Jesus' Wife?

[garbon]

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.

Well it is more like I don't actually consider you to be one. I wouldn't go around talking about this or making policy decisions on my opinion of that.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, FWIW, my take on IHShUH's "divinity" seems to be closest to the Nestorian one in that it's something that has happened to him later in his life. Where Nestorians and I probably differ is that (1) it was an endogenetic phenomenon, and (2) it was comparable to what happened to many others, including Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Pythagoras and Apollonyus of Tyana. However, each of them interpreted a powerful personal esoteric experience in universalistic terms, which resulted in the mistake of founding a religion. Does it make me a Christian heretic or a non-Christian?

[Valmy]

Well it is more like I don't actually consider you to be one.

Well you are wrong.

I wouldn't go around talking about this or making policy decisions on my opinion of that.

Huh. What sorts of policy decisions would be applicable if you were so inclined?

[Barrister]

Incidentally, FWIW, my take on IHShUH's "divinity" seems to be closest to the Nestorian one in that it's something that has happened to him later in his life. Where Nestorians and I probably differ is that (1) it was an endogenetic phenomenon, and (2) it was comparable to what happened to many others, including Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Pythagoras and Apollonyus of Tyana. However, each of them interpreted a powerful personal esoteric experience in universalistic terms, which resulted in the mistake of founding a religion. Does it make me a Christian heretic or a non-Christian?

It makes you a fruitcake Marti.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, FWIW, my take on IHShUH's "divinity" seems to be closest to the Nestorian one in that it's something that has happened to him later in his life. Where Nestorians and I probably differ is that (1) it was an endogenetic phenomenon, and (2) it was comparable to what happened to many others, including Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Pythagoras and Apollonyus of Tyana. However, each of them interpreted a powerful personal esoteric experience in universalistic terms, which resulted in the mistake of founding a religion. Does it make me a Christian heretic or a non-Christian?

It makes you a fruitcake Marti.

That's pretty rich coming from a religious person. But sadly underlines the chief criticism levied against your kind by atheists - that the only difference between you and someone like Dawkins is that he believes in one god less than you do.

[garbon]

Well it is more like I don't actually consider you to be one.

Well you are wrong.

I wouldn't go around talking about this or making policy decisions on my opinion of that.

Huh. What sorts of policy decisions would be applicable if you were so inclined?

That's what I'm saying - I'm not. I'm just having an internet discussion.

And no, sir, it is you, who is wrong.

[Jacob]

And no, sir, it is you, who is wrong.

Well then, you surely do go around telling people whether they're Christian or not in spite of claims to the contrary.

[Valmy]

That's what I'm saying - I'm not. I'm just having an internet discussion.

I am just curious what the policy implications would be if you were

And no, sir, it is you, who is wrong.

I will pray for you brother garbon.

[garbon]

And no, sir, it is you, who is wrong.

Well then, you surely do go around telling people whether they're Christian or not in spite of claims to the contrary.

I don't know replying back to V's retort qualifies as 'going around telling people whether they're Christian'. I think one probably needs to tell at least larger than n=1 at more than one venue.

[garbon]

I am just curious what the policy implications would be if you were

Maybe some sort of rules a la Euro food designations on who is allowed to use the term? I've no idea as I don't think there are really any policy implications - only noted as Jacob was on about 'Christian' societies where there would be implications/repercussions.

I will pray for you brother garbon.

I guess that can't hurt and can only help in the off chance that there is a god who gives a damn.

[Malthus]

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

Well Cromwell did allow Jews to live in England again.

He was hoping for financial advantage from the Jews of Amsterdam; but many of his Christian followers were hoping Jews would come to England, see how great Puritanism was, how similar it was to Judaism, and convert! 

[Razgovory]

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.

I believe that there are protestants who reject the trinity.  Jehovah Witnesses and Pentecostals.

[Sheilbh]

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

I think the trinity is key. It was the subject that most divided early Christians because if you have a divine Jesus how do you also have a divine God the Father? Once you accept the divinity of Jesus you are inevitably going to end up trying to establish the nature of a singular God in (at least) two places. It's why it wracked the early Christian world and why the great cry of Islam was the unity of God which was very receptively heard.

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.

No but that's separate. The early church councils I agree argue on key issues - but the importance of the church was already clear. St. Cyprian of the third century is the origin of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. My view, the view of the Catholic Church, of Orthodoxy, of 90% of Protestantism is that the definition of the church, in the broadest sense, is set by those councils though they may subsequently disagree in what that means. As has been pointed out a lot of those trinitarian and Christological issues were semantic but key at the time and influenced by the politics of the time. JPII broadly reconciled with the Nestorians for example and there is now a common Christological position between, at least, the biggest part of Western Christianity and the Oriental Churches.

But the very fact that the early councils are settling these contentious issues is because of the importance of the church.

Christianity was and has always been a communal faith - 'for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them'. The only other religion I know of with that sort of experience is Buddhism where the sangha, the Buddhist or monastic community, has always been a key element and you have a similar early history of, in their case, contentious competing monastic codes within the sangha being settled by councils. But the sangha is still a key element, however it can now be understood, to Buddhism as the church is to Christianity.

[Sheilbh]

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

Well Cromwell did allow Jews to live in England again.

He was hoping for financial advantage from the Jews of Amsterdam; but many of his Christian followers were hoping Jews would come to England, see how great Puritanism was, how similar it was to Judaism, and convert! 

This is a little unfair to Cromwell. That was seen as an advantage - though inevitably the merchants and traders were against competition. But I think it is easy to forget how heterodox and liberal Cromwell was religiously (to Protestants - and arguably Jews ). He fraternised and protected a number of groups that were seen by most Puritans and certainly by Anglicans as heretics. He was very fond of a number of Quakers, Adventists and Millenarians which I think is possibly closer to his own religious views than any form of strict Anglican or Presbyterian state Church. His main concern with religious freedom seems to be that it should be allowed to the maximum level without threatening state security/stability (hence anti-Catholic elites, but by many accounts more comfortable for everyday English Catholics). So I think a bigger issue for him was that he thought, in common with many of the other more extreme Protestants of his day, that the Jews needed to return to all countries - and especially England - so that they would then be converted by providence for the Second Coming

But I do also think that the Puritans, especially after regicide, see themselves as increasingly descendants of Israel. The idea of God stepping in to overthrow kings and empires mattered a lot and several of the many schemes of government were based directly on Old Testament precedent. See Cromwell's proposal for Parliament (the Barebone's Parliament) to have 70 members after the Sanhedrin. There's always that dichotomy in Cromwell's rule of a Puritan radical (which the Sanhedrin proposal is probably at the peak of ) and a constable of a parish trying to heal and set the nation. I think the return of the Jews is very much one of those areas of policy that is more from his radical faith than anything else.

[alfred russel]

No but that's separate. The early church councils I agree argue on key issues - but the importance of the church was already clear. St. Cyprian of the third century is the origin of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. My view, the view of the Catholic Church, of Orthodoxy, of 90% of Protestantism is that the definition of the church, in the broadest sense, is set by those councils though they may subsequently disagree in what that means. As has been pointed out a lot of those trinitarian and Christological issues were semantic but key at the time and influenced by the politics of the time. JPII broadly reconciled with the Nestorians for example and there is now a common Christological position between, at least, the biggest part of Western Christianity and the Oriental Churches.

But the very fact that the early councils are settling these contentious issues is because of the importance of the church.

Christianity was and has always been a communal faith - 'for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them'. The only other religion I know of with that sort of experience is Buddhism where the sangha, the Buddhist or monastic community, has always been a key element and you have a similar early history of, in their case, contentious competing monastic codes within the sangha being settled by councils. But the sangha is still a key element, however it can now be understood, to Buddhism as the church is to Christianity.

But this I think misses the dynamics of the church councils and the subsequent history. The church councils started when the roman empire began adopting christianity as the state religion. As you mention, there was a diversity of views at the time (which was already centuries into christian history). A non trivial motivation for the councils was to provide a coherent set of beliefs for the new state religion. If this process starts with Constantine in 325, then I think it is safe to say that a primary mover in christian history the next 1300 years (through at least the 30 years war) is the efforts to enforce the orthodoxy established through the church councils. This goes for both the orthodox churches and the catholic churches. It also applies to first protestant churches, that while splitting off from some teachings, accepted the early church councils (by and large). Protestant communities also often enforced an orthodoxy of their own.

There was a diversity of belief before Constantine, and increasingly after Constantine that diversity was coerced out of existence with support from the state. That state support continued until relatively recent times. Now that it has retreated, the diversity is returning (see Unitarians, for instance). The argument that there has historically been consensus after the early church councils, in that context, seems a bit limited.