Why would orthodox Christians consider Christian Science unorthodox if it essentially a mix of Augustine and healing?

Why is Christian Science considered unorthodox? 1. How is Mary Baker Eddy's neo-platonism different from Augustine's, Aquinas', Calvin's, Jonathan Edwards', *et. al.*? 1. How is her understanding of the Incarnation different from Scheiermacher's, Tillich's, Marcus Borg, *et al*? 2. How is her view of the sacraments different from the Quakers? From what I can see, Mrs. Eddy puts together perfectly orthodox views on evil as privation, matter as shadows, and Jesus as Wayshower--just like Meister Eckhardt--and then applies these doctrines to Christian healing. If evil is a privation of good and has no real existence, isn't the best way to approach healing to see disease as a privation and not real? Maybe Jesus healed by removing the shadows which distort our vision of our true nature as God's children. If God is Spirit, and we are in His Image and Likeness, then doesn't it follow that we are spirit, and not matter? I'm not sure why Christian Science is a heretical cult since it is rooted in many purely orthodox strands of Christianity, albeit put together in an original, insightful way. Why, then, is Christian Science considered unorthodox if it has orthodox views?