Jesus' Wife?

[Sheilbh]

I disagree, I think that Christology became the issue of church councils reflects the fact that it was now a state church and these issues of more abstract theology could be settled. The existence and regulation of an early church through councils pre-dates it though. Cyprian for example is leading councils of the North African church over what the position should be for apostates following Roman persecution. Though obviously they did also confront Gnostic heresies which again were testing what the boundaries of the Christian church were. The issues change from how to define and keep this community together against state persecution to establishing more of its core beliefs and, as I say, more abstract issues once it is secure. But the idea of the church - God's physical presence and community on earth - and the councils as a way of mediating differences of opinions pre-dates and is co-opted by Constantine.

I think this cacophony of views is largely a consequence of liberalism, consumerism and secularism, trends which also weakened state authority (one reinforcing the other). But I agree that there is a return to this diversity of views about Christ but I just think that returns us to the early, pre-Constantine Christianity issues of defining what Christianity is, what the church is and who is inside or outside of it. I certainly think that's a core element of the dilemma many modern churches - especially the Catholic Church - are facing. Should they stay in the world even if they are increasingly a lonely voice, or should they take the Benedict option and, like the monks, basically abandon the world and turn, as a community, to themselves?

[jimmy olsen]

A Christian is a person who practices a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

I would think that recognising divinity of Jesus Christ is also a prerequisite.

I was looking at wikipedia's page for nontrinitarianism. Of course it is wiki but of all the various beliefs/communities it outlines, it on quick read looks like only once you hit the modern beliefs/groups do you get groups denying Christ having some sort of divinity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs

What about Arianism?

[jimmy olsen]

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.

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.

If a Church added the Gospel of Thomas or some of the other apocrypha to their New Testament, or even replaced some of the canonical books with them, I would still consider them to be a Christian church. Certainly much more so than the Mormon church.

[The Minsky Moment]

I disagree, I think that Christology became the issue of church councils reflects the fact that it was now a state church and these issues of more abstract theology could be settled. The existence and regulation of an early church through councils pre-dates it though. Cyprian for example is leading councils of the North African church over what the position should be for apostates following Roman persecution.

Cyprian was active about 200 years after Jesus' death. There is little evidence of interest in Christology in the first century or so after the crucifixion.  There is no clear evidence of trinitarian theology in this period much less a dominant position. 

These issues really don't arise until Chrisitianity is large and organized enough to be a significant social force in particular regions, giving rise to demands for more formal governance.  By then Paul and the apostles were long gone as was anyone who knew them in their lifetimes, so there was broad freedom to enforce Christological positions without regard to what early Christians actually thought.p

[Martinus]

A Christian is a person who practices a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

I would think that recognising divinity of Jesus Christ is also a prerequisite.

I was looking at wikipedia's page for nontrinitarianism. Of course it is wiki but of all the various beliefs/communities it outlines, it on quick read looks like only once you hit the modern beliefs/groups do you get groups denying Christ having some sort of divinity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs

What about Arianism?

[Valmy]

What about Arianism?

What about it?

But the idea of the church - God's physical presence and community on earth - and the councils as a way of mediating differences of opinions pre-dates and is co-opted by Constantine.

I do not really see Constantine as an important doctrinal figure but rather a political one. I mean, after all, he was involved in calling the council that denounced Arianism but then he ended up being baptized by an Arian. Rather odd if you think he co-opted the council to enforce a certain view. Rather he just thought it was political important that the church not fight amongst itself. Councils was just how the church went about mediating disputes, and had done so since the beginning at least according to the New Testament.

Yet sometimes I will hear about how Constantine changed Christianity and made it evil or something. He barely had anything to do with it. I blame Dan Brown.

[Caliga]

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

Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".

Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense.  They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing.  It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.

[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...

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?

That is certainly the view Irenaeus held, which is why I made the reference 

The problem is, of course, who should define what should be "enforced".  The people wishing to create the enforceable definition in this thread have adopted the Catholic orthodox view.  The problem with that is, despite Sheilbh's protestations to the contrary, that view was never actually a universal view of all Christians at any point in history including our modern era.  It may have been the dominant view at times but that really just goes to the point Jacob has been trying to make throughout this thread.

[crazy canuck]

What about Arianism?

What about it?

But the idea of the church - God's physical presence and community on earth - and the councils as a way of mediating differences of opinions pre-dates and is co-opted by Constantine.

I do not really see Constantine as an important doctrinal figure but rather a political one. I mean, after all, he was involved in calling the council that denounced Arianism but then he ended up being baptized by an Arian. Rather odd if you think he co-opted the council to enforce a certain view. Rather he just thought it was political important that the church not fight amongst itself.

Yet sometimes I will hear about how Constantine changed Christianity and made it evil or something. He barely had anything to do with it. I blame Dan Brown.

You are oversimplifying in Brown type fashion 

While it is true that Constantine didnt really have a particular dog in that fight what he did want is the fight to end.  He wanted Christianity to be a unifying force in the empire and for that he needed Christianity to be unified.  A laudable goal but with significant unintended consequences - if we are to give Constantine the benefit of the doubt. 

[Valmy]

While it is true that Constantine didnt really have a particular dog in that fight what he did want is the fight to end.  He wanted Christianity to be a unifying force in the empire and for that he needed Christianity to be unified.  A laudable goal but with significant unintended consequences - if we are to give Constantine the benefit of the doubt. 

How do you figure? The doctrinal conflicts were already divisive and fierce long before Constantine wanted them resolved. Orthodoxy had long since won out. They were just hammering out the rough edges by this point.

[crazy canuck]

While it is true that Constantine didnt really have a particular dog in that fight what he did want is the fight to end.  He wanted Christianity to be a unifying force in the empire and for that he needed Christianity to be unified.  A laudable goal but with significant unintended consequences - if we are to give Constantine the benefit of the doubt. 

How do you figure? The doctrinal conflicts were already divisive and fierce long before Constantine wanted them resolved. Orthodoxy had long since won out. They were just hammering out the rough edges by this point.

This is another one of those times I wonder if we are speaking the same language. 

The fact the conflicts were divisive is the very reason he wanted to end those conflicts.  What point are you trying to make?  And I have no idea what you mean by "Orthodoxy had long since won out"  It took many more years after Constantine's intervention and several more emperors and much more blood shed before one could plausibly claim victory for what became orthodoxy.

Consider that there were about 7 such councils over about 400 years which reversed and then reinstated or restated the original creed.  Church history was anything but uniform and decisive from the time of Constantine.  So at least on that last point we agree.  Constantine didnt dictate what orthodoxy was.  That took at least another 400 years to fully establish.

[alfred russel]

How do you figure? The doctrinal conflicts were already divisive and fierce long before Constantine wanted them resolved. Orthodoxy had long since won out. They were just hammering out the rough edges by this point.

I don't think Orthodoxy had won out by the time of Constantine. For example, even a couple centuries after Constantine, Italy was under the rule of an Arian, for instance.

[Martinus]

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

Mart, when asking the question "do Unitarians believe in", the answer is always going to be "maybe" or "some do and some don't".

Unitarianism is really not a religion in the conventional sense.  They have no creed and everyone is welcome no matter what they believe, even if they believe in nothing.  It's really a community of like-minded individuals, not a religion proper.

Then I suppose a Unitarian can be a Christian - but Unitarianism is not a Christian "religion". That's akin to arguing whether Freemasonry is Christian - some Freemasons are Christians, but the set of beliefs per se is not.

[Valmy]

The fact the conflicts were divisive is the very reason he wanted to end those conflicts.

Right but his intervention didn't make them less or more so.

And I have no idea what you mean by "Orthodoxy had long since won out"  It took many more years after Constantine's intervention and several more emperors and much more blood shed before one could plausibly claim victory for what became orthodoxy.

Ok this is what I mean: Arianism and the others were extremely close to the Orthodox position. It is not like the nature of Christianity was being fought out here. They were fighting about details. The really serious divergent stuff had been long since rejected. Very important details to them for sure.

Consider that there were about 7 such councils over about 400 years which reversed and then reinstated or restated the original creed.  Church history was anything but uniform and decisive from the time of Constantine.  So at least on that last point we agree.  Constantine didnt dictate what orthodoxy was.  That took at least another 400 years to fully establish.

I am well aware. But I think the main point is that Constantine did not dictate nor did he seem to have a strong opinion on the specifics of Orthodoxy.

[Caliga]

Then I suppose a Unitarian can be a Christian - but Unitarianism is not a Christian "religion". That's akin to arguing whether Freemasonry is Christian - some Freemasons are Christians, but the set of beliefs per se is not.

Yeah, I think that's a good analogy.