Go poke yourself!
(Can I say that on GD?)
Of course you can believe in the divinity of Christ without being a Christian. The reverse, however, is not true - not unless you (editorial) want to toss out the definition of Christian that we’ve been muddling along with since the 400s. Really, you might as well call yourself a poached egg.
Isn’t it at least arguable that Jesus Christ himself wouldn’t have regarded anybody as “Christian” unless they were circumcized and practised Judaism?
I personally wouldn’t put the Virgin Birth in quite such a key position, since, it seems to me, if one had never heard of the Virgin Birth (if the references to it in the Bible had been left out, for instance), one could still have all the rest of Christian belief pretty much unchanged.
The Wikipedia article on the Virgin Birth contains the following interesting assertion:
“Some Christians, rejecting orthodoxy, do not believe in the Virgin Birth. Research by many groups, including Christian researchers, indicates that among both the clergy and the laity (in all branches of Christianity) beliefs in central tenets of the faith such as Virgin Birth or bodily Resurrection is highly variable.”
That was an excelent post, PBear. I don’t think you even have to accept the Gospels as written, since obviously there were Christians before any Gospels were written, and many modern Christians don’t necessarily accept them “as written.”
My understanding (after putting in two years towards a Master’s Degree in theology at a major denominational seminary in the US) is that the oldest and most fundamental creed is “Jesus is Lord.” Anyone who sincerely professes that is a Christian, by mainstream historical concensus.
As for the type of Christian you would be if you believe that Jesus is Lord, but dissent from the divinity of Jesus or any other fundamental tenets of faith, the answer is that you would be a heretic. “Heretic” is something of a dirty word, on account of all the burning at the stake that went on once, but ti really shouldn’t be. Anyone who disagrees with the essential doctrinal teachings of the church is a heretic by defenition. Of course, since different denominations consider slightly different teachings to be essential, one man’s heretic may be another’s pillar of orthodoxy, but if you deny the divinity of Christ, you’re a heretic by pretty much anyone’s standard. (Unless you’re a non-Christian.)
Heresy used to be a big deal in every church, and techniaclly, I suppose it still is, but as a practical matter most churches aren’t that concerned about it any more and will cheerefully accept a wide range of heretical beliefs among their congregants (and an even wider range of beliefs if you’ll keep quiet about it and stop asking so many pointed questions right after the sermon when people are supposed to be singing.) As mentioned above, the Anglican Church pretty much led the way in this.
I think heresy really needs to be reclaimed as a theological concept, since without it we get into all these silly debates about whether you can be a Christian if… I don’t just mean “we” here at the SDMB. At the last church conference I went to the big issue was whether Mormons converting our denomination should be recognized as Christians or should be baptised as former heathens (how’s that for a theological dirty word?). Clearly Mormons are Christian, but equally clearly, they are heretical by the standards of any other denomination. We have 2000 years of precident in dealing with heretics, which (it turns out) don’t completely answer the question. But it sure would have helped to focus the discussion and avoid emotional arguments if we’d just recognized what we were dealing with.
As a disclaimer to the above, I’m no longer a Christian (which is why I never finished my Master’s Degree). I try to maintain a nicely balanced view on these things, though.
When V.B. is rejected, is this because one assumes Mary was not a virgin, though God was still “the Father”, or does one assume Joseph was the father? The barest logic of the Virgin Birth is Mary and Joseph were betrothed, would not be were Mary not a virgin, and that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, or else the Father would technically be Jospeh (I am aware of the paradox of tracing Jesus’ lineage to David through both Mary and Joseph, if Jesus was not in fact sired by him…I think that tension is revealing). I suppose God could become flesh any way He chose, being omnipotent and all, but the Evangelists and Paul obviously felt it was important that Jesus’ father be, in a very physically definite sense, God, that that he be born of a Virgin. I won’t rehash all the crucial theological reasons for that, but Virgin Birth goes back to the very beginning of distinctly Christian thought, and is at its core.
?
Paul does not mention the virgin birth at all (and only two of the four gospels do). The article I linked to earlier details the speculations as to why that might be, and what Paul actually knew/believed about the virgin birth.
Any uninvested reading of the Gospels make them mutually exclusive in many respects, so the fact that only Matt. and Luke deal with Mary’s virginity is obviously no more troubling theologically than the myriad other inconsitencies between them. Mark skips the infancy altogether, does not even mention Jospeh by name, and barely makes reference to Mary the mother. As Matt. and Luke are thought to have drawn from Mark, Q, and sources unique to Matt. and Luke, the Virgin Birth must have been a relatively early and widespread tradition, I should think. John might be more troubling, given the weight of importance he places on Jesus’ spiritual nature, but, again, he has nothing to say about Jesus’ early life, except that he’s the son of Joseph (Mary the mother is not even identified by name, whilst three other Maries are), and seems not concerned with it. What are we to make of the fact that Mark does not name Jospeh, and perhaps more remarkably, that John does not name Mary the mother? I make of it they felt no need to expound on that part of the tradition.
But the case of Paul is most interesting, both theologically, and historically, and you indeed point out a glaring error in my recollection.
Paul harps on, esp. in Romans, Christ’s divinity, e.g. he was born “in the likeness of sinful flesh”, but he’s also identified as the “seed of David”. You’re right, Paul makes no mention of the Virgin birth, and may even contradict it. Not sure why I remember it otherwise. I guess the divinity seemed so important to him that somewhere along the line I took it for granted he must have believed Mary to have been made pregnant through the miracle of the Holy Spirit. According to Luke (contradicting Matt., of course), Jesus is an ancestor of David through Mary as well as Joseph, but Luke comes some forty years after Paul’s letters, at any rate, so it’s difficult to draw from the Lukan tradition to speculate about what Paul may have understood. One would reasonably infer from the “seed of David” comment that to Paul, a Jew with a Jewish perspective, Jesus’ descent from King David was patrilineal.
In reflection, I guess it could be argued the Davidic lineage should be far more important for Jesus’ purported messianic role than any miracle of parthenogenesis, and it’s interesting only two Gospels seek to draw attention to it, given how old the notion must be. That those same two Gospels are the source of the Virgin Birth tradition makes it all the more interesting. I forget so much, including how fascinating these mysteries are.
Jesus himself was a Jew and the early church was more of a sect of Judaism. IIRC, this was an issue that Peter and Paul never came to agreement with; Peter believed one had to be a Jew, whilst Paul did not.
Personally, I believe Jesus was wholly man; however, I do believe he was the son of God as opposed to the loser interpretation proposed in the OP. I interpret Christianity to require several things, including that Jesus was the Messiah; I would assert that denying his divinity is mutually exclusive with accepting that he was the Messiah.
Oops…
Coincidentally, President Thomas Jefferson is another doubting Thomas who doubted the divinity of Christ. He considered himself a real Christian, so much that he fashioned his own bible by excising everything except what Jesus actually said. I believe it’s called the “Jefferson Bible” and you can find copies online. So if this is how you feel about the matter, you are in good company.
Jefferson excised the supernatural material, and attempted to reconstitute what was left in a way that avoided doctrine and dogma associated with said supernaturality. To determine what Jesus “actually” said, to the extent that is even possible, requires additional tools and criteria.
I believe that Jesus was who he keep saying he was: The Son of Man and The Son of God, but NOT God himself. I think he had a unique relationship with God and was perhaps the only ’ Son of God '. I don’t think we are all sons and daughters of God because the Bible says there are lots of people whose Father is Satan ( meaning they practice the ways of their Father Satan )
The Jehova ( sp?) Witnesses believe this too. I’m not one of them because I disagree with some of their other beliefs.
Believing this has definitly put me between a rock and a hard place because I
don’t fit in anywhere. However, over time I have found that many members of
many different denominations have differences of opinion on how they interpret
the scriptures, yet they are bonded together by their love of God.
Some pastors may tell you that you’re not a Christian if you don’t believe Jesus was God. Ridiculous ! A Christian is someone who TRIES to live their life
according to what that person believes Jesus and God would want them to.
So, if I were you, I’d keep figuring out what I believe ( by reading the Bible, if you believe it’s from God ) and looking into various denominations or the so-called Non-denominations. Warning : though research is definitly good, be careful of the
’ Paralysis by Analysis Pit '. I was in that a long time before I finally got out !