by Tarsonis Survivors » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:05 pm
by Salus Maior » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:51 pm
ShinChonJi wrote:
When it says the word became flesh, does it mean literal flesh? When Jesus said, you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, did Jesus mean literal flesh and literal blood? In Revelation 7:14, the great multitude washed their robes white in the blood of the Lamb. Did they wash the robes in literal blood of lamb? Is it even literal robes? We have to think about these things.
Revelation 4 and 5 is where John got taken up to Heaven. There he saw someone sitting on a throne (Rev 4:2), which is God. In Rev 5:6-7, we see a Lamb come and take a scroll from the person sitting on the throne. The Lamb, who looked like it was slain, is Jesus of course. So if Jesus is God, did God just pass a scroll to himself?
Acts 7:56, when Stephen was stoned and saw Heaven, he literally said he sees the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.
We have to understand what does Word mean. Does Word mean Jesus? If Word means Jesus, then you should be able to substitute "Jesus" in for whenever the word "Word" is used, and it will still make sense. Of course it doesn't. So what does Word mean?
Much like how reading the diary of Anne Frank lets you see someone's dreams, secrets, goals, mindset, etc. Seeing the diary of God, the Bible, lets us view his commands, wishes, will, goals, plan. But God doesn't have to write a Bible in order to have a plan. God has a plan first, and then he wrote the Bible later. God's plan for us existed in the beginning, so that means the Word was in the beginning.
The Word was God. It just means God's mindset is expressed through the Word, so whatever plan and Will we read from the Bible, is also the plan and Will of God, because the scripture is God breathed, and written by God himself. So I can say Anne's Diary IS Anne, because so much of Anne's will is captured in her diary.
He was with God in the beginning. Similar to how the Word was with God in the beginning, God already knew he had to sacrifice his Son to save man since the beginning of time, because God is all-knowing. So the "He" is the concept of the Son whom will be sacrificed.
Through him all things were made. Through Jesus, he was able to fulfill all of the prophecy written about him in the Old Testament, so Jesus made all those things happen, without leaving a single prophecy unfulfilled. And without Jesus nothing could have been made; the prophecies couldn't have been fulfilled.
Jesus was the light. The darkness was the Pharisees. They didn't understand that Jesus was the fulfillment of all the prophecies they so diligently study.
Word became flesh. Means the will and plan recorded in the Word became reality. The plan of Jesus coming finally happened after 600 years since the final prophecy was written about him in Malachi.
My explanation requires a lot of background study. If someone just gives the answer to a calculus question without showing how they got the answer, it's hard to accept easily if it's right or wrong. Moreover, it's hard to follow the steps of the calculus question if one doesn't know how to add or subtract. One needs to learn the basics of the Bible in order to understand more deeply.
by United Marxist Nations » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:55 pm
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Socialist Tera » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:56 pm
by United Marxist Nations » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:58 pm
Socialist Tera wrote:Just curious, what is the definition of heresy for you?
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Socialist Tera » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:59 pm
by Salus Maior » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:01 pm
by United Marxist Nations » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:04 pm
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:11 pm
Socialist Tera wrote:Just curious, what is the definition of heresy for you?
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Nordengrund » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:11 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:19 pm
Nordengrund wrote:Socialist Tera wrote:What made the iconoclasts wrong?
I don't see it as heresy, mainly because I come from a low-church evangelical background, so I'm used to unadorned churches.
Heresy is too strong of a word as it entails more than just an incorrect belief. Heresy is a belief that damns you to hell, like Gnosticism which denied the physical incarnation of Jesus. Or the Judaizers with their laws based salvation. Heresy either denies or downplays the divinity of Christ, or distorts the Gospel in some way. When you call something heresy, you are making a very serious charge. It isn't a word to be thrown around lightly.
Iconoclasm isn't really a heresy, but more of an overreaction where some Protestants wanted to distance themselves from the veneration of icons and believed all icons to be sinful, primarily based on the 10 Commandments. I don't see how iconoclasm distorts the Gospel or compromises Christ's divinity. I doubt it will jeopardize your salvation as I don't think Jesus will say "Depart from me since you refuse to have icons in your church/since you have icons in your church."
I'm not an iconoclast. I don't see icons as strictly necessary, but there's nothing wrong with having them.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Nordengrund » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Nordengrund wrote:
I don't see it as heresy, mainly because I come from a low-church evangelical background, so I'm used to unadorned churches.
Heresy is too strong of a word as it entails more than just an incorrect belief. Heresy is a belief that damns you to hell, like Gnosticism which denied the physical incarnation of Jesus. Or the Judaizers with their laws based salvation. Heresy either denies or downplays the divinity of Christ, or distorts the Gospel in some way. When you call something heresy, you are making a very serious charge. It isn't a word to be thrown around lightly.
Iconoclasm isn't really a heresy, but more of an overreaction where some Protestants wanted to distance themselves from the veneration of icons and believed all icons to be sinful, primarily based on the 10 Commandments. I don't see how iconoclasm distorts the Gospel or compromises Christ's divinity. I doubt it will jeopardize your salvation as I don't think Jesus will say "Depart from me since you refuse to have icons in your church/since you have icons in your church."
I'm not an iconoclast. I don't see icons as strictly necessary, but there's nothing wrong with having them.
The problem with that definition is that it ignores the many heresies the church has declared as such for many reasons, such as the Spiritual Franciscans.
by Tarsonis Survivors » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:32 pm
United Marxist Nations wrote:Serious question, should we change the poll to only include groups that accept the Trinity? There are some in it that don't, and the Trinity is such a core Christian doctrine that I am hesitant to call anyone who doesn't accept it a Christian, from a purely historical point of view.
by Jamzmania » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:34 pm
The Alexanderians wrote:"Fear no man or woman,
No matter what their size.
Call upon me,
And I will equalize."
-Engraved on the side of my M1911 .45
by Tarsonis Survivors » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:38 pm
by Nordengrund » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:43 pm
Jamzmania wrote:I generally don't use the term heresy or heretic when describing another person or their beliefs, primarily due to its historical and other connotations.
by Diopolis » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:46 pm
Socialist Tera wrote:Just curious, what is the definition of heresy for you?
by Socialist Tera » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:47 pm
Nordengrund wrote:Jamzmania wrote:I generally don't use the term heresy or heretic when describing another person or their beliefs, primarily due to its historical and other connotations.
Same.
I apply the Romans 14 approach where I won't judge another Christian about his beliefs as long as it doesn't compromise the Gospel of the doctrine of the Trinity. By labeling anything and everything we disagree with as heresy, we end up creating unnecessary division. Heresy tends to be the result of being too diverse to the point of sacrificing sound doctrine to try to appeal to as many people as possible, or being too dogmatic on non-essential issues to the point of being legalistic.
by Nordengrund » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:50 pm
Socialist Tera wrote:Nordengrund wrote:
Same.
I apply the Romans 14 approach where I won't judge another Christian about his beliefs as long as it doesn't compromise the Gospel of the doctrine of the Trinity. By labeling anything and everything we disagree with as heresy, we end up creating unnecessary division. Heresy tends to be the result of being too diverse to the point of sacrificing sound doctrine to try to appeal to as many people as possible, or being too dogmatic on non-essential issues to the point of being legalistic.
Are cathars Christians in your eyes?
by -Fahrong- » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:59 pm
by Salus Maior » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:00 pm
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:An extensive list of Christian heresies, their beliefs and refutations can be found here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... n_heresies
by -Fahrong- » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:02 pm
United Marxist Nations wrote:Serious question, should we change the poll to only include groups that accept the Trinity? There are some in it that don't, and the Trinity is such a core Christian doctrine that I am hesitant to call anyone who doesn't accept it a Christian, from a purely historical point of view.
by Salus Maior » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Socialist Tera wrote:Are cathars Christians in your eyes?
by Socialist Tera » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:06 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Socialist Tera wrote:Are cathars Christians in your eyes?
Not really, no.
Their Theology really doesn't make any sort of sense in the context of scripture and tradition. It just doesn't fit.
That being said, that doesn't mean they deserved to be slaughtered as they did in the Albigensian Crusade. Although it should be noted that they started the bloodshed by first murdering a Catholic clergyman (I forget what level clergy he was, he might have either been a Bishop or a Cardinal?).
by Athartha » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:19 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Socialist Tera wrote:Are cathars Christians in your eyes?
Not really, no.
Their Theology really doesn't make any sort of sense in the context of scripture and tradition. It just doesn't fit.
That being said, that doesn't mean they deserved to be slaughtered as they did in the Albigensian Crusade. Although it should be noted that they started the bloodshed by first murdering a Catholic clergyman (I forget what level clergy he was, he might have either been a Bishop or a Cardinal?).
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: CtarlCtarl, Dazchan, Fahran, Hypron, Lewayiin, Neanderthaland, Nu Elysium, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Senkaku, Shrillland, Stellar Colonies, The Black Forrest, The Lone Alliance, Umeria
Advertisement