Jesus' Wife?

[garbon]

Wiki told me: Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human, monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity.

Doesn't seem problematic for the Christ is divine bar.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. If you don't think Christ was (is) divine in some shape or form, then at most you're "culturally Christian" as it were. That said, I think there is some room in the definition of "divine".

Certainly, I think there is ample room to decide what that divinity means. I don't think though, for the purposes of classification within the constraints of a discussion, that you should push that to he was divine in the way that we are all somewhat divine. I think for discussing the group term 'Christian' one should really have belief in some sort of special divinity of Christ. Much in the same vein of the whole narrative of he died to absolve us of our sins.

[Martinus]

Like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?

I don't think I'd call them neo-Arian, no.

Fair, but they do AFAIK reject the trinity which was one of Sheilbh's definitions.

True and I disagree with trinity as the bar as I think Christ's divinity should be sufficient.

I agree. I would also add Resurrection as a prerequisite (although that may be part of the divinity).

[dps]

To be honest, I think that some (though not all) of the debates about the trinatarian or unitarian nature of Jesus basically boil down to semantics.

[Martinus]

To be honest, I think that some (though not all) of the debates about the trinatarian or unitarian nature of Jesus basically boil down to semantics.

Or spelling (homoousios vs. homoiousios).

[Jacob]

Certainly, I think there is ample room to decide what that divinity means. I don't think though, for the purposes of classification within the constraints of a discussion, that you should push that to he was divine in the way that we are all somewhat divine. I think for discussing the group term 'Christian' one should really have belief in some sort of special divinity of Christ. Much in the same vein of the whole narrative of he died to absolve us of our sins.

I think we're close enough that I can say we're in agreement

[Malthus]

I'm not sure that matters for this discussion though (as I don't think we are trying to discuss what various groups in the past used to consider Christianity or not). Standing at historical distance, there is still some measure of divinity to Christ even if that exact divinity and its origins are up for debate.

That strikes me is very different from groupings that don't consider Christ divine in any fashion.

To get right down to it, "Christianity" has always meant two things:

1 - Followers of the ethical and philosophical teachings attributed to the person of Jesus as revealed through writings such as the Gospels; and

2 - Believers in a certain set of beliefs about the nature of the person of that same Jesus (that he was born, crucified, and resurrected in what is now Israel; and that he was, in some way or another, God).

Not sure why only those who fall within (2) ought to be considered "Christians", and not those who fall within (1). Most people taking the label of "Christian" of course claim to fall in both categories, but it is perfectly possible for those following (1) to critique those following (2) as not being "true Christians" - indeed, that charge is sometimes laid: for example, at Catholics who demonstrate, in the Church, a certain lack of that meekness and rejection of wealth and ostentation that Jesus was alleged to preach.  No-one claims they don't literally believe in and worship Jesus - only that, in doing so, the Church as an organization has de-emphasized what Jesus was supposed to actually teach.

As for Nestorians and the like - it is just worthwhile to point out that debates over the content of (2) have a very ancient pedigree. 

[Malthus]

To be honest, I think that some (though not all) of the debates about the trinatarian or unitarian nature of Jesus basically boil down to semantics.

Or spelling (homoousios vs. homoiousios).

They just sound like a bunch of homos.


[Runs, hides  ]

[Jacob]

To be honest, I think that some (though not all) of the debates about the trinatarian or unitarian nature of Jesus basically boil down to semantics.

For sure.

But - as I was getting at a bit earlier - these sort of semantic arguments underpin a lot of in-group vs out-group definitions that often have real social, political, economical, etc impacts.

[alfred russel]

The attack on Nestorianism was exactly that they did not believe Christ was divine: that the person actually born of Mary was merely a human, though Christ had a divine (but fully separate) counterpart to hos nature. The implication was that the divinity was something that came to him or was conferred on him from God. Hence, Mary wasn't a "mother of God" in Nestorianism.

I think I read once (after discussing this on a road trip with Ide and looking up the details later), that the modern catholic church backed off this attack and has said the whole dispute was an unfortunate misunderstanding and about semantics and (then) contemporary politics.

[garbon]

I'm not sure that matters for this discussion though (as I don't think we are trying to discuss what various groups in the past used to consider Christianity or not). Standing at historical distance, there is still some measure of divinity to Christ even if that exact divinity and its origins are up for debate.

That strikes me is very different from groupings that don't consider Christ divine in any fashion.

To get right down to it, "Christianity" has always meant two things:

1 - Followers of the ethical and philosophical teachings attributed to the person of Jesus as revealed through writings such as the Gospels; and

2 - Believers in a certain set of beliefs about the nature of the person of that same Jesus (that he was born, crucified, and resurrected in what is now Israel; and that he was, in some way or another, God).

Not sure why only those who fall within (2) ought to be considered "Christians", and not those who fall within (1). Most people taking the label of "Christian" of course claim to fall in both categories, but it is perfectly possible for those following (1) to critique those following (2) as not being "true Christians" - indeed, that charge is sometimes laid: for example, at Catholics who demonstrate, in the Church, a certain lack of that meekness and rejection of wealth and ostentation that Jesus was alleged to preach.  No-one claims they don't literally believe in and worship Jesus - only that, in doing so, the Church as an organization has de-emphasized what Jesus was supposed to actually teach.

As for Nestorians and the like - it is just worthwhile to point out that debates over the content of (2) have a very ancient pedigree. 

But is that bold bit really that they aren't Christian or more that they aren't acting Christian or acting like bad Christians?

I would agree that I think both things are fairly important though the degree to which one adheres to both are somewhat flexible. I'm not sure though that if a person just wholly opts out of one of those two that I'd consider them Christian for the purposes of talking about what Christians believe as a group.

As was said earlier by B, don't really care how any individual choose to label themselves, of course. And I surely wouldn't go around telling someone whether they are Christian or not.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think Jesus being the son of God is absolutely central to being a Christian. In fact, from a Christian perspective, it is the main thing differentiating Christianity from both Islam and Judaism.

"Son of god" is a term of art in the OT referring to favored members of the Davidic line.  It is a messianic claim not a divine one. Of course trinitarian Christians choose to interpret it otherwise, however, the synoptics are more consistent with OT usage.

[Jacob]

As was said earlier by B, don't really care how any individual choose to label themselves, of course. And I surely wouldn't go around telling someone whether they are Christian or not.

For sure, but the second part is pretty significant. If you say "you know, you're not actually a Christian like you say you are" that rather puts a lie to the "I don't care how any individual choose to label themselves" part - even more so when you're in a society where being Christian or not is still fairly significant.

[Malthus]

I'm not sure that matters for this discussion though (as I don't think we are trying to discuss what various groups in the past used to consider Christianity or not). Standing at historical distance, there is still some measure of divinity to Christ even if that exact divinity and its origins are up for debate.

That strikes me is very different from groupings that don't consider Christ divine in any fashion.

To get right down to it, "Christianity" has always meant two things:

1 - Followers of the ethical and philosophical teachings attributed to the person of Jesus as revealed through writings such as the Gospels; and

2 - Believers in a certain set of beliefs about the nature of the person of that same Jesus (that he was born, crucified, and resurrected in what is now Israel; and that he was, in some way or another, God).

Not sure why only those who fall within (2) ought to be considered "Christians", and not those who fall within (1). Most people taking the label of "Christian" of course claim to fall in both categories, but it is perfectly possible for those following (1) to critique those following (2) as not being "true Christians" - indeed, that charge is sometimes laid: for example, at Catholics who demonstrate, in the Church, a certain lack of that meekness and rejection of wealth and ostentation that Jesus was alleged to preach.  No-one claims they don't literally believe in and worship Jesus - only that, in doing so, the Church as an organization has de-emphasized what Jesus was supposed to actually teach.

As for Nestorians and the like - it is just worthwhile to point out that debates over the content of (2) have a very ancient pedigree. 

But is that bold bit really that they aren't Christian or more that they aren't acting Christian or acting like bad Christians?

I would agree that I think both things are fairly important though the degree to which one adheres to both are somewhat flexible. I'm not sure though that if a person just wholly opts out of one of those two that I'd consider them Christian for the purposes of talking about what Christians believe as a group.

As was said earlier by B, don't really care how any individual choose to label themselves, of course. And I surely wouldn't go around telling someone whether they are Christian or not.

There are Protestant groups who hardly ever mention the NT, preferring the OT, and so have come into criticism for that. Historically, the Puritans spring to mind (one of the criticisms of them was that they were ""Judaizers").  According to their critics, they fell into the category of those who believe in the divinity of Jesus, but did not follow the actual teachings of Jesus (of course, hardly anyone does that.  But Puritans hardly even paid it lip service. ).   

[Sheilbh]

Quite. The Kirk springs to mind. A lot of their theology was based on the idea of a new covenant in Christ and to this day their symbol is the burning bush and the cross.

Similarly every time they have a row the opposing sides sign covenants etc.

[Valmy]

(one of the criticisms of them was that they were ""Judaizers").

Well Cromwell did allow Jews to live in England again.