who are we to label him or define him; when we are only humans and he is great. So great to the point where we can't conceive him. If God is three persons in one, what does that mean? he has three heads??? I don't get it. Weren't we made in his likeness?
Likeness-The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance.

 

[Shiranui117]

You know....It was "educated" men like yourself who thought up the theory of the Trinity.
"...since the time of the apostles" huh...?
The first council of Nicaea 325?...you're saying there were Bishops who attended that council who were alive since the time of the apostles?...in the year 325?...325 years after the death of Christ...??

No.

I'm saying that the Apostles appointed bishops to rule over the Church as it began to spread. Heck, one of the Apostles was a bishop himself: St. James, the brother of the Lord. As one bishop died, another Christian was elected to take his place; the qualifications for bishops are laid out in the New Testament, especially in 1 and 2 Timothy, and in Titus. The same goes for priests and deacons.

Note: I only consider the Apostles who were chosen by Christ including Paul to be the true Apostles.

That's because the bishops themselves aren't Apostles, but merely successors of the Apostles.

I wonder....? what kind of "Christian leaders" were left; after so many of them were murdered; including the true Apostles.:sarcastic Also, I wonder what kind of "Christian leaders" attended the council since the invites were limited...

The Christian leaders who survived the persecutions and were elected by the body of Christians to succeed their fallen predecessors. It's no secret that Arians were at the Council, and Sabellians, and those who contradicted the Faith of the Apostles. But there were also those who continued in the teachings of their fathers and teachers, the teachings which had been handed down through the generations, the Faith which Christ gave to the Apostles. You wonder what kind of "Christian leaders" were left? The kind of Christian leaders who had seen their brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers persecuted, mocked, ridiculed and martyred for their faith. The kind of Christian leaders who held onto their faith despite the crushing roars of opposition from the world around them. The kind of Christian leaders who found the strength from God to turn around and encourage the fainthearted, guide the lost, reprove those in error, and teach those who do not understand, and keep the faith that they had been given by their ancestors, who had received it from the Apostles, who had received it from Christ.

You seem to doubt the ability of the Church to survive harsh persecution. You doubt the Body of Christ, the community of all Christians. The martyrdom of Christians did not take away from the Church's size; rather, the witness of so many Christians to their deaths prompted even more people to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord, God and Savior, and strengthened and inspired those who already were Christians. Nearly every day I get in the email the stories of those who glorified Christ by their suffering for His sake, and how these brave men and women were honored as heroes by their brethren who still lived.

"Derived from Greek oikoumenikos (Greek: οἰκουμέν&#951, "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire..."

"Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended."

AND...Constantine invited Bishops to represent their Church. However,....
"The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons;...."

There is no "however" here. Being hundreds if not thousands of miles away from your flock still makes it impossible to effectively take care of their spiritual needs. Bishops aren't just rulers from on high; they are among the people, teaching them, encouraging them, and guiding them.

Let's not forget; the creed changed many times after that council because of unresolved issues.

Many times? More like only once. At the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

 

[Shiranui117]

This is why I am no longer a "Christian"; Just a servant and follower of the Messiah.

I am both. To be "Christian" means to be of Christ. Do you deny being of Christ?

who can label and define mysteries of the Lord? I definitely won't waste my breath arguing; attempting to do so.

Only the Lord can do that. He reveals a glimpse of understanding of His mysteries. We only define what God has revealed to us.

Understanding The Almighty is just that....understanding him through the knowledge the Holy Spirit provides but who are we to label him or define him; when we are only humans and he is great. So great to the point where we can't conceive him.

Precisely.

If God is three persons in one, what does that mean? he has three heads??? I don't get it. Weren't we made in his likeness?
Likeness-The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance.

If you'd like, I can explain the Trinity to you.