joefromchicago wrote:Setanta wrote:If it gratifies you to quibble on such a basis, far be it from me to rain on your parade.
In the fine art of quibbling, you take second place to no one,
Setanta.
You're too humble--you ought not to deny your metier of avocation (to distinguish it from your profession).
Quote:Setanta wrote:However, rather than turning on the sprinklers, allow me to point out that you are peddling a particularist point of view. The first is that a "Christian" is one who must believe that Jesus is/was divine. The source word, usually rendered in Roman characters as khristos, simply means "the annointed one." Even extended to mean a savior, or messiah, that does no violence, necessarily, to the JW's position that salvation can only be attained through the intercession of Jesus. The Socinians, who claimed to base all of their theology and exegesis on an appeal to reason, held a similar view that Jesus was the "ur-creation" of God, and that a "creature" could not also be god. It appears to be the same position that the JW's take--that Jesus was the first creation of the deity, and not an aspect of the deity.
To require that Christ had to be "an aspect of the deity" in order to be considered divine is simply to adopt the Catholic position as being the correct position, and there's no basis for that (unless, of course, you're saying that the Catholics are always right on doctrinal matters). You're not addressing the question, you're merely begging it.
No, I'm not begging any questions. I'm simply pointing out what the theology of others seems to be saying--what it appears the JWs allege. If you don't want to agree with that, that's fine, it's no skin off my nose. I don't even have good reason to believe that the putative Jesus actually lived--i personally consider it about a fifty-fifty shot, with perhaps more weight to the side of someone whose reality was seriously warped to create the modern image of Jesus. In none of this am i asserting anything to be true, other than what i believe, based on my reading, to be the contentions of certain varieties of Christian theology and exegesis. This subject is sufficiently
uninteresting to me that i've not read anything on the subject for almost forty years--apart from going online to search the key words that i remember, to attempt to determine if my memory is correct. By and large, i have found that what i've read online today does no violence to what i remembered.
Quote:The Roman Catholic church would argue that Arianism denied the divinity of Christ because it denied the trinity. An Arian, of course, would disagree. Whether Christ was part of a trinitarian unity with god or was some sort of creation of god, however, does not affect his inherent divinity. So if Arians (or JWs) believe that Christ was begotten of god but not "of" god, then they can still be Christians as long as they believe that Christ was divine (i.e. having some aspect of deity).
I know of no good reason to assume that you are entitled to definitively state what the Roman Catholic Chruch would or would not argue, nor yet again the Arians. In the former, you may have a better opportunity to make such assertions, given that that crew is still in business--as to Arians, you will have no better sources than i or anyone else can find, as the likelihood is that the Muslim Berbers put the last of the Arians out of business more than 1300 years ago. I find it hilarious that you tell me that i cannot state what constitutes in what a Christian sect would consist, but that you can. I know of no reason to assume that you understand better the theological arguments of the Arians, the Socinians and the JWs (nor understand them any worse) than do i. As Xingu's quote demonstrates, there are certainly those who are willing to assert that a creation of the deity cannot in and of itself be divine. If you do not agree, that's fine, but it in now way is binding upon my understanding of the issue, so i will choose not to agree with you.
Quote:That, to my mind, is the minimum qualification for someone to be called a "Christian." If someone believes (as, I think, many Unitarians hold) that Christ was simply a teacher of morality, then that person can be many things but he cannot be a Christian.
It may surprise you to learn that what to your mind qualifies someone to be considered a Christian cannot be unquestionably stated to be definitively final. Ironically, however, this series of exchanges simply underlines the point i was making, which is that there is a decided variety of opinion among Christians, and those who are not or are no longer Christians, as to what it means to be a Christian.
Quote:Setanta wrote:I will simply refer again to:
The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:A heresy [Ariansism] which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
And I will simply repeat: that's begging the question.
You'll need to take that up with those responsible for the New Advent site.
