Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Farnhamia]

This is the eighth version of the Christian discussion thread, where participants can discuss Christianity in general, the differences between the denominations, general comparative theology (both within and without Christianity), Church history, and many other topics.

While discussion naturally covers a broad range of themes, members of the moderation team (including those participating in the thread), may occasionally gently suggest that some topics might be best taken to a separate thread; this will usually only occur when a subject is itself the subject of discussion in recurring separate NSG threads and would risk dominating this thread if discussed here (examples include, but are not limited to, abortion, homosexuality, and/or the existence of the historical Jesus).

Mod Edit: Link to the last one: viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=20&t=373639

[Salus Maior]

Eh, continuing this from the previous thread.

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.

Well, I've got a few issues with your thesis here.

1. The Bible was not written by God. It was written by the Apostles, the Prophets of the Old Testament, and Paul and those who worked with Paul.

2. When it was written "all Scripture is God-Breathed" (or God-Inspired in some versions), some of the books of the New Testament were not even written yet, and the Bible was most definitely not compiled yet. So the "scripture" mentioned might not even include the Gospels. Therefore, they were likely talking about Jewish scripture.

3. The verses I posted very clearly noted that 'the Word' mentioned by the Apostle John is in fact Jesus.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.[i]

Note that John notes that the 'Word" in the context of John 1 is 'he', and then proceeds to say that we have seen 'his' glory, the Son who came from the Father. Continued into 15-18...

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

In 18 it is again made clear as day, that the Son, Jesus, is himself God.

As for the revelation verse stating that God is basically handing the scroll to Himself, yes, He is.

The thing is we cannot fully comprehend God's nature. But we know that Jesus is the Son, and the Son is also God as revealed to us in this verse and others.

Maybe St. Patrick can explain it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

[United Marxist Nations]

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.

[Socialist Tera]

Just curious, what is the definition of heresy for you?

[United Marxist Nations]

Just curious, what is the definition of heresy for you?

Incorrect view.

[Socialist Tera]

Just curious, what is the definition of heresy for you?

Incorrect view.

What made the iconoclasts wrong?

[Salus Maior]

Incorrect view.

What made the iconoclasts wrong?

They were destroying religious art out of fear of Muslims, when said art was considered fine by previous church councils.

[United Marxist Nations]

What made the iconoclasts wrong?

They were destroying religious art out of fear of Muslims, when said art was considered fine by previous church councils.

^This

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Just curious, what is the definition of heresy for you?

Formal theological error, for the most part.

You can be theologically wrong on many points out of ignorance, and that's not necessarily heresy.

However, once you know what the church teaches and you find it wrong, you enter heretical ground.

[Nordengrund]

Incorrect view.

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.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

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.

[Nordengrund]

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.

I don't really see how they were heretics. It looks like the embraced poverty and asceticism and the problems with the church hierarchy then. The RCC was criticized by various sects even before the Reformation with the Waldensians (IIRC correctly began in the 12th century) It also looks like voluntary poverty and asceticism would be something to commend as it shows such people aren't materialistic or overly attached to physical things.

Now if the Spiritual Franciscans taught poverty as a requirement for being a true Christian, then I can see how that is heretical.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

From an insiders standpoint sure, but from an academic perspective that wouldn't be the case. And since the site, at least in theory, tries to remain objective, they remain on the poll


Edit: unless papa Arch storms in, belt in hand and tells us we're all wrong.

[Jamzmania]

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.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

An extensive list of Christian heresies, their beliefs and refutations can be found here


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... n_heresies

[Nordengrund]

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.

[Diopolis]

Just curious, what is the definition of heresy for you?

Heresy is obstinate denial of theological truths after they have been dogmatically defined by the church and the individual has been corrected by the requisite authority. The latter part is important.

[Socialist Tera]

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.

Are cathars Christians in your eyes?

[Nordengrund]

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?

Idk much about it. They don't seem like it they have some Gnostic teachings and some Marcion influences.

[-Fahrong-]

That new thread smell.

[Salus Maior]

An extensive list of Christian heresies, their beliefs and refutations can be found here


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... n_heresies

Triclavianism seems rather...Unimportant and nit-picky?

What does it matter how many nails were used in Jesus's crucifixion?

[-Fahrong-]

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.

Glares over at JW's.

[Salus Maior]

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?).

[Socialist Tera]

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?).

Do you think they could of spread and become a threat to catholics?

[Athartha]

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?).

Blessed Pierre de Castelnau was an Archdeacon and Papal Legate. He later became a Cisterician Monk and first inquisitor of Viviers and Montpellier. His death lead to the Albigensian Crusade.