Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, really.
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:4
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Define Christianity
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:4
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
And that's a good thing.
Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, [he is] a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and [is] as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:
Habakkuk 2:4-5
What are the ramifications of being heretical, from a practical perspective? Let's say most Christians consider a denomination heretical, which is a view that many non-Christians will not share, and the latter may also not wish to see themselves as arbiters of who is or is not a "true Christian." (I'm using quotes because I consider the term highly subjective.) Aside from purely theological differences, what, if anything, follows or should follow from classifying a denomination as heretical?
That is what happens, but it is not always a problem. @Subduction Zone is correct when he points out that Christianity often wants to reconcile both the perception that it is huge, dominant, determinant even with the pursuit of a group identity that may well require deciding that others are not truly Christians despite self-identification as such.
That is understandable to a degree; everyone is subject to the confliciting cravings towards acceptance and authenticity. But for Christianity it has become a major hurdle when one wants clarity of voice or direction.
It seems to me that the term itself has fallen into disuse. Gone are the days when it would be a dangerous accusation.
People will instead say that certain groups or persons are not "truly Christian" and be satisfied with that. The implication is that they are lying about their beliefs, not herectics as such - but in all honesty, I don't think that they are terribly interested in the difference.
Okay. I still define it by the Nicene Creed.
It doesn't mean much today when Christianity is a back-burner for many, but historically:
I) You are out of Communion with the rest of the Churches and thus cannot receive the Eucharist, which is of primary importance. This 'refreshes the soul' as it were and one is not allowed to take it in a state of mortal sin. This means you lack access to the spiritual reality. In essence, you have lost your salvation.
II) You lose access to the benefits of society. You won't be able to receive any welfare payments or patronage, on which all pre-Industrial systems were based.
III) You would not be able to go to university.
IV) Your marriages and children won't be recognised.
IOW you are damned and expelled from the community. In a world where everyone is Christian this is basically a death sentence and then you get to go to Hell afterwards.
But not today. It would be difficult to convince me that even a Vatican Citizen would have much hardship arising from being an herectic.
Odds are that he would not even realize that he is one.
If you are a Christian it matters though. I don't expect non-Christians to care, but if you believe that your salvation depends on it, it still seriously matters.
That seems quite a harsh response to a difference in belief, aside from (I), perhaps, as that one is purely theological. These repercussions for religious difference seem to me to underscore the importance of separation of religion and state, which I realize Christian philosophy has contributed to developing and popularizing as well.
In modern terms, it was basically the equivalent of being a fifth columnist for a non-friendly country.
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
Christianity is relationship with Christ and his story.
In all honesty, I have to wonder how many people who identify themselves as Christians in the Brazilian Census would agree or know that.
I am willing to bet that at least one third of those will choose to rely on faith that their belief in Jesus as God will suffice. And, again, most would be hard pressed to even notice that they are herectic or even to know of the concept.
Have you noticed that when the first century followers of Jesus were alive there was only one worldwide Christian community that was united, receiving the same instructions from the group of elders and apostles who resided in Jerusalem?
Such "Christian" divisions of doctrines and practices only emerged when the last of them died. From being a group of people separated from the world, Christianity became a political force that tried to control the world. Jesus taught that his kingdom was not part of this world, and that his followers were to love even his enemies. These teachings were trampled by 3rd century apostate Christendom and all its branches.
To understand what original Christianity really is, we must return to the Scriptures, because only they tell us the truth of its origins, teachings and practices... for example in the book of Acts of the Apostles.
Such "Christian" divisions of doctrines and practices only emerged when the last of them died. From being a group of people separated from the world, Christianity became a political force that tried to control the world. Jesus taught that his kingdom was not part of this world, and that his followers were to love even his enemies. These teachings were trampled by 3rd century apostate Christendom and all its branches.
To understand what original Christianity really is, we must return to the Scriptures, because only they tell us the truth of its origins, teachings and practices... for example in the book of Acts of the Apostles.
This is fairly bizarre, even by modern standards, though. It seems Christianity in Brasil has taken on a more folksy vibe than it has in Europe etc.
Christianity today is in general nothing more than a parody of what Jesus Christ taught, just as modern Judaism is nothing more than a shadow of what the original Jewish religion, with its temple, once was.
However, God has never changed, and it was written that his people would rise again at the end time (Is. 2:2-4). So a true Judaism/Christianity, both the same thing since both of them are historical ways to worship the same God, has to be somewhere. We all have to go back to the roots to discover it... The roots are in the Bible, the only ancient book that really explains the living and true God, the God of Abraham and also the God of Jesus.
However, God has never changed, and it was written that his people would rise again at the end time (Is. 2:2-4). So a true Judaism/Christianity, both the same thing since both of them are historical ways to worship the same God, has to be somewhere. We all have to go back to the roots to discover it... The roots are in the Bible, the only ancient book that really explains the living and true God, the God of Abraham and also the God of Jesus.
This is not true per the NT itself,
Jude
For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Galatians
Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in — who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
1 John
Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.
This isn't unity.
I can see that intra-faith theological differences would matter to members of a given religion, but I also believe that the rule of law should step in if said differences lead to any denial of rights or freedoms targeting members of the less popular denomination or sect.
The thread question is a good one, and it reminds me of the controversy around whether members of the Ahmadiyya sect should be considered "true Muslims." Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet, which contradicts other Islamic sects' belief in Muhammad as the final prophet—the "seal of the prophets," as he is described in Qur'an 33:40. As a result, all major Islamic sects regard them as heretics and non-Muslims, or kuffar.
As I touched on earlier, from a non-believer's position as someone outside a faith, they may not believe it is their place to dictate to self-professed followers of said faith who is or is not a "true believer," which I believe is part of why many non-believers still regard Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians despite their nontrinitarian views, Ahmadiyya as Muslims despite their highly outlying beliefs, etc.
I strongly disagree with what some anti-religious people do when they dismiss moderates as "cherry-pickers," "hypocrites," etc., and argue that only the literalists and fundamentalists understand a given religion or religions—usually in an attempt to demonize the entire religion and its texts. By that same token, I don't believe it is my business to tell a Jehovah's Witness that they're "not a real Christian" or an Ahmadi that they're "kaffir." These are not debates in which I have any interest in appointing myself a theological arbiter or authority.
You missed the point:
2 Thess. 2:2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.
3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things?
6 And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Look at the name Christianity.
It clearly revolves around the story of Jesus Christ and its foundational religious structure focuses on Pauline doctrines that the church revolves around.