Jesus' Wife?

[Tamas]

My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?

I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?

Because of the nature of the scriptures. They are all interpretations of events, written with a particular agenda in mind. So you have to coax out spiritual lessons and truth from them. There does not exist a Christian sect that does not do that, so I guess therefore there are no Christians?

But if it was written with a particular agenda in mind, what is your yardstick to decide which parts are the "chrome" and fliff-fluff, and which are actual declarations about the nature of our world and God?
How can you consider ANY part of the book to have ANY relation to reality?

[Valmy]

Christ's divinity has been a pretty core tenet to most adherents though, no?

I suppose. But only because a certain perspective won out back in the day. I have already given my interpretation on this but Berkut informed me it was an unacceptable cop out

[garbon]

My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?

I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?

Because of the nature of the scriptures. They are all interpretations of events, written with a particular agenda in mind. So you have to coax out spiritual lessons and truth from them. There does not exist a Christian sect that does not do that, so I guess therefore there are no Christians?

But if it was written with a particular agenda in mind, what is your yardstick to decide which parts are the "chrome" and fliff-fluff, and which are actual declarations about the nature of our world and God?
How can you consider ANY part of the book to have ANY relation to reality?

This strikes me as a bizarre line of questioning given that the history of Christianity is about people determing/deciding what makes sense to pull out of its book.

[garbon]

Christ's divinity has been a pretty core tenet to most adherents though, no?

I suppose. But only because a certain perspective won out back in the day. I have already given my interpretation on this but Berkut informed me it was an unacceptable cop out

I must have missed that. The only part I recall you saying was something about trinitarian vs. nontrinitarian but it seems like even most nontrinitarians still thought of Jesus as in some way divine (even if his divinity wasn't from birth but something that came later).

[Martinus]

This strikes me as a bizarre line of questioning given that the history of Christianity is about people determing/deciding what makes sense to pull out of its book.

That may be true but both you and Valmy make the same mistake of seeing all these parts as equivalent.

Firstly, the actual composition of the Bible in terms of which books are in and which are out has been pretty much set since the 4th century, so it is not like parts were added or removed willy-nilly every few years or so.

Secondly, while Christians indeed ignore or "reinterpret" some parts of the books, there is still a rather strict hierarchy in what can go out and what cannot. Generally, the Old Testament is considered most malleable, as it is seen as applying to a different covenant. But on the other hand, the New Testament, especially the gospels, are seen as sacrosanct - I can't think of a single part of the gospels that any Christian sect or church considers to be inapplicable or obsolete.

[Tamas]

My issue is that if you decide to ignore a part of the supposed holy book of your religion as being nonsense, like the divinity of Jesus, how can you then go ahead and consider other parts as true and correct?

I mean, I know the answer, because you personally happen to agree with those parts, but that's a bit of a stretch to build such a monumental thing as a religion on now, isn't it?

Because of the nature of the scriptures. They are all interpretations of events, written with a particular agenda in mind. So you have to coax out spiritual lessons and truth from them. There does not exist a Christian sect that does not do that, so I guess therefore there are no Christians?

But if it was written with a particular agenda in mind, what is your yardstick to decide which parts are the "chrome" and fliff-fluff, and which are actual declarations about the nature of our world and God?
How can you consider ANY part of the book to have ANY relation to reality?

This strikes me as a bizarre line of questioning given that the history of Christianity is about people determing/deciding what makes sense to pull out of its book.

Which is my point: religion is irrational and silly and smells way too much of human insecurities to be true

[Valmy]

But if it was written with a particular agenda in mind, what is your yardstick to decide which parts are the "chrome" and fliff-fluff, and which are actual declarations about the nature of our world and God?
How can you consider ANY part of the book to have ANY relation to reality?

I consider it all very important as it is all statements about people's subjective spiritual experience. It is a spiritual book Tamas not a science book. So its 'relation to reality' is a little...I mean we are not reading to learn how to build bridges or figure out the air speed of a laden European swallow. It seems to miss the point somehow.

I mean we are talking about a fundamentally irrational part of human experience. But an extremely important part.

[Valmy]

Which is my point: religion is irrational and silly and smells way too much of human insecurities to be true

Sure? But it has a powerful and important pull on us. We should strive to make it a force for good.

[Martinus]

Which is my point: religion is irrational and silly and smells way too much of human insecurities to be true

That's just silly (and the "dismissive atheist" shtick is really so 1990s). The thing here is not whether something makes sense or not. We are simply discussing what constitutes a Christian religion.

It is perfectly possible to interpret the Bible in an allegorical way, believe in a divine principle (or some other form of godhead) and consider Jesus to be one (or the first and foremost) of human prophets and mystics. Many mystics, deists, freemasons and students of esoterics have done so. But you are not a Christian when you do so.

[Josephus]

We can debate this until the end of time and then, maybe, have  a resolution, depending on what actually happens then.

A Christian is a disciple of Christ. I think we can all agree on this. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ. The problem, of course, is that over 2,000 years what the teachings of Christ actually are, is up for interpretation. Thus anybody who believes they are following Christ can call himself a Christian.

As a Catholic, of course, I think all you proddies are going to hell.

[crazy canuck]

That word means something to most people, it is short hand for a set of beliefs that we generally assume that people who call themselves "Christian" share. That set includes, traditionally, a belief in the special divinity of Jesus Christ, that he was a unique and divine being whose purpose and actions resulted in the actual salvation of humankind (at least those who accept him), and that he was the actual son of god.

Behold Berkut, the second coming of Irenaeus, keeper of the faith, defender of orthodoxy and champion against heresy.

BB was correct, you are attacking Valmy's beliefs based on what you say "we" generally assume Christians believe.  Iranaeus would be pleased to know that his work was so successful that an atheist in 2016 would be championing orthodoxy.  Well, not so sure about him being happy about you being an atheist...

[Martinus]

That word means something to most people, it is short hand for a set of beliefs that we generally assume that people who call themselves "Christian" share. That set includes, traditionally, a belief in the special divinity of Jesus Christ, that he was a unique and divine being whose purpose and actions resulted in the actual salvation of humankind (at least those who accept him), and that he was the actual son of god.

Behold Berkut, the second coming of Irenaeus, keeper of the faith, defender of orthodoxy and champion against heresy.

BB was correct, you are attacking Valmy's beliefs based on what you say "we" generally assume Christians believe.  Iranaeus would be pleased to know that his work was so successful that an atheist in 2016 would be championing orthodoxy.  Well, not so sure about him being happy about you being an atheist...

But at the same time, shouldn't there be some logical boundaries for what words mean and ones that should be "enforced" in a discussion?

I mean, what if I said that I consider myself Christian, even though I don't believe in the biblical God, I think the Bible is a load of rubbish, I think Jesus never existed, but if he did he would have been a cool dude. I also believe in Zeus and Thor.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, given that "Christ" is a title, in order to follow the teachings of "Christ", you have to believe him to have been the "Christ", i.e. saviour and redeemer. If you think he was just a human prophet, then you do not believe Jesus was a "Christ", thus cannot say you are following teachings of "Christ" and thus are not a "Christian".

[garbon]

That word means something to most people, it is short hand for a set of beliefs that we generally assume that people who call themselves "Christian" share. That set includes, traditionally, a belief in the special divinity of Jesus Christ, that he was a unique and divine being whose purpose and actions resulted in the actual salvation of humankind (at least those who accept him), and that he was the actual son of god.

Behold Berkut, the second coming of Irenaeus, keeper of the faith, defender of orthodoxy and champion against heresy.

BB was correct, you are attacking Valmy's beliefs based on what you say "we" generally assume Christians believe.  Iranaeus would be pleased to know that his work was so successful that an atheist in 2016 would be championing orthodoxy.  Well, not so sure about him being happy about you being an atheist...

It isn't really orthodoxy though. There are so many divergent beliefs and sects within thought that Christ was divine.

[Sheilbh]

Agreed. Berk is right. The church (the bride of Christ) matters, not personal identity (this isn't gender for God's sake) and the beliefs of the church were clarified by the early councils. If you are outside of that you're not a Christian, you're outside the church.

So, sorry unitarians (heretics), Mormons (heathenish heretics) and all the rest, but it's been pretty clear for 1800 years, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity you'd be better off trying to get associate membership ofa the ummah than the church.