Jesus' Wife?

[Malthus]

There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.

Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.

No, but they reject the "early Church Councils" - specifically, that of Chalcedon - which we have been told are the standard for Christianity.

Nestorianism is still around, and it rejects Christ as being divine himself (Christ has a fully human nature, in which dwelt a divinity - the main controversy was that Nestorus denied Mary thev title of "God-bearer" because Christ was human). Are they "Christian"?

[Jacob]

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.

[Martinus]

If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinity

Well if there was some sort of neo-Arian movement, I'd think that would still be broadly described as Christian.

Like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?

I think generally none of them are considered Christian.

Same with gnostics - many gnostic sects recognised teachings of Jesus in some form - none of them were "Christian".

[Martinus]

By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?

[Valmy]

By the way, Valmy, do Unitarians believe in Resurrection?

Well I don't speak for everybody but I personally do not believe in the literal interpretation of that, no.

And by the way I do not reject Christ's divinity at all. I just don't think it was a unique feature. But I seem to need a very specific definition and interpretation to be properly categorized

It is weird that something like divinity, which has no observable existence, has such a narrow definition.

[dps]

Valmy, I'd still like to here your take on the Apostles' Creed, and whether or not you would subscribe to it.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to "test" you to see if you're a Christian, I'm just interested in your take on the subject.

[Martinus]

Ok sorry but if you don't believe in Resurrection, you are not a Christian. It was Jesus's UA.

[alfred russel]

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.

The early church councils don't establish 1800 years of history, it is more like ~1500-1691, and the current bible wasn't established until some point between those dates, and arguably after. The doctrine of the trinity was still being established through the early church councils which start the dates I gave.

It is commonplace to refer to previous (now extinct groups) with differing points of view prior or concurrent with the councils as christians (such as arians). As has been pointed out, the nestorians that have survived are still considered christians.

[garbon]

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.

[garbon]

There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.

Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.

No, but they reject the "early Church Councils" - specifically, that of Chalcedon - which we have been told are the standard for Christianity.

Nestorianism is still around, and it rejects Christ as being divine himself (Christ has a fully human nature, in which dwelt a divinity - the main controversy was that Nestorus denied Mary thev title of "God-bearer" because Christ was human). Are they "Christian"?

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.

[The Brain]

Dolph killed Apostle Creed in Jesus IV.

[Jacob]

Yeah, that's the Catholic point of view, for sure, and Catholics have killed plenty of people to reinforce it.

The surprising thing is that Berkut has decided that the Catholic Church's dogma on this particular subject is objectively correct when applied to non-Catholics.

Isn't that also a Protestant stance?

Most protestants, yes, but it seems not all. Including Unitarians, of course. I mean, if you make Trinitarianism the defining test for Christianity, then of course people who do not believe in the trinity are not Christian. That then excludes Nestorians, Arians et. al. On the other hand, if you include Nestorians and Arians, then I'd think you'd also have to include JW, Unitarians, Mormons etc - or find some grounds other than belief in the triune godhead as the defining characteristic.

[Jacob]

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".

[Malthus]

There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.

Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.

No, but they reject the "early Church Councils" - specifically, that of Chalcedon - which we have been told are the standard for Christianity.

Nestorianism is still around, and it rejects Christ as being divine himself (Christ has a fully human nature, in which dwelt a divinity - the main controversy was that Nestorus denied Mary thev title of "God-bearer" because Christ was human). Are they "Christian"?

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.

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.

Nestorianism was denounced at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and Nestorius was excommunicated because the council accused him of teaching that Christ was only a human being.

http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/nestorianism-heresy-early-church-5358.html

So, according to the "Early Church Berkuts" ( ), Nestorianism was subject to exactly the same criticism as Valmy was in this thread: not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

[garbon]

There still exist Monophysities. Are they "Christian"? They reject the Council of Chalcedon - accepted by modern Catholics and Protestants alike.

Not seeing a rejection of Christ's divinity there.

No, but they reject the "early Church Councils" - specifically, that of Chalcedon - which we have been told are the standard for Christianity.

Nestorianism is still around, and it rejects Christ as being divine himself (Christ has a fully human nature, in which dwelt a divinity - the main controversy was that Nestorus denied Mary thev title of "God-bearer" because Christ was human). Are they "Christian"?

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.

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.

Nestorianism was denounced at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and Nestorius was excommunicated because the council accused him of teaching that Christ was only a human being.

http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/nestorianism-heresy-early-church-5358.html

So, according to the "Early Church Berkuts" ( ), Nestorianism was subject to exactly the same criticism as Valmy was in this thread: not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

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.