Nom

Now? No -- but there was in 325 AD: the Council of Nicea called by the emperor Constantine to establish what was and was not correct Christian beliefs. As for whether Unitarians consider themselves Christians, here's what they themselves have to say:
That's from http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html

In short, Unitarians consider themselves...Unitarians. And that's exactly what I'm saying that Christians who deny the divinity of Christ (one of these "creedal beliefs") have to do in order to remain consistent: call themselves something else.

Nom

Does not the wide diversity of colors, styles, sizes and engine configurations demonstrate the futility of finding a single definition of the word automobile?
The previous comment notwithstanding, I think it bears directly on the OP. If one is permitted to believe anything one wants about JC -- from "He was God" to "he didn't exist" -- and still be considered Christian...then the answer to "Your opinion on JC?" is, "it doesn't matter." Hold any opinion you want; the existence and nature of JC is as theologically irrelevant as the existence and nature of Elvis. An atheist and a Christian can hold the exact same beliefs about JC without either being in contradiction.

Am I the only one who finds this a problem?

Llyricist

No doubt about it.... I'm quite sure there are a number of atheists who follow the ethical teachings of Jesus.... and decide to call themselves Christian on that basis alone... But the fact is there are alot of atheists that follow most of Jesus' ethical teachings (in fact I'd venture to say most) that WOULDN'T call themselves Christian..... Even though by the prior people's definition, they ARE..... but they would deny it completely. THAT's the problem with a word that can mean anything....


Whatever else you said about mnagic and allegory is truly beside the point.

BATERBOY

I am of the opinion that Jesus never existed. I base this on the fact that the scriptures were written by people who were not there, the similarities to Mithraism, the Greek influence, and the fact that Constantine commisioned new versions of all the documents that were destroyed by Diocletian in 303AD. Christian documents-especially in Rome- all but vanished because of this. When the new versions were written it enabled the writers to revise, edit, and rewrite the material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets. I believe they altered them quite a bit and what we have today is far from the originals, in my opinion. I also believe that if it happened the way it states that the Jews would have been tripping over themselves trying to claim him as their own, since he was Jewish to begin with.


As a side note, I was looking at this website that claimed Nazareth never existed at the time Jesus supposedly lived. It stated that it wasn't around until the end of the first century. It made a good case, but I don't know if the facts are substanciated.
Here is the website, [don't let the name scare ya!]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

funinspace

Ah, I get it, Constantine kicked the Unitarians out. Makes sense to me.

I would suggest Nom re-read the original post. The requestor wasn't looking for a word definition game. I think it's quite obvious that the Christian title is used very loosely. Some even say it means followers of Christ, which wouldn't specifically require divinity. If it wasn't for the Roman Empire's adoption of Xianity, all sorts of radical Gnostic variants would probably have survived within the name of Xianity. So the 17 centuries of tradition is basically backed up by violence and Catholic tyrany. And what you see today is finally the freedom of people to choose their path vice what some dictatorial leaders tell them. Bring back the Spanish inquisition...

DK

Mageth

I've been out, but others have defended my previous statements more than aptly. Thanks.

About this whole Nicene Creed/Constantine bit where Christianity was creedaly defined to the exclusion of others, a bit of a ramble with hopefully some salient points:

First, here's a short description of how the Creed came about:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/history/nicene.htm

The final version was formed at the Council of Constantinople long after Constantine and the original Nicene Council. It was quite a struggle, apparently.

Most here, I believe, would admit that Christianity, whenever and wherever it first came about, was far more diverse in its beliefs than what the 4th Century Christians finally managed to get defined as "orthodox" (the fact that what we now consider "orthodox" was so defined in the 4th Century is as much the result of political reasons and just plain "luck" of being at the right place in the right time as any religious reasons, BTW). For centuries, before that, there was no single Christian creed. And there was quite a bit of dissent in the 4th Century on what should be the Christian orthodox creed.

The Gnostics were considered Gnostic Christians, (Gnosticism itself is a kind of belief that has appeared in different forms in different religions), considered by the "orthodox" as a heresy of "true Christiainity". First-century and even later Christians had different interpretations of what and who Jesus and his message were. Gnostics etc. and those that held more "orthodox" beliefs as we now know them often were members of the same churches prior to the 4th Century.

The 4th Century, BTW, wasn't the end of differing views of Jesus and his message. Eastern Christianity, for example (e.g. the Greek Orthodox church) split from the "Western" church centuries ago, and continues to hold some quite different doctrines about the Trinity, etc than the Western church. Modern liberal Christianity is just the latest round in a two-millenium struggle to interpret Jesus, his teachings, and his meaning (read Karen Armstrong's A History of God for a great overview on the development of the (Abrahamic) God concept over the last 4000 years).

The develoment of the Nicene Creed in the 4th Century simply wasn't the slam-dunk definition of Christianity some seem to believe it was.

So, hopefully to make some sense from this 6 a.m. ramble:

1) To say that what Christianity is was defined in the 4th century is, in a sense, to deny that many Christians before the events in that Century weren't "true Christians" - perhaps even the first small group of followers of "the Way" who originally pondered what the meaning of Jesus' life and teachings was (or, if you're a Jesus Myther, who originally concocted the Jesus Myth). It's essentially saying that Christianity was formed in the 4th Century - despite the fact that people were labeled "Christians", and self-identified as Christians, because of their beliefs and teachings about Jesus first in the First Century! And the doctrines defined in the 4th Century in the "Nicene Creed" clearly hadn't been fully developed at that time, so I doubt that many if any would today be considered strictly "orthodox" according to the Nicene Creed.

2) Orthodoxy was defined in the 4th Century (though those orthodox beliefs had been developing over the previous centuries, alongside others), but that was not the end of non-orthodox Christian beliefs, though the "Orthodox" Church certainly made life difficult if one didn't follow the orthodox beliefs. Personally, I don't want to grant the "Orthodox" Church the "victory" by implicitly declaring they were right, by implicitly agreeing with them that what they put into their creed is indeed Christianity and the only Christianity.

3) Related to the above, religions change with and adapt to culture/society or die. Even the "orthodox" church has evolved since the 4th Century, and esp. over the last few hundred years (with some dragging their tails, of course); many churches and beliefs today that we consider "orthodox" would be in quite a bit of hot water with the 4th Century Bishops.

4) Many denominations/churches today don't consider some other denoms/churches as "true Christians" not because of their differences on the Nicene Creed (they may fundamentally agree on that) but for other reasons - e.g. their way of salvation (some Protestants don't think Roman Catholics are "truly saved" by faith, instead depending on "works", and thus are not "true Christians", and some Roman Catholics don't think any Protestants are "true Christians"!), or even whether they believe in a strictly literal interpretation/infallibility of the Bible (I've heard some Christians say that if you don't believe in the literal Creation account, then you can't be a true Christian!). So the Nicene Creed often isn't even sufficient for Christians to determine who is or is not truly Christian in their opinion.

Bottom line, Christianity is not simply one set of beliefs, one creed, that is an either/or delimeter. I, as an objective outside observer, cannot distinguish who is or is not a Christian, either now or historically, simply by looking at the Nicene Creed. Nor do I want to give the "orthodox" church, whatever that is, the satisfaction of declaring them "victors" in defining Christianity once-and-for-all in the 4th Century.

So to me, anyone who holds some special place for the life, teachings and meaning of Jesus (however they interpret it) and thus self-identifies as a Christian is welcome to that title. Spong is a Christian; MLK was a Christian; Arius was a Christian; Paul was a Chrisitian; Thomas was a Christian; Marcion was a Christian; Irenaeus was a Christian; Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, was a Christian; Billy Graham is a Christian; John Paul II is a Christian. They're all Christians, though I doubt any two of them would agree on exactly what it means to them to be a Christian.

Mageth

Gnosticicm didn't die completely in the 4th Century. Fortunately, the Roman church's victory has never been complete.

funinspace

I stand clarified. I agree gnosticism never truely died but was just severly peared back. Just imagine what 2000 years of unfettered faith making could have done. Gnostics would also have ancient texts, and a foggy history to hide within. Yes there are strange varients like the Mandaean's of Iraq who consider John the Baptist a prophet of their's. And many other small groups. I guess Mormons would be a modern offshoot that could also be called Gnostic. I was keeping to the basics, assuming Nom wouldn't argue that these histories weren't true. Nom can jump in and disagree if not?.

DK

Amaleq13

There is evidence of burials in the area in the last two centuries Before the Common Era and there is textual evidence of a town called "Nazareth" after 70CE. That's it. A village may have existed in that location in the early 1st century but, even if it did, we have no evidence of its name.

Celsus

Someone else (Robert Price I think?) has also claimed that the existence of first century synagogues is an anachronism of the gospels, but this has been refuted by the discovery of synagogues in Gamla, Masada, Herodium, and Jerusalem, all pre-70 CE (though two date around 66-70). I would be similarly surprised if Nazareth does turn out to be nonexistent, since we know pre-70 ruins are barely preserved.

Joel