HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

elaine · 05-26-09 6:44 pm

The original atheists were Christians, dubbed this because they rejected the Roman gods which equated with heresy--no belief. Then there are agnostics: meaning without belief' one who does not deny God, but denes the possibility of known Him. When one reads the NT, it should always be remembered that while no absolute dates can be assured, the consensus is that Paul was the first writer, while Mark was the first of the Gospels. This seems important because while the NT is not at all chronologically organized, it is often confused of being compiled in sequence based on the time of writing. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is of importance because the first proclamation of Jesus as one who died and rose again (2 Thess. 4:14); and the other letters attributed to Paul where he claims to be an apostle of Christ Jesus and preaches the Good News that salvation is to be found no longer in the Law but faith in Jesus Christ. Paul never claimed to have seen or known Jesus personally, nor did any of the other NT writers. All testified they were accounting what they had heard: IOW, they were all reports first circling by word-of-mouth before eventually being written. Once something is written it becomes a permanent, unchanging record; until then, it is subject to change, no matter how slight, with each retelling. Paul preached the Gospel long before the Gospels were written and had only heard the stories from others of Jesus' death and resurrection from reports. Initially, Jesus was one of several prior, contemporary, and later apocalyptic itinerant preachers traveling the area. He attracted a small group of followers and not until his death and subsequent resurrection did they begin questioning the meaning and implications of this individual. That he was resurrected was not all that unusual, as they also reported that he had resurrected three who had died during his ministry. Other prominent public figures had been proclaimed God or divine and it was the belief of many of the Roman citizens that their rulers had been divine gods: IOW, a common practice of honoring an individual. Did the Jesus' followers gradually create the belief in his divinity based on their amazement at his sayings and miracles? Such stories surely did not escape Paul, but the Gospel accounts gradually created a supernatural being with their reports long after he had left this earth. There is no record of perceptions during his ministry, as we have nothing about how he was perceived by his contemporaries other than what was written, often a generation or more afterward. He did not seem to have created prominence while living in Judea, as there is not a single contemporary account outside the Bible that can be dated during his lifetime. Is it possible that the NT writers created a concept of the man Jesus as both human and divine; working many miracles and speaking of the Kingdom? None of these would have been unusual and without precedent at that time. What was truly the origin of Christianity that gradually enveloped the Western world? Was it a chimera or was it based on a living human, much like Buddha or Mohamed or Zoroaster who made such an unmistakable impact that he was a creature of their imagination? Stranger things have happened in this world.

pilgrim99 · 05-26-09 7:54 pm

John, and others claim to have been eyewitnesses. He begins 1 John, by writing:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life – and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us). What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us(and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ). Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. 1 John 1:1-5 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> John also begins his Gospel by writing:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’” John 1:15-15 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> John ends his Gospel by saying<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:24-25 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> As with most things, there are other opinions about the dating of the New Testament books. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Though Bible scholars differ on the exact date when the books of the New Testament were written, the order of the writing of the books was approximately as follows:<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <table border=1><tr><td>Book</TD><TD>Date (A.D. )</TD><TD>Book</TD><TD>Date (A.D. ) </TD></TR><TR><TD>James</TD><TD>45-49</TD><TD>Philippians, Philemon</TD><TD>63 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Galatians</TD><TD>49</TD><TD>1 Peter</TD><TD>63-64 </TD></TR><TR><TD>1 & 2 Thessalonians</TD><TD>51</TD><TD>1 Timothy</TD><TD>63-66 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark</TD><TD>50s or 60s</TD><TD>Titus</TD><TD>63-66 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Matthew</TD><TD>50s or 60s</TD><TD>Hebrews</TD><TD>64-68 </TD></TR><TR><TD>1 Corinthians</TD><TD>55</TD><TD>2 Peter</TD><TD>66 </TD></TR><TR><TD>2 Corinthians</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>2 Timothy</TD><TD>67 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Romans</TD><TD>57-58</TD><TD>Jude</TD><TD>68-80 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Luke</TD><TD>60</TD><TD>John</TD><TD>85-90 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Acts</TD><TD>61</TD><TD>1, 2, 3 John</TD><TD>85-90 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Colossians, Ephesians</TD><TD>61</TD><TD>Revelation</TD><TD>90-95 </TD></TR><TR><TD></td></tr></table> Please feel free to read the rest of <a href="http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2077" target=_top>Introduction to the New Testament</a> As always, we are all free to choose who and what we believe. Each of the Gospels was written to accomplish it's own specific purpose. I believe that they have succeeded in accomplishing their purposes.

elaine · 05-26-09 8:13 pm

You have supplied one of multiple lists estimating the dates. There is a wide disparity among the best known NT scholars. Each writer had his own perspective on the meaning of Jesus and the mission and memories he left. The dates on the list you show are, for the most part, earlier than the majority of scholars have shown after checking on the internet. I do not rely on any one but consult many.

elaine · 05-26-09 8:36 pm

James, the brother of Jesus is never mentioned among the disciples in the Gospels. The letter of James is not cited by early Christian authors prior to the middle of the third century C.E., and it seems to have been associated with Palestine. It was not generally regarded as part of the NT until the mid-fourth century and afterward. All of the Gospels come from a period of at least forty years--or one full generation--after the death of Jesus. In fact, they all come after the first revolt. Nor are they "histories," in the modern sense, but "Lives" of famous people such as Alexander the Great. It was quite common in such literature to embellish the story with fanciful or romantic details, some of which might or might not be true. Many times the sources were oral traditions, legends, and exaggerations that grew up to fit the fame or persona of the character in later times. For example, it became common in the later lives of Alexander the Great to attribute his birth to a miraculous conception, accompanied by a number of signs and omens, all of which were to demonstrate that this was to be a person with divine gifts and powers. Similar stories later crept into some versions of Augustus's life. The Gospels, in that sense, are expressions of the faith of those early Christians who told and retold the story of Jesus in the later decades of the first century. We must always be aware of when the account was written relative to the actual events that it purports to describe.

don · 05-26-09 9:13 pm

James, the brother of Jesus is never mentioned among the disciples in the Gospels. That is true. Paul mentions James the Lord's brother in Galatians. Luke mentions this same James in Acts. .

pilgrim99 · 05-26-09 9:31 pm

Elaine, as a Christian, is there a reason for you to use CE Vs. AD? Do they mean the same thing? I am only familiar with usage of the term from those who do not wish to acknowledge the impact of Jesus on the entire world. I'm not used to seeing it used in communication between Christians. Of course you are free to use CE and BCE instead of the Christian influenced BC and AD.

elaine · 05-26-09 9:50 pm

The use of BCE and CE is always used in scholarly writings. It says nothing about the belief of the writer, but is common usage. I read both Christian and strictly academic historical writings, and it is common for both and says nothing whatsoever about the belief of the writer. Often, I am quoting from several writers and this the policy followed, signifying nothing. Just as in Jewish writings one might find the Jewish calendrical dates, just another way of using chronology. BCE and CE are acknowledging Christianity as they signify: Before the Common Era (Christianity) and Common Era. There has to be a common dating that is recognized in all cultures.

elaine · 05-26-09 10:48 pm

Can someone explain the origin, or originator of the entire scheme that Jesus died to save humans? While it may be that some of the NT writers wrote something like this, did one say that "he paid the penalty for our sins"? Doesn't it stretch the idea of God as love if he demanded, or even allowed his son to be killed in order to save humanity? Doesn't that imply that God is not capable of saving humans (the ones he created) unless there is a horrible death? Did God demand it? Or, is it something that was gradually created in order to explain such a good man, Jesus, from being so criminally executed? Was it the only possible way for man to gain salvation? How? and Why?

don · 05-27-09 12:05 pm

Romans 8:6-11 states:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: 6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Doesn't it stretch the idea of God as love if he demanded, or even allowed his son to be killed in order to save humanity? Doesn't that imply that God is not capable of saving humans (the ones he created) unless there is a horrible death? Did God demand it? It seems that the nature of sin needs to be examined. People have given examples to show this need. Amputation of a leg to save the body. A father racing to the road, rescues his son but dies in the event. A mother rescues her chicks from a burning barn, they live, she dies. The things of God can only be explained in human terms, living metaphors. If the explanation creates misunderstanding then perhaps it is being applied to strictly. Or, is it something that was gradually created in order to explain such a good man, Jesus, from being so criminally executed? Was it the only possible way for man to gain salvation? How? and Why? All ideas develop. The concepts given in the NT writings provide foundational thinking for the Christian. These concepts then get developed further. Sometimes, they are stated more exactingly because of an opposing "error". In an attempt to oppose the "error" the "truth", as stated by the contemporary church, becomes altered. The only way to counter this trend is to go back to the NT canon and refresh one's thoughts there. .

george · 05-27-09 2:25 pm

Elaine, Maybe Christ died because he was a man and men die. In his case, however, his loving spirit (whatever that is) gave him access beyond the grave. We get there on his coat tails. That's just a theory but as good as any. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0>

elaine · 05-27-09 4:13 pm

If it is just a "theory" and that seems to be what was created and developed after Jesus died, it could explain whey there are several "theories" and all the conjecture on glorifying the cross has been grossly exaggerated. IF, If, it was the only posible explanation for man's salvation it still leaves open the question: Is God unable to forgive without the death of his son? Is there definitive claims prior to his life that he came for no other reason than to die to save us? All of his sayings that were written long afterward, might have been an attempt to show the necessity of his death. But, that still begs the question of God's inability to forgive without extracting a penalty doesn't it? Can we love a god that demands such a cruel death?

don · 05-27-09 5:11 pm

that still begs the question of God's inability to forgive without extracting a penalty I don't think it is correct to say that God could not forgive without Jesus dying. Afterall, he asks that we forgive and death is not involved in us forgiving. The Bible does teach that Jesus' death is the central, and inevitable, event in the plan of salvation and the great battle between good and evil. The Great Controversy theme allows for many features of the Gospel to be explained. .

elaine · 05-27-09 5:44 pm

Don, how do you explain Jesus' death? What was the purpose? Was it demanded in order for God to forgive? Or, because it happened, the theory was woven around it? What are some of the many features of the GC that explains the Gospel? Is it absolutely critical, or merely incidental?

cadge · 05-27-09 6:08 pm

"I don't think it is correct to say that God could not forgive without Jesus dying" I disagree Don. It is because Jesus became sin for us and died the death that was destined for us,that forgivness for us became available. "As many as recieved Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God" We do not need power to be forgiven, but we need to be forgiven, and there needed to be a way to make that possible. And, we also need power to obey, lest we come under the condemnation of the law. Because of the fatal flaw in our nature, passed on from the fall in Eden, we were destined to die. Jesus died that death as if He were the one with the flaw (He became sin for us)and in doing that He satisfied the terms of the law (The soul that sinneth it shall die) and opened the door to enable us to obey by the ministration of grace, power through the Holy Spirit( Rom. 8:13 "if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live"). This is why we can now, since the cross, "come boldly before the throne of God" to recieve mercy (forgiveness) and grace to help in time of need. Before this we were seperated by the veil and could not approach our heavenly Father with such confidence. Before the cross the believer looked forward by faith with hope that this all would be fulfilled. We on the other hand have confidence because it became a reality, a done deal. He finished it!

elaine · 05-27-09 8:28 pm

Cadge, How was forgiveness granted before Jesus' death? Such men as: Abraham, Moses, David, and many more? They knew nothing about Jesus. Were they in Limbo for thousands of years?

pilgrim99 · 05-27-09 8:33 pm

Elaine, Great questions. This article <a href="http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2516" target=_top>Why the Messiah Came,</a> will not answer all of your questions, but I believe that it provides a good foundation on which to build. The article is part of a larger study called <a href="http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=132" target=_top>The God Who Speaks To Man</a> You might have some books in your collection on the Doctrine of Soteriology, it might be helpful to revisit this Doctrine. May God bless your study and soften your heart as He continues to draw you to Him.

pilgrim99 · 05-27-09 8:39 pm

Elaine, I'm not Cadge, but he said<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Before the cross the believer looked forward by faith with hope that this all would be fulfilled. We on the other hand have confidence because it became a reality, a done deal. He finished it!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> There is a goldmine in that statement and only you can study for yourself to determine if the statement is true. The links to the studies that I posted are a good starting point. All are saved by faith, before and after the cross. (Message edited by pilgrim99 on May 27, 2009)

elaine · 05-27-09 9:44 pm

Yes, there were many Hebrew prophecies, but it was left to the NT writers to make them all applicable to Jesus, although originally, they were prophecies that were fulfilled, or else applied during the time those prophecies were made, not centuries later. The NT writers, especially the Gospels, reworked much of Hebrew Scriptures attempting to show that Jesus was the fulfillment. This resulted in: Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt, analogous to to the Israelites or Moses (although the Gospels differ on the early days); that Bethelehem had to be the place of his birth, even though Nazareth was his parents' home, in order to prove his Davidic ancestry. And even the genealogies are entirely different. Nor is there a single secular account of a census during the time the Gospel writer claimed; nor is there a single secular account of Herod ordering the killing of newborn males (another attempt to symbolically compare Moses and Jesus). Honesty demands that we do not ignore these many contradictions and errors. Faith is the only way to accept the accounts in the Bible. Should there not be truth in our belief in the Bible accounts? Or is it entirely irrelevant?

elaine · 05-27-09 9:49 pm

MT 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where they stay until after Herod's death) in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughters all male infants two years old and under. (Note: John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, though under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.) LK 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants. MT 2:23 "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.'" (This prophecy is not found in the OT and while Jesus is often referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", he is seldom referred to as "Jesus the Nazarene.")

pilgrim99 · 05-27-09 9:56 pm

Elaine, If two people were to write an autobiography of you, do you think that each would include incidents from your life that the other omitted? If so, would you say that your biographers were in conflict with each other? I can't force you to believe the prophesies of Messiah; some believe, some don't. For most of my life I didn't, now I do. May God continue to bless you with His Grace.

elaine · 05-27-09 10:05 pm

No, but if one wrote that I was born in a city where I never lived, or that I traveled to a place where I had never been, they couldn't both be right, could they? Does belief in Jesus rely and need OT prophecies to accept him? Why? These prophecies were not mentioned until many years later, so it was the writers who were attempting to prove Jesus fulfilled them. Nor, did his immediate followers believe he was more than a good teacher or rabbi. It was many years later before there was the endeavor begun to call him divine, and later to make him equal with God. This was a gradual development over four centuries.

don · 05-27-09 10:35 pm

Should there not be truth in our belief in the Bible accounts? Of course. But, I will not accuse Matthew or Luke of fabrication, either. We have no explanation for why the difference. All possible solutions are interpretations. Those who accept the accounts as authentic history will offer solutions fitting that view. Those who believe the accounts were made up will offer solutions fitting that view. The differences exist. They provide opportunity to engage the mind in the more complex thinking skills of comparing and analyzing. Most importantly, acknowledging the difference between literary "facts" of the text and our own added suppositions. One creative suggestion proposes that Luke intended to impress the Romans. He left out anything which would disturb the Romans psyche.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:But one of Luke's specific orientations makes it unlikely that he would record these events. It has been noted that Luke's is a "Roman-friendly" gospel - one of his aims is to convince Roman and Gentile readers that Christianity is no threat to the Roman order. This being the case, the last thing that Luke needs is to record an incident in which the Christ of the Christians received gifts from magi who probably came from outside of the Roman Empire, and were perhaps associated with the lands of the Parthians - a chief nemesis of Rome. He also does not need an account of a Roman client-king being stirred up by these enemy foreigners; the crucifixion will be enough of a political hot potato to deal with, thank you! Much better to select the account he knew which shows the family participating in a Roman census and not causing the Romans any trouble at all. (They were probably not pleased to participate, but Luke's readers didn't need to know that!) <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html" target="_blank">Some Preliminary and Informed Speculation on the Formation and Validity of the Birth Narratives</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

pilgrim99 · 05-27-09 10:41 pm

Elaine, Like I said, I can't force anyone to believe. You have chosen a particular path and that influences your interpretation. Others have chosen a different path which also colors their interpretation. If Jesus is not the OT prophesied Messiah, then He is not worthy of worship. His claims must then be discounted and if so one might gain more benefit from following Ronald McDonald; at least he would give out an occasional free or discounted meal. It does seem that Nathaniel believed Jesus was from Nazareth.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”Nathanael replied, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip replied, “Come and see.” John 1:45-46 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> The religious leaders also seem to associate Jesus with Galilee. Come to think of it, their reasoning sounds like an argument that you might use; they didn't believe either and no one could force them to either.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Then the officers returned to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why didn’t you bring him back with you?” The officers replied, “No one ever spoke like this man!” Then the Pharisees answered, “You haven’t been deceived too, have you? None of the rulers or the Pharisees have believed in him, have they? But this rabble who do not know the law are accursed!” Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus before and who was one of the rulers, said, “Our law doesn’t condemn a man unless it first hears from him and learns what he is doing, does it?” They replied, “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!” John 7:45-52 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

pilgrim99 · 05-27-09 10:44 pm

Elaine, Can you please further clarify this statement? No, but if one wrote that I was born in a city where I never lived, or that I traveled to a place where I had never been, they couldn't both be right, could they?

elaine · 05-27-09 11:28 pm

Don, it seems that you also agree that the Gospel writers were not recording accurate history, as we classify it today, but had agendas that they took prophecies to fit that agenda; which is why each one is slightly different on details that should be compared to secular histories. "Fudging" on known facts may have been common then, as I believe they were, but when we try to use modern methods of "proving" Bible stories, the difficulties become apparent.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 05-26-09 6:44 pm

HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#2 05-26-09 7:54 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#3 05-26-09 8:13 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#4 05-26-09 8:36 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#5 05-26-09 9:13 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#6 05-26-09 9:31 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#7 05-26-09 9:50 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#8 05-26-09 10:48 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#9 05-27-09 12:05 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#10 05-27-09 2:25 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#11 05-27-09 4:13 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#12 05-27-09 5:11 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#13 05-27-09 5:44 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#14 05-27-09 6:08 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#15 05-27-09 8:28 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#16 05-27-09 8:33 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#17 05-27-09 8:39 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#18 05-27-09 9:44 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#19 05-27-09 9:49 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#20 05-27-09 9:56 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#21 05-27-09 10:05 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#22 05-27-09 10:35 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#23 05-27-09 10:41 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#24 05-27-09 10:44 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

#25 05-27-09 11:28 pm

Re: HERESY: What is it and How is it Defined?

Board footer