Bible Ironic.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

The most ironic thing has made itself very clear to me, while studying the Gnostic philosophical theology. The Gnostics had these dippidy-doo ideas of God, creation, resurrection, man, Heaven, and so on, which were heretical to the early Church--Christianity. Some believe that the Gnostics were militant Jewish rebels starting a new religion that would go against the establishment. Iraneus set out to put a stop to such heresy. This author's book I'm reading makes the claim that the early "inspired" Scriptures were written in such a way that it destroyed the gnostic philosophies out of the public acceptance.

My flash of light comes to me in the realization that today's Protestants are reading the Bible with blinders on both eyes. The Catholic Church pretty much edified Christianity and filtered out all of those heresies. Protestants make the idiotic claim that the Church itself is a heresy to Christianity. The carefully composed Scriptures are inspired and maintain the true Gospels of Christ. Protestants are rejecting that inspired Bible and the truth of the Gospel. It is so ironic that Protestantism embraces the Bible, but condemns the Church of its Source(the early Church). I am speaking about the complete Holy Bible.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2003

Answers

Rod, what is heresy?

Rod, today's faithful becomes tommorow's heretic. The Church of 49 AD asked Gentiles to abstain from blood. The Gentiles made their own Church. Later known as the catholic Church.

The Church of 325 anathemized the arrian belief which was more common then.

This nicean belief was then supplemented by the 431 Ad when Nestorians were kickout.

This belief then was supplemented by the 2 natures in 451. Syrians, Armenians and Copts were out.

1054 made the final break between Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Orthodox only have paintins(icons). Romans have statues.

Trent recognized the Deuterocanonicals in 1570. Protestants were out.

1870 recognized the infallibility of the Pope, Old catholics were out.

1962, the Church introduces the common languages instead of Latin. The traditionalists like our friends Jake, Emerald, and Regina are now out.

What's next.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2004.


Interesting observation and assesment, especially on the 1962 timeline.

I read a pamphlet offered by the Catholic Church about returning back to the Church. The reasons given were presented in a very light hearted non-threatening style, much like the Protestant New Age styles. Of course, the non-threatening tone is an obvious method for bringing in the "lost sheep", but guys like us can't understand the superficial tactics when some "wounds" are far reaching into our bones. I do wish to return. The time shall be right when I step in. Times have changed considerably; it ain't my father's church anymore. I'm afraid that some of that "traditionalist" label may have more meaning to me than I thought.

I think you know where I'm coming from, Elpidio.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2004.


"today's faithful becomes tommorow's heretic"

this is spin, elpidio.

today's heretics are tommorow's heretics

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 28, 2004.


put it another way, Elp, do you honestly think the Apostles spent much time on the filioque?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 28, 2004.

Ian, Taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.

I. DOGMATIC MEANING OF FILIOQUE

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, the double Procession of Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration. The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it doesnot seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites. In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constatinople (858), denied the Procession of Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism. The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even to-day the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

This shows Ian, that Filioque was not a biblical truth. It took councils over 1000 years later to hold thisbelief.

Even today the Orthodox hold that only the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father.

Who are he heretics: The Roman Catholics or the Orthdox Catholics?

Is the Catholic Church the heretical Church for not following the decsions of the Frst council of Jerusalem in AD 49?

We re all heretics, then, Ian. You, yourself could then be classified a heretic bny your own Church and the Orthodox.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 28, 2004.



I've been called a "heretic" by many. I'm not so sure that "heretic" may be accurate anymore.

..............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2004.


again, Elpidio: do you believe that the Apostles had cause to consider the "finer points" of the faith? whilst dodging spears and whips -- and other persecution -- surely they were evangelising: my point -- this is really labouring it, sorry -- being that, it took some time for the teachings of the Church to evolve. and, of course, it took time for the devilish genius of man to start poking at it all.

indeed, as you say, it took 1,000-ish years for the filioque to become an issue. that's my point, again.

so, is the folioque an "unbiblical truth" as you allege?

if you are right, then the the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father? is that the biblical truth? prove it.

or does he proceed from neither? is that what you believe?

or isn't this all academic if you do not believe in the Divinity of the Son? or maybe it isn't.

it may have taken "n" years for any given Truth of the Church to be verbalised; but that does not in any way diminish that Truth. the Church's teaching on IVF or cloning is not directly and specifically addressed in Scripture or in the Church Fathers' writing (so far as i know). does that make it "unbiblical", whatever that term may mean.

the Eastern Churh is traditionally thought off as a schism (they admire the Pope as primus inter pares, but deny the full vestiges of the Pope as successor of St Peter); but it is also heretical eg they also, erroneously, deny the filioque.

since the beginning of the Church, we have had heresies. they have been started by senior people within the Church but they have failed. that is no surprise because Our Lord promised St Peter - "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", St Matthew 16:18.

i suspect that, in some ways, you could/might have have a great deal of sympathy with the Arianism cult prevalent in the 4th Century. Arius thought that Christ was less than divine, ie made by God. this, i understand, is what you believe.

however, that it was "prevalent" at the time is not to be confused with its being correct (there being no "majority rule" in these things - the Holy Ghost determines); because we know that it was incorrect.

they were the heretics of the day, and remain one of the heretics of today.

"today's heretics are tommorow's heretics "

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 28, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ