What's a heresy (in Christianity)?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
What's a heresy (in Christianity)?
What's a heresy (in Christianity)?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Please help me guys, it's so hard to know what is a heresy and what is not.
Is a doctrinal belief that is contrary to the established orthodoxy.
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, anything that disagrees with it is heresy.
But what is orthodoxy to you?
>But what is orthodoxy to you?
What kind of question is this? Orthodoxy is just orthodoxy, established by the Church, it's not up to me to define, God forbid.
I see. I meant that for Protestants, for example, orthodoxy isn't what the Catholic Church establishes, so I wanted to know your definition. But I understood your point of view.
Well, yeah, but that's like saying that Crips and Bloods each have rules of their own, but don't follow the same rules as the LAPD. Well, of course they do, but judges at the county court aren't gonna judge a man differently depending on the code of honor of the gang he belongs to.
But orthodoxy for Protestants (or at least for Calvinists), as far as I know, comes from Bible and Tradition, so why would you be comparing them to fringe groups like gangs who make their own rules out of nothing? I'm not a Protestant, by the way.
What are some points of consensus between all Christians? Would orthodoxy be only that?
calvanist isn't a denomination, it's a mode of thinking. You can be a baptist and also a calvanist, or not a calvanist and still be a baptist. Or a methodist who is calvanist, or a methodist that isn't a calvanist. I think you should read the Bible first before asking ignorant questions on the internet.
>I think you should read the Bible first before asking ignorant questions on the internet.
Why did you think in the Bible first over Creeds and other documents?
Because the Bible is God's divinely preserved word, and the King James I consider a divinely inspired english translation that preserves his divine meaning
>King James I consider a divinely inspired
Anglican speakers unite for the glory of God
>the Bible is God's divinely preserved word
We know without the shadow of a doubt this is false. The whole second half of Mark 16 DOES NOT EXIST in the earliest manuscripts. It's a KNOWN FORGERY. The Bible is not divinely preserved at all.
And what are these earliest manuscripts exactly?
I have never seen proof of Peter running a popery or giving it as an inheritance to someone else, so I only see it as an aggressive lies that's based on feelings and not history.
>I have never seen proof of Peter running a popery or giving it as an inheritance to someone else, so I only see it as an aggressive lies that's based on feelings and not history.
You answered about the popery, but what's your take on the documents from the Church Fathers and the Creeds?
Yaldabaoth is not something consensual nonetheless
So where are "hypostases" and "nature/essence" in the Bible, for example?
Now you doesn't sound like someone who would say "God forbid me defining orthodoxy", since now apparently you are sort of defining it as something subjective to power. Or am I equivocated?
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
>translating from Greek to Greek will obviously make half a chapter disappear
moron take. The margin in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is too small to contain all the "missing" text.
Is shouting "PRAIZEH DELORDAH OOOOH AYY MAN I'M GONNA SPEAKEH THE TONGAH OOOOOOOOOH SHAMPABALABALA" that important to you that you have to lie to defend a KNOWN FORGERY?
>translating from Greek to Greek will obviously make half a chapter disappear
There's no such thing as a translation from Greek to Greek. It's a translation of the Coptic version back into Greek by the Alexandrian school, and the Coptic version is corrupted all over the place, which is why it's so different.
>The margin in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is too small to contain all the "missing" text.
No. The lacuna in Vaticanus is very large and could easily fit the ending of Mark. There isn't a lacuna in Sinaiticus, it's the one with the substituted pages instead. Pic related is the lacuna or gap which is only found at the end of Mark, and not the other books.
You've been lied to about this. People have blatantly misrepresented the facts, and thousands of manuscripts contain the ending of Mark, as well as quotations proving its existence from the 100s.
Also here is the Diatessaron, which was a blended form of the Gospels. It clearly contains parts of the last 12 verses of Mark, and it was made before Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. The parts unique to Mark's gospel are underlined. The Diatessaron is a harmony of the Gospels and it was made before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.
>The lacuna in Vaticanus is very large and could easily fit the ending of Mark.
he says showing a scan clearly showing the gap can only contain one verse AT BEST.
Other people can see that the third column is empty. In the other books, there are no gaps at all.
This quote is more than 100 years older than the two manuscripts (out of thousands) that do not have the ending of Mark. Those two manuscripts are also translations of translations, being based on the Coptic version, and one of those two left an obvious blank space where the text could be written in, that only exists at the end of Mark and not the other Gospels.
The other one had several pages at the end of Mark and beginning of Luke that seem to have been written by a later hand and replaced. So basically all of the manuscripts have the ending of Mark, and there are people quoting it from hundreds of years before the two that don't have the ending.
You've been completely lied to on the subject of Mark's Gospel and the evidence supposedly "against" the ending has been grossly misrepresented. The ending of that chapter is actually overwhelmingly supported if you look at the evidence. I'm not sure why they even try to attack it.
Things in the creeds can all be found in the Bible. Creeds are just declarations of what the Bible says.
>everyone is a sinner
>god wants to help you get out of this yaldaboath shithole and he sent his own son to die as a sacrifice on your behalf
>never doubt the power of the Holy Ghost to do anything
>don’t die with an impure soul (aka while possessed by one of seven deadly demons)
Yaldabaoth? Why would a Gnostic faith be a Christian consensus?
Are you saying that the Creeds and documents from the Church Fathers are fallible? What about the Apostolic Succession the Catholics claim to exist?
Use your rationality
Why would god try to save you from your own sins to the point where he would sacrifice his own son on your behalf unless humanity was trapped in some type of prison they didn’t deserve to be in? I’m probably extrapolating way too far but the point is that you need to accept that you need to escape the current realm or one in which you will be punished even further: that’s the point of the savior
>why would you be comparing them to fringe groups like gangs who make their own rules out of nothing?
I'm a Nietzscheian who believes that might makes right and that all laws and rules come solely from custom coupled with power. A bishop, no matter how influential, is nothing but the leader of a gang of priests, and a council of bishops is nothing but a gathering of high-ranking priestly gang leaders. Likewise, governments are only legitimized gangs with an army and a navy. Given enough firepower, a gang can become a militia group, and given enough military success and diplomatic recognition, a militia group can become a legitimate government, as seen in the case of every single group of freedom fighters who became the elected government of a country, be it in Rwanda, Congo, Zimbabwe, or any other country in the world. George Washington too was once an insurgent group leader.
As the old quote by the Bard of Avon says, ""There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2), and I do believe that describes absolutely everything related to morality, which is that things are only thought of as bad, since nature itself cannot decree what is evil, or what is unambiguously good, no matter how many appeals to so-called "common sense" or "utility" are made by milquetoast ethics professors working in an academic setting.
Now, it doesn't mean humans can't come to agreements, but they're never "objective", only intersubjective, and as far as validity comes, they're only valid within a fixed frame of reference. As soon as you switch from one frame of reference to another, you have to adjust absolutely everything else not for the sake of repeating exactly the same statement of truth, but rather to convey a notion that is capable of being accepted within that frame of reference.
And what is the Church? Because Protestants like Calvinists also refer to a "Church".
It doesn't actually matter which one as long as it is still around the priest of that organization knows the proper rituals, rules whatever.
>heresy is relative
It's the thing all Christians randomly accuse each other of doing to justify barbarous bloodbaths yet still tell you that you have nothing to lose in converting.
Whatever isn't the doctrine of the faction that ended up coming out ahead in the ecclesiastical political struggles.
The church decides. That means talking to your priest friendo not to an anon.
Jesus grew up reading the Torah. He knew the prophecies about the messiah. When he was 33 he said ykw, I'm going to fulfill the prophecies and be the messiah that was prophesied about. He did everything the prophets said the messiah was supposed to do and fulfilled the prophecies.
It's the theological equivalent of espousing scientific facts that go against the "scientific consensus"
But is there any consensus in Christianity?
But if you google "bible heaven/hell passages" you'll find a lotta stuff.
There has to be some consensus for any organized religion to function.
Yes there is. The Nicene Creed is generally accepted, whether as having authority in itself (by Catholicism and Orthodoxy) or having magisterial authority in as much as it aligns with the Bible (by the majority of Protestant churches)
JWs and Mormons consider themselves Christians and don't accept the idea that Jesus is God, though.
hell and judgement is the biggest heresy (lie) in Christianity. Christianity (the story of Christ) would actually be right without the concepts of hell and judgment, which were added in the middle ages
To be a heretic is to be a Christian that diverges from the Church, Protestants are technically heretics in the historical sense, not some random homosexual that believes whatever that the Church doesn't like.
when you worship a guy that wears the miter of Dagon and rapes kids for starters
Anything that casts doubt on the power of the Holy Ghost
How can we know what does it?
Trinity.
>Trinity.
It is a heresy according to those who honestly believe the inversion of the truth innocently.