'heresies' so-called

[aspergers_anomalous]

anyone here subscribe to any christian 'heresies?' I am a proud 'Arian'. i.e. i believe that Jesus was the Son of God but neither consubstantial nor co-eternal. Have you faced opposition for your beliefs?

 

[wizanda]

Me all the time......started off raised Christian and then realized who Christ (Yeshua) is; so have always struggled if spoke.....to begin feared man...now fear God and get in trouble of man, its far easier that way.....

 

[lombas]

I have sympathies for the teachings of Arian, Hus, &c.

Frankly, I just think of heresies as failed mass/organized movements. Luther was considered heretic, and in 1054 two patriarchs excommunicated one another.

 

[athanasius]

anyone here subscribe to any christian 'heresies?' I am a proud 'Arian'. i.e. i believe that Jesus was the Son of God but neither consubstantial nor co-eternal. Have you faced opposition for your beliefs?

Yes I have faced opposition, every day as a matter of fact from all diffrent kinds of people. Actually Chrisitanity in general faced oppostion and riducule from the arian heresy itself back in the 4th century, considering the vast majority (around 80%) or so of the early church(many many Bishops and priest) at one time fell prey to the arian doctrine. But the Holy Spirit guided.

God bless you always!

Ave Theotokos.

 

[aspergers_anomalous]

opposition and ridicule? How?

 

[Inky]

I don't know which movement would fit me, if any, but I'm probably a "heretical" Christian since I don't believe in an afterlife.

 

[Bishka]

*Waves*

I'm a Latter-day Saint -- many Christians do not even consider us a Christian denomination.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am full of Heresies...
Fortunately The Anglicans do not mind. a lot of us could be thought individualist in our beliefs.

 

[aspergers_anomalous]

yeah that's what i like about the anglican church. I was speaking to my vicar and he said, 'You have to work out your own theology.' [I didn't mention 'heresy' explictly]. In my experience, there are certain denominations that would never say what he said. Btw LDS are also Christians, don't worry. Anyone who says otherwise is suffering from pride and thinks they are better than anyone else.

 

[athanasius]

*Waves*

I'm a Latter-day Saint -- many Christians do not even consider us a Christian denomination.

That is true.

 

[Bishka]

Btw LDS are also Christians, don't worry.

I try not too.

 

[Katzpur]

anyone here subscribe to any christian 'heresies?' I am a proud 'Arian'. i.e. i believe that Jesus was the Son of God but neither consubstantial nor co-eternal. Have you faced opposition for your beliefs?

I believe that the idea that the Father and the Son are co-substantial and co-eternal are the real heresies.

 

[wizanda]

I believe that the idea that the Father and the Son are co-substantial and co-eternal are the real heresies.

-Simon Stone (peter)...........-John Nicodemus (Nicholas - Nicolaitans = Doctrine)...........-Saul (Paul murderer)=
True Christ
:rainbow1:

 

[athanasius]

I believe that the idea that the Father and the Son are co-substantial and co-eternal are the real heresies.

So did the Arians. Obviously you know where my church historically and ecclesiastically stands on this issue. Actually the historic term is "consubstantial"(Homooousia in the Greek) or of the same substance of or one in being with God the Father, eternally begotton(Not made) by the Father from all eternity. The historic christian understanding that the Son is of the same substance of the Father, they are one in substance(God), they are both part of the one and only Godhead yet they are distinct in there own personages. This is "mystery" of faith for the historic Christian as the church in time and history through the Holy Spirit deveolped more and more insight into this truth that was implicit in scripture and explicit in tradition and eventually became explicitly defined formally at and understood by the historic Christian councils. Perhaps some time in the future the Holy Spirit will help develope more of a fuller understanding of this Sacred and Holy Mystery as all things mature and all doctrine develops.

 

[Katzpur]

This is "mystery" of faith for the historic Christian as the church in time and history through the Holy Spirit deveolped more and more insight into this truth that was implicit in scripture and explicit in tradition and eventually became explicitly defined formally at and understood by the historic Christian councils. Perhaps some time in the future the Holy Spirit will help develope more of a fuller understanding of this Sacred and Holy Mystery as all things mature and all doctrine develops.

Uh huh. Well, I believe that Christ's Apostles and His first-century disciples had a far better understanding of the nature of the Godhead than anyone on earth did by the fourth and fifth centuries.

 

[athanasius]

Uh huh. Well, I believe that Christ's Apostles and His first-century disciples had a far better understanding of the nature of the Godhead than anyone on earth did by the fourth and fifth centuries.

Yes I know you do. I meant no offense by pointing out our differences, I am sorry if I touched a nerve I was just trying to illustrate a point about historic Christianity. Our understanding of doctrinal development is not shared by Mormon coummunities and thats fine. Its just one of our many doctrinal differences that we have with each others respected faiths. Most Christians(except may be a few fundies) will admit or adhere to some concept of doctrinal development. The understanding of the full blown nature of Christ and his relationship to the Father is one of these doctrines that historically comes up from time to time. I hope that Helps

 

[Katzpur]

Yes I know you do. I meant no offense by pointing out our differences, I am sorry if I touched a nerve I was just trying to illustrate a point about historic Christianity. Our understanding of doctrinal development is not shared by Mormon coummunities and thats fine. Its just one of our many doctrinal differences that we have with each others respected faiths. Most Christians(except may be a few fundies) will admit or adhere to some concept of doctrinal development. The understanding of the full blown nature of Christ and his relationship to the Father is one of these doctrines that historically comes up from time to time. I hope that Helps

What "historic Christianity" teaches is interesting to me, but only from a purely academic perspective.

 

[doppelganger]

I'm a walking heresy and proud of it.

 

[athanasius]

What "historic Christianity" teaches is interesting to me, but only from a purely academic perspective.

It is interesting to me from a academic perspective too because right now I am taking a coarse on early and medieval Church history! Of coarse I also thinks it helps my faith too.

 

[may]

I don't know which movement would fit me, if any, but I'm probably a "heretical" Christian since I don't believe in an afterlife.

yes i agree, we do not possess an imortal soul , we do not have a shadowy something inside of us that floats off to God, the teaching of the immortality of the human soul is not a true bible teaching , but many in christendom have been misled by this manmade doctrine . ................. but what the bible does teach is the resurrection which is a completley different thing all togeather