Converting to Judaism in ancient times

[The Minsky Moment]

I think it's the necessary conclusion to any Christian belief system.  If faith is a core element of salvation, then surely error in faith leads to damnation? 

But this is really saying that Catholic (or whatever Christian sect one chooses to be the correct one) = Christianity which is not really helpful.  And even within catholicism there are ranges of tolerated diversity of opinion on some issues.

It isn't very difficult to imagine a counterfactual world where Arianism triumphs and the Athanasian position becomes a minority or even one where the issue never becomes a critical one theologically (it wasn't for the first couple hundred years of Christianity).  It seems odd to me to claim that in such world the Nicene position would amount to being "non-Christian", just like it seems odd to me to say that Arians, Monophysites or Nestorians (e.g.) aren't christian.

But then again, i am Jewish, and most Jews don't think about heresy in the same way.

[Sheilbh]

But this is really saying that Catholic (or whatever Christian sect one chooses to be the correct one) = Christianity which is not really helpful.  And even within catholicism there are ranges of tolerated diversity of opinion on some issues.

But I think that's basically the position most Churches would take, not just the Catholic one.  And I think it's a logical position if you believe, as all Christians do, that belief is a core part of what's required for salvation.

But then again, i am Jewish, and most Jews don't think about heresy in the same way.

Well yeah, my understanding is that Judaism and Islam have generally regulated themselves with laws and, to some extent, legal traditions.  All Christian churches would, I think, emphasise belief over laws and have regulated themselves through a number of creeds that are the core beliefs of Christianity and other supplementary beliefs that are necessary for salvation.

Why not? There were churches that believed in the divinity of christ before the council. Why would they suddenly change?

Because the authority of the Church in an ecumenical council had declared that the divinity of Christ is a Christian belief.  From that point, in terms of all Christian Churches descended from Nicaea, you can't have Christianity without the divinity of Christ.  You have something else. 

Ironically I think the most Arian looking Church is probably the Roman Catholic because they really emphasise Christ the man: the suffering, the mother, the sacrifice.  I think those are probably the elements that a religion that believed Christ was not God, was just the son of God, the most perfect man would be interested in.

[The Minsky Moment]

It can also be pointed out that a rule of reognition based on the Nicene Creed has the odd effect that there is no way to ascertain whether the disciples were Christians, and in fact there is sound basis to speculate that based on that definition they were not.

[Maximus]

Because the authority of the Church in an ecumenical council had declared that the divinity of Christ is a Christian belief.  From that point, in terms of all Christian Churches descended from Nicaea, you can't have Christianity without the divinity of Christ.  You have something else. 

I'm starting to get the feeling you're not reading what I'm saying. You can't really classify sects as nicene or non-nicene in a world where Nicaea does not exist. Of course we have no way of knowing what such a world would look like, except by looking at the situation before Nicaea. In that case we have various sects, some of which believed in christ as divine and some which did not.

In any case, my assertion had nothing to do with the creed, and everything to do with the secular authority that the council represented and the secular power that the churches descending from it wielded.

[Valmy]

Sheilbh was saying that without Nicaea there would be no church.

I find it very very hard to beleive that during a time when political power and religion were wrapped up together that somehow the Romans would have embraced Christianity and not have it attain some sort of power of some kind.

So something like Nicaea would have happened or the Roman Empire would not have converted.  For one of those to happen and not the other seems incredibly unlikely.  Perhaps the Christians would have remained a minority inside a larger pagan empire?  Sol Invictus or Mithras becomes the dominant religion?

[Sheilbh]

It can also be pointed out that a rule of reognition based on the Nicene Creed has the odd effect that there is no way to ascertain whether the disciples were Christians, and in fact there is sound basis to speculate that based on that definition they were not.

Oh yeah.  I mean there's a million problems with imposing modern Christian teaching on the Early Church. 

My point in terms of recognition is that I think every Christian Church, even non-trinitarian ones, would probably consider the divinity of Christ a necessary part of Christianity.  I'd say it's the basis of all other Christianity.

I'm starting to get the feeling you're not reading what I'm saying. You can't really classify sects as nicene or non-nicene in a world where Nicaea does not exist. Of course we have no way of knowing what such a world would look like, except by looking at the situation before Nicaea. In that case we have various sects, some of which believed in christ as divine and some which did not.

But we don't live in such a world.  In our world for 1700 years the divinity of Christ has been the basis of Christianity and I believe is a core part of it.  There may be a million and one Churches in a non-Nicene world that don't believe in the incarnation but, as I've said, I can't see how they can be considered Christian in the sense that we understand Christianity.  They would resemble one of the plethora of odd Christ-inspired sects in the Levant before the Ecumenical Councils started.

[Maximus]

Alright, I'm out

[Valmy]

Alright, I'm out

Darn and I was coming around to your point to.

[PRC]

My point in terms of recognition is that I think every Christian Church, even non-trinitarian ones, would probably consider the divinity of Christ a necessary part of Christianity.  I'd say it's the basis of all other Christianity.

Mormons believe Christ is divine, by your definition they're Christian - yet you've also stated in this thread that they're not.

[The Minsky Moment]

It can also be pointed out that a rule of reognition based on the Nicene Creed has the odd effect that there is no way to ascertain whether the disciples were Christians, and in fact there is sound basis to speculate that based on that definition they were not.

My point in terms of recognition is that I think every Christian Church, even non-trinitarian ones, would probably consider the divinity of Christ a necessary part of Christianity.  I'd say it's the basis of all other Christianity.

Arianism does not deny the divinity of Christ; it merely denies his consubstantiality with God (the Father) and his eternality (Arianism posits Jesus was created).  Thus, it does not deny what I see as the core claims of Christianity: that Jesus is (a) the promised Messiah, (b) the "son of God" and hence a divine being, and (c) the ressurection.

Moreoever, it appears that the Early Church was hostile to the concept of consubstantiality, which was associated with gnosticism., and indeed the concept was condemned in pre-Nicene councils.  In this sense Nicaea represented a kind of backtracking.  My own 2 cents is that Arianism is more philosophically robust than the Nicene creed because it is extremely difficult to explain the true nature of Christ's suffering on the Cross (another essential attribute of Christianity) while maintaining constubstantiality.  Not to mention that the notion of resurrection presumes some kind of prior actual death and is also very difficult to square with consubstantiality.  This is a fundamental problem that has dogged Christian theology since Nicaea.  Athanasius, who was not particularly well-learned in philosophical methods, and frankly comes off from the historical accounts as a bit of a thug and a rabble-rouser, did not seem to be overly concerned with such nicities but he left his theological heirs with a very knotty problem.

[Maximus]

I find it very very hard to beleive that during a time when political power and religion were wrapped up together that somehow the Romans would have embraced Christianity and not have it attain some sort of power of some kind.

So something like Nicaea would have happened or the Roman Empire would not have converted.  For one of those to happen and not the other seems incredibly unlikely.  Perhaps the Christians would have remained a minority inside a larger pagan empire?  Sol Invictus or Mithras becomes the dominant religion?

Possibly.

To what extent was the empire religious pre-Constantine? I have this, possibly incorrect, impression that religion didn't play much of a role in Roman government prior to that.

[Sheilbh]

Mormons believe Christ is divine, by your definition they're Christian - yet you've also stated in this thread that they're not.

I don't think Mormons are Christian.  I'm roughly were Mike Huckabee is, 'I think it's a religion, I really don't know much about it.  Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?'

I'll return later to read your post properly JR.

[viper37]

Mormons believe Christ is divine, by your definition they're Christian - yet you've also stated in this thread that they're not.

don't they also believe in some prophet(s)?

If so, I'm just wondering how they can be christians... It's like believing in Christ and at the same time believing in Ares.

[Valmy]

To what extent was the empire religious pre-Constantine? I have this, possibly incorrect, impression that religion didn't play much of a role in Roman government prior to that.

There was no distinction between government and religion before Christianity.  The Priesthoods were important political posts during the Republic (and Empire for that matter) and of course every Emperor was a God or would become one once he died.  The workings of the magistrates and the like was always steeped in supersitition and religious reverance.

I think it is useful to understand that Christianity converted to Roman Empirism as much as the Roman Empire converted to Christianity.

[PRC]

I don't think Mormons are Christian.  I'm roughly were Mike Huckabee is, 'I think it's a religion, I really don't know much about it.  Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?'

Key words: "I really don't know much about it."  It seems like you change the goal posts when it comes to allowing that Mormons are Christian... 

My point in terms of recognition is that I think every Christian Church, even non-trinitarian ones, would probably consider the divinity of Christ a necessary part of Christianity.  I'd say it's the basis of all other Christianity.

They believe Christ is divine.  Are you the love child of Joyce McKinney and Kirk Anderson or something?