By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed ...

MoreCoffee · Jan 26, 2016

Brighten04 said:
S0, should people who do not believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ be baptized? I just want to be clear.

Are you asking "should an infant be refused baptism because the infant does not say 'yes' when asked if they believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?. If that's what you intend to ask then the answer is "if their parent(s) affirm their faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ then their infant child ought to be baptised".

MoreCoffee · Jan 26, 2016

Stravinsk said:
I have no church and no children and thus no desire for my personal wants or needs to be considered in any one communal worship place. I neither see the need to rely on a pastor to "feed" me Scripture when I can read it for myself. More broadly, I further see no need to rely on the traditions of any church or so called authority figure within any of those groups of religious people to define or interpret the Bible. In short, I make no demands or even requests from churches.

I hold doctrines that are alien to nearly all churches, except for a very few. Thus, if the majority's opinion has any sway, insofar as those doctrines are concerned, I am guilty of believing heresy.

And yet, I do believe in the importance of and the teachings of Yeshua as depicted in Matthew and John.

I do not personally believe that one "church", or group of believers who share a name related to what is called Christianity have the whole, complete and unadulterated truth. Not the Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, SeventhDayAdventists or anyone else.

Why would people in my general position (as it relates to specific doctrines that vary between churches) be a problem for you?

If what you've written above accurately reflects your beliefs then you appear to have abandoned the faith. If you have no attachment to any body of believers and rely on your own reading of a bible (exactly what bible it would be I do not know since every bible I have ever seen is the product of church tradition) to arrive at your own doctrines then you have abandoned the body of Christ as explained in this passage:

Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one body, even though it is made up of different parts. In the same way, all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptised into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink. For the body itself is not made up of only one part, but of many parts. If the foot were to say, "Because I am not a hand, I don't belong to the body," that would not keep it from being a part of the body. And if the ear were to say, "Because I am not an eye, I don't belong to the body," that would not keep it from being a part of the body. If the whole body were just an eye, how could it hear? And if it were only an ear, how could it smell? As it is, however, God put every different part in the body just as he wanted it to be. There would not be a body if it were all only one part! As it is, there are many parts but one body. So then, the eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" Nor can the head say to the feet, "Well, I don't need you!" On the contrary, we cannot do without the parts of the body that seem to be weaker; and those parts that we think aren't worth very much are the ones which we treat with greater care; while the parts of the body which don't look very nice are treated with special modesty, which the more beautiful parts do not need. God himself has put the body together in such a way as to give greater honour to those parts that need it. And so there is no division in the body, but all its different parts have the same concern for one another. If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it; if one part is praised, all the other parts share its happiness. All of you are Christ's body, and each one is a part of it.
(1 Corinthians 12:12-27)

Stravinsk · Jan 27, 2016

MoreCoffee said:
If what you've written above accurately reflects your beliefs then you appear to have abandoned the faith. If you have no attachment to any body of believers and rely on your own reading of a bible (exactly what bible it would be I do not know since every bible I have ever seen is the product of church tradition) to arrive at your own doctrines then you have abandoned the body of Christ as explained in this passage:
Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one body, even though it is made up of different parts. In the same way, all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptised into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink. For the body itself is not made up of only one part, but of many parts. If the foot were to say, "Because I am not a hand, I don't belong to the body," that would not keep it from being a part of the body. And if the ear were to say, "Because I am not an eye, I don't belong to the body," that would not keep it from being a part of the body. If the whole body were just an eye, how could it hear? And if it were only an ear, how could it smell? As it is, however, God put every different part in the body just as he wanted it to be. There would not be a body if it were all only one part! As it is, there are many parts but one body. So then, the eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" Nor can the head say to the feet, "Well, I don't need you!" On the contrary, we cannot do without the parts of the body that seem to be weaker; and those parts that we think aren't worth very much are the ones which we treat with greater care; while the parts of the body which don't look very nice are treated with special modesty, which the more beautiful parts do not need. God himself has put the body together in such a way as to give greater honour to those parts that need it. And so there is no division in the body, but all its different parts have the same concern for one another. If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it; if one part is praised, all the other parts share its happiness. All of you are Christ's body, and each one is a part of it.
(1 Corinthians 12:12-27)

Nope. I still believe that the teachings of Yeshua as depicted in Matthew and John are relevant and accurate.

But if by your definition I must cling to Sheol/Paul (Yes, Sheol is the correct spelling of Saul from Hebrew to English) - if I must still cling to his teachings as "God breathed" and read them as such and follow them - then yes, by your (and his) definition I have "abandoned the faith".

Thankfully, I don't feel the need to be recognized by any other person as a believer or not. I know what I believe, and God does, and that's enough.

MoreCoffee · Jan 28, 2016

Stravinsk said:
Nope. I still believe that the teachings of Yeshua as depicted in Matthew and John are relevant and accurate.

But if by your definition I must cling to Sheol/Paul (Yes, Sheol is the correct spelling of Saul from Hebrew to English) - if I must still cling to his teachings as "God breathed" and read them as such and follow them - then yes, by your (and his) definition I have "abandoned the faith".

Thankfully, I don't feel the need to be recognized by any other person as a believer or not. I know what I believe, and God does, and that's enough.

If what you've written above reflects your beliefs then you've rejected the canon of holy scripture in relation to the new testament's 27 books. Consequently the 'bible' you accept is not a bible that any denomination, church, or independent body accept - with the possible exception of groups that are accounted as heretical. It appears that you know this already since your faith icon is "

" which appears to mean "deist".

Stravinsk · Jan 28, 2016

MoreCoffee said:
If what you've written above reflects your beliefs then you've rejected the canon of holy scripture in relation to the new testament's 27 books. Consequently the 'bible' you accept is not a bible that any denomination, church, or independent body accept - with the possible exception of groups that are accounted as heretical. It appears that you know this already since your faith icon is "

" which appears to mean "deist".

I identify as Deist because it describes part of how I think and come to conclusions on things. I also identify as Deist and not Christian for precisely the reason you have stated, I accept only a very small portion of the New Testament as inspired. While there is not one teaching of Yeshua, nor the prophets in the OT that point definitively to the closed cannon used predominately in the West (not all churches use the same Cannon) - it is a *tradition* of the church and it is held solely on that tradition. Just because the majority of people who identify as Christian also adopt this tradition, doesn't mean it's true.

Those deemed "heretical" also are labeled such often either by some assumed authority (such as a Catholic pope, now or in times past), or simply by groups of people who happen to have a majority consensus on certain theology. As I do not accept the assumed authority of the Pope, Catholic church or some of the traditions passed down to the Reformers (and hence the Protestant churches) from that assumed authority, then I have no reason to accept, by default, that the NT Cannon as the West knows it is the complete and unadulterated "Word of God".

In fact, I believe there are good reasons to reject certain authors outright, based on what I DO accept - the teachings of Yeshua in Matthew, John and Revelation and certain writings in the Old Testament. That's against Tradition though and majority opinion - 2 things I really don't care about anyway. I took the Pepsi challenge and decided that water was the best option, the one not offered in the duel.

MoreCoffee · Jan 28, 2016

Stravinsk said:
I identify as Deist because it describes part of how I think and come to conclusions on things. I also identify as Deist and not Christian for precisely the reason you have stated, I accept only a very small portion of the New Testament as inspired. While there is not one teaching of Yeshua, nor the prophets in the OT that point definitively to the closed cannon used predominately in the West (not all churches use the same Cannon) - it is a *tradition* of the church and it is held solely on that tradition. Just because the majority of people who identify as Christian also adopt this tradition, doesn't mean it's true.

Those deemed "heretical" also are labeled such often either by some assumed authority (such as a Catholic pope, now or in times past), or simply by groups of people who happen to have a majority consensus on certain theology. As I do not accept the assumed authority of the Pope, Catholic church or some of the traditions passed down to the Reformers (and hence the Protestant churches) from that assumed authority, then I have no reason to accept, by default, that the NT Cannon as the West knows it is the complete and unadulterated "Word of God".

In fact, I believe there are good reasons to reject certain authors outright, based on what I DO accept - the teachings of Yeshua in Matthew, John and Revelation and certain writings in the Old Testament. That's against Tradition though and majority opinion - 2 things I really don't care about anyway. I took the Pepsi challenge and decided that water was the best option, the one not offered in the duel.

The beliefs stated above are definitely among the heresies alluded to in the hymn line that forms the title of this thread "by heresies distressed". I suppose if such beliefs were held in common by many people and if those people made a habit of attending Church then it is possible that it could lead to schism within the Church and that too is referenced in the topic title.

Stravinsk · Jan 28, 2016

MoreCoffee said:
The beliefs stated above are definitely among the heresies alluded to in the hymn line that forms the title of this thread "by heresies distressed". I suppose if such beliefs were held in common by many people and if those people made a habit of attending Church then it is possible that it could lead to schism within the Church and that too is referenced in the topic title.

Schism's are not necessarily bad things. But if one is looking for one there is already a very big one provided right in the bible. There are little, if any that I am aware of, contradictions between Matthew and John. Big problems with the addition of Luke's Gospel and parts of Acts. Direct conflict between some of the teachings of Yeshua in Matthew and John compared to Saul/Paul. If in order to not be a heretic one must accept all of them, the trade off is some heavily reaching apologetics and cognitive dissonance.

MoreCoffee · Jan 28, 2016

Stravinsk said:
Schisms are not necessarily bad things.

Schism is very wicked indeed. Holy scriptures teaches us so (1Cor 12:25 KJV) but you reject holy scripture on that matter. That is part of the wickedness of heresy such as that in your post.

But if one is looking for one there is already a very big one provided right in the bible. There are little, if any that I am aware of, contradictions between Matthew and John. Big problems with the addition of Luke's Gospel and parts of Acts. Direct conflict between some of the teachings of Yeshua in Matthew and John compared to Saul/Paul. If in order to not be a heretic one must accept all of them, the trade off is some heavily reaching apologetics and cognitive dissonance.

Your doctrine leads to one heresy after another. It is quite wicked to teach things that are in your posts.

Stravinsk · Jan 28, 2016

MoreCoffee said:
Schism is very wicked indeed. Holy scriptures teaches us so (1Cor 12:25 KJV) but you reject holy scripture on that matter. That is part of the wickedness of heresy such as that in your post.

Your doctrine leads to one heresy after another. It is quite wicked to teach things that are in your posts.

I guess Saul/Paul forgot the words of Yeshua in Matthew Chapter 10. Start with verse 34.

Is this teaching wicked as well? You see how having Saul/Paul's teachings already replace those of Yeshua? He does it all over the place.

Josiah · Jan 28, 2016

First Corinthians 12:25: "so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other

This is referring to PEOPLE and has nothing to do with denominations. Typically when people talk about schism, they are speaking of denominations splitting such as in 451, 1054, 1521. Yes, PEOPLE are one. And are to reflect that in their hearts and lives.

SOME THOUGHTS AROUND UNITY AND DISAGREEMENT AMONG CHRISTIANS:

Faith:

ALL Christians are of one faith. It is faith in Christ as our Savior. ALL Christians share this faith and are one in this faith. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. And we are a part of His church by faith. IMO, one would not be a Christian without this faith in Christ - and all who have that faith in Christ are Christians.

Customs, Traditions, Teachings:

Of course, not all 2,000,000,000 Christians agree with all other 2,000,000,000 Christians about every viewpoint, custom, tradition, practice, policy, interpretation, application, etc. Duh. Never have. Never will. In some cases, it would be nice. In other cases, it matters not. We are NOT in "unity" in all these matters. Never have been. Still aren't. BUT...

Unity:

IMO, the Bible and the Creed are correct and that there IS ONE faith, ONE Lord. That there IS ONE holy catholic church. Always has been. Always will be. It IS the reality! Man cannot - CANNOT - change that reality, no matter how much ego and pride, no matter how much they condemn and rebuke, no matter how great their propensity to excommunicate each other, no matter how they try to institutionalize Christianity. They CANNOT destroy this unity, they cannot destroy His church. Soli Deo Gloria! Now, of course, human congregations and denomination all start, often split, usually eventually die: such is the nature of human institutions.

Concern those teachings and customs where not ALL fully, totally agree with ALL, the level of unity among the great majority of Christians is nothing less than AMAZING! Odd we don't focus on THAT. A Physics prof of mine back in my undergrad years: "It all makes sense until you get to the edges, then it all gets crazy." It seems true in MANY things. But, in Christianity, I think we quickly discover that perhaps 90-95% of Christians agree on perhaps 90-95% of teachings.

But this does NOT mean there's only one congregation, only one worship service, only one hymn, only one language, or even one viewpoint in ALL matters. There is ONE faith, ONE family, ONE church (and NOTHING can change that!) - but there is not ONE congregation, ONE song, ONE custom, ONE viewpoint on ALL issues among ALL Christians (past and present) - even though the level of agreement even in that is no less than stunning.

IMO, much of the "problem" (if it is such) is because of our unwillingless to leave things where God does. Many have an uncontrollable urge to "explain" everything, to "connect the dots" to "fill in the blanks" to make it all "make sense." We think we have to supply all the "answers" even if God doesn't seem to think so. MOST of the things I disagree with among my FULL, UNseparated brothers and sisters in Christ is not because I think they are wrong but because I think they've overstepped what we can verify as true. For example, all my "issues' with the RC Denomination are about things surprising late: Infallibility of the Pope of the singular RC Denomination (1870), Transubstantiation (1551), etc. Dogmas UNIQUE to the singular RC Denomination.

AND let us not forget that we have this human tendency to institutionalize things.... and then to promote and protect our institutions and the POWER we have in them. Some confuse the "oikos" (the FAMILY of God) with some denomination, some confuse brothers and sisters in Christ with obedient, submissive members of a denomination. Too often, Christianity has been replaced with one's denomination (especially by the denomination itself); some seem FAR more concerned with promoting their denomination than promoting Christ.... and this had lead to much very unchristian hate, pain, division and schism - even literal wars.

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.

MoreCoffee · Jan 28, 2016

Stravinsk said:
I guess Saul/Paul forgot the words of Yeshua in Matthew Chapter 10. Start with verse 34.

God, the saviour of the faithful, warns that the devil will cite holy scripture in an effort to mislead them (Luke 4:1-13). But it is likely that your doctrine leads you to reject saint Luke the evangelist's testimony on this matter. Thus we are forewarned to carefully examine the passages you reference and test your words against what is written in holy scripture. Thus we see that the Lord is not teaching that "schisms are not necessarily bad things" as you teach but that his teaching will set the wicked against the faithful. That is what the passage teaches in these words:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Matthew 10:34-39 KJV)

Is this teaching wicked as well? You see how having Saul/Paul's teachings already replace those of Yeshua? He does it all over the place.

The teaching that you voiced is wicked. To teach of the Church which is the body of Christ that "schisms are not necessarily bad things" is a wicked spin on what the Lord Jesus Christ said in the gospel according to saint Matthew. It is also wicked to try to divide saints Paul and Matthew as your posts do.

popsthebuilder · Jan 28, 2016

Stravinsk said:
Schism's are not necessarily bad things. But if one is looking for one there is already a very big one provided right in the bible. There are little, if any that I am aware of, contradictions between Matthew and John. Big problems with the addition of Luke's Gospel and parts of Acts. Direct conflict between some of the teachings of Yeshua in Matthew and John compared to Saul/Paul. If in order to not be a heretic one must accept all of them, the trade off is some heavily reaching apologetics and cognitive dissonance.

Just curious; what contradictions are you referencing? Could you give the chapters/verses so I can look into it myself?
Thanks, peace.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Stravinsk · Jan 28, 2016

popsthebuilder said:
Just curious; what contradictions are you referencing? Could you give the chapters/verses so I can look into it myself?
Thanks, peace.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Not sure if this is the thread for that, but you could start with a reading of Ephesians - then compare it to Matthew and John. Then read Revelation.

There are numerous numerous contradictions. But for some reason this one has been on my mind lately:

Ask any believer when the Holy Spirit came. They will almost always tell you that it didn't come until Pentecost(as recorded in Acts written by Luke). But according to John 20:22, Yeshua gave the disciples the Holy Spirit long before this. In trying to merge the two instances, the apologist must make assumptions like "it wasn't the full holy spirit" or "it must have been taken away between the two periods" etc.

If you want an exhaustive list, pm me.

popsthebuilder · Jan 28, 2016

Stravinsk said:
Not sure if this is the thread for that, but you could start with a reading of Ephesians - then compare it to Matthew and John. Then read Revelation.

There are numerous numerous contradictions. But for some reason this one has been on my mind lately:

Ask any believer when the Holy Spirit came. They will almost always tell you that it didn't come until Pentecost(as recorded in Acts written by Luke). But according to John 20:22, Yeshua gave the disciples the Holy Spirit long before this. In trying to merge the two instances, the apologist must make assumptions like "it wasn't the full holy spirit" or "it must have been taken away between the two periods" etc.

If you want an exhaustive list, pm me.

I don't really see why that difference is too relevant.

Wasn't the Holy Spirit given to Mary and Elizabeth in their wombs and their hearts as they testified? Wouldn't this be before the instances that you are divided on?

Just curious, but it is related as I'm sure it too causes unneeded schism and division to those faithful under God through Christ.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Stravinsk · Jan 28, 2016

MoreCoffee said:
God, the saviour of the faithful, warns that the devil will cite holy scripture in an effort to mislead them (Luke 4:1-13). But it is likely that your doctrine leads you to reject saint Luke the evangelist's testimony on this matter. Thus we are forewarned to carefully examine the passages you reference and test your words against what I written in holy scripture. Thus we see that the Lord is not teaching that "schisms are not necessarily bad things" as you teach but that his teaching will set the wicked against the faithful. That is what the passage teaches in these words:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Matthew 10:34-39 KJV)

The teaching that you voiced is wicked. To teach of the Church which is the body of Christ that "schisms are not necessarily bad things" is a wicked spin on what the Lord Jesus Christ said in the gospel according to saint Matthew. It is also wicked to try to divide saints Paul and Matthew as your posts do.

Le sigh. It seems I have found an enemy already. I can sense the hate in your last 2 posts. Well sir, before I came to the present beliefs I do I was a Protestant. I still consider myself this because the very word means to "protest" and what is it protesting? The assumed authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This particular church feels it is is business to exercise authority over all believers, and at times in history has carried this out with the most brutal of consequences.

I don't mind if you call me wicked. I know where it comes from. Just glad I'm not living at the time of the Inquisition and this conversation is taking place over the internet and not with torture tools nearby.

Cheers.

Stravinsk · Jan 28, 2016

popsthebuilder said:
I don't really see why that difference is too relevant.

Wasn't the Holy Spirit given to Mary and Elizabeth in their wombs and their hearts as they testified? Wouldn't this be before the instances that you are divided on?

Just curious, but it is related as I'm sure it too causes unneeded schism and division to those faithful under God through Christ.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The story you quote is from a Gospel I reject as completely inspired, Luke. Neither Matthew or John's contains it.

As for the difference, why would it not be relevant? Either they had to wait till Pentecost to get the Holy Spirit, or Yeshua gave it to them Himself as recorded in John. If the giving of the Holy Spirit is not relevant at all, why mention it at all?

MoreCoffee · Jan 28, 2016

Stravinsk said:
Le sigh. It seems I have found an enemy already. I can sense the hate in your last 2 posts.

If you sense hate then you have lost your senses. What is present in the posts to which you refer is regretful realisation of the deceptive power of heresy in your stated opinions.

Well sir, before I came to the present beliefs I do I was a Protestant. I still consider myself this because the very word means to "protest" and what is it protesting? The assumed authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This particular church feels it is is business to exercise authority over all believers

Not authority alone but pastoral concern for those in error and teaching error.

, and at times in history has carried this out with the most brutal of consequences.

I don't mind if you call me wicked.

Regrettably your reply evidences that you confuse calling the heresy that you promote wicked and calling you personally wicked.

I know where it comes from.

It appears to come from your own mind; like a kind of play being acted out in your thought as expressed in your posts with roles assigned to yourself and myself but neither the roles nor the play acting correspond to what is really happening.

Just glad I'm not living at the time of the Inquisition and this conversation is taking place over the internet and not with torture tools nearby.

Cheers.

I await an allusion to Thomas of Torquemada ...

Stravinsk · Jan 28, 2016

Eh, More Coffee - just remember that this is the speculative theology section. If you want a safe place where nothing challenges your beliefs, isn't there a Catholic section or the sections for those identifying as Christians?

As for uh..."pastoral concern", well if you are truly a concerned loving "father", then reply sensibly and logically without the hate. You don't like my beliefs, that's fine. No need to exercise your "concern" by name calling beliefs, because it doesn't change my opinion of them one wit, it really only influences my opinion of the person doing it.

popsthebuilder · Jan 28, 2016

Stravinsk said:
The story you quote is from a Gospel I reject as completely inspired, Luke. Neither Matthew or John's contains it.

As for the difference, why would it not be relevant? Either they had to wait till Pentecost to get the Holy Spirit, or Yeshua gave it to them Himself as recorded in John. If the giving of the Holy Spirit is not relevant at all, why mention it at all?

Ok, not getting of topic but can you list why Luke isn't the inspired word of GOD?

The giving of the Holy Spirit is of utmost significance. And so is when it happens. Pentecost seems to be the verification and celebration of the Holy Spirit coming upon one by God's will and their submission to such.

I don't understand what it is you are attempting to divide here. Sorry for the confusion.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Stravinsk · Jan 28, 2016

popsthebuilder said:
Ok, not getting of topic but can you list why Luke isn't the inspired word of GOD?

The giving of the Holy Spirit is of utmost significance. And so is when it happens. Pentecost seems to be the verification and celebration of the Holy Spirit coming upon one by God's will and their submission to such.

I don't understand what it is you are attempting to divide here. Sorry for the confusion.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Ok, yes we agree it is of importance. So Yeshua either gave it to the disciples before he Ascended as recorded in John, or they had to wait till Pentecost.

*I* am not dividing things. That is what it says. One cannot believe both at the same time without inserting some reason not found in the Bible.

As for a list, there are plenty available - just pm me.

By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed ...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth

Well-known member

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth

Well-known member

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth

Well-known member

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth

Well-known member

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth

Well-known member

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth

Well-known member

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth