Are you a heretic for not believing what I do?

[invert_nexus]

I doubt I'll end up being complacent.

What are "ancient of days guys"? I dont think I've heard that term before..

So, are you saying you are a heretic? It's a tough question to ask yourself, isn't it?

If you haven't seen All Praise the Ancient of Days tacked on to some of the posts around here, I wonder just how much of the posts you read. I've never heard the phrase until coming to this website. It comes from christians, so it's not a wiccan thing. There's at least three or four people who post it with everything they say.

 

[Adstar]

Easy, just look it up in a dictionary.

Definition heresy [Show phonetics] noun 1 [C or U] (the act of having) an opinion or belief that is the opposite of or against what is the official or popular opinion, or an action which shows that you have no respect for the official opinion: Radical remarks like this amount to heresy for most members of the Republican party. She committed the heresy of playing a Madonna song on a classical music station.
2 a belief which is against the principles of a particular religion: He was burned at the stake in the fifteenth century for heresy.

heretic [Show phonetics] noun [C] a person who is guilty of heresy

heretical [Show phonetics] adjective Her belief that a split would be good for the party was regarded as heretical.
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

Looks like I´m a heretic

From that definition i am also a heretic.
opinion or belief that is the opposite of or against what is the official or popular opinion.
Official or popular yep i am a heritic.


My definition of Heritic:
Someone who is promoting or teaching things about God that are against the will of God. Someone bearing false witness to God.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Dreamwalker]

I don´t know, wouldn´t that border on blasphemy?

 

[Adstar]

The Ancient Of Days is refered to in the Book of Daniel chapter 7. The Ancient Of Days is someone.

Daniel 7
9 "I watched till thrones were put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
10A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
And the books were opened.


And again

13"I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
14Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.

And again

19"Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; 20and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows.
21"I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, 22until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
23"Thus he said:


"The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces.
24The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.
25He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.


26"But the court shall be seated,
And they shall take away his dominion,
To consume and destroy it forever.
27Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.'


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[okinrus]

What do you mean contradict to the Church? Contradict to what the Pope says? Or what the majority says?

Loosely speaking, teaching something that contradicts the teachings of the Church. The Pope can also proclaim infalliable teachings ex-cathedra, and someone who rejects these teachings while being a Catholic would have committed heresy.

The term "ancient of days" comes from the book of Daniel. It's a praise name for the Father.

 

[§outh§tar]

Galatians 5

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[3] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21envy, murders,[4] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Well okinrus, there was no Catholic Church back in that time. What could he have possibly meant by "dissension" and "heresies"?

Since most of us on this forum, if not all, go against popular belief in some way or the other, that makes us 'guilty', doesn't it?

@invert_nexus

Yes, I have noticed. I didn't make the connection at first.. As for me being a heretic, I will leave it to you guys to interpret the text and tell me what you think.

 

[okinrus]

Well okinrus, there was no Catholic Church back in that time.

Yes, Paul was a member of the Catholic Church. The word "catholic" was first used in writing for the name for the Church by Ignatius around 100AD.

What could he have possibly meant by "dissension" and "heresies"?

My translation says "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions,...."

Since most of us on this forum, if not all, go against popular belief in some way or the other, that makes us 'guilty', doesn't it?

Most of this forum have not been baptized into the Catholic church and at one time assented to the believe in Catholic doctrine. You might be a heretic to popular society but that doesn't make you guilty of heresy.

 

[§outh§tar]

Factions may very well be interpreted as 'denominations', don't you think?

--
Well now that I know Paul was a member of the Catholic Church, does that mean 'non-Catholic' Christians are heretics since there would have been (some) bias involved?

And in regards to your last statement: If not, what does make one "guilty of heresy".

 

[okinrus]

Factions may very well be interpreted as 'denominations', don't you think?

Strictly speaking, "yes."

Well now that I know Paul was a member of the Catholic Church, does that mean 'non-Catholic' Christians are heretics since there would have been (some) bias involved?

No, they are not heretics unless if they used to be Catholic, and even then I believe the Church reserves the use of heretic, preferring instead separated brethen. This is mainly because the word heretic usually presumes mortal sin, and to be guilty of the mortal sin of heresy the heretic must know what he or she is doing is mortally wrong. Nevertheless, specific doctrines espoused by some of these denominations can be labeled heretical.

And in regards to your last statement: If not, what does make one "guilty of heresy".

This is the Catechism's definition.
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/heresy.htm

 

[§outh§tar]

"denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith"

What I'm saying is what "truths" are these? Whatever they are they must be so blatant that differing interpretation would be "obstinate" and there aren't too many of those in the Bible that I can think of.

Does the Church give any examples or does it remain vague on that aspect?

P.S. Thanx for the information. I learned something new.

 

[okinrus]

What I'm saying is what "truths" are these?

Usually doctines on the Trinity, Mary, and justification.

Whatever they are they must be so blatant that differing interpretation would be "obstinate"

I think obstinance means that someone persists in wrong doctrine despite it being shown wrong to them.

and there aren't too many of those in the Bible that I can think of.

There are certain believes such as the belief that Jesus was not resurrected in the flesh, not born in the flesh, was not crucified, etc. that heretics have believed in. Some heretics denied that certain books of the Bible were canonical.

Does the Church give any examples or does it remain vague on that aspect?

There are some people such as Luther who were tried for heresy and found guilty.

 

[§outh§tar]

Usually doctines on the Trinity, Mary, and justification.

Well Protestants don't 'deal' very well with Mary (in the Catholic sense) if you know what I mean.. surely, that constitues heresy. As for the Trinity, the Bible does not give any dissertations on the Triune Being and I think a lot of what is taught is based on inference. Remember, people selling indulgences weren't burnt at the stake for heresy.

I think obstinance means that someone persists in wrong doctrine despite it being shown wrong to them.

Are Protestants consequently heretics, or are Catholics? It seems to be either one or the other due to the "schism" that took place in the Church.

There are certain believes such as the belief that Jesus was not resurrected in the flesh, not born in the flesh, was not crucified, etc. that heretics have believed in. Some heretics denied that certain books of the Bible were canonical.There are some people such as Luther who were tried for heresy and found guilty.

Well, was Luther really a heretic?

 

[okinrus]

Are Protestants consequently heretics, or are Catholics? It seems to be either one or the other due to the "schism" that took place in the Church.

The Protestant separation was not a schism because Protestants teach different doctrines than Catholics. The doctrines that are different from the Church, such as salvation by faith alone, are heretical but this doesn't mean all Protestants are heretics.

Well, was Luther really a heretic?

Most likely "yes," but I don't think Martin Luther was not in right mind.

 

[§outh§tar]

The Protestant separation was not a schism because Protestants teach different doctrines than Catholics. The doctrines that are different from the Church, such as salvation by faith alone, are heretical but this doesn't mean all Protestants are heretics.

The New Testament plainly points out that salvation by faith is the ONLY way. How is this at all heresy? This is a clear case where the 'Church' is being hypocritical and itself being "obstinate" to the truth being presented.

Most likely "yes," but I don't think Martin Luther was not in right mind.

Could you explain this, I don't understand.

 

[okinrus]

The New Testament plainly points out that salvation by faith is the ONLY way.

Salvation by faith and salvation by faith alone are two different things.

How is this at all heresy? This is a clear case where the 'Church' is being hypocritical and itself being "obstinate" to the truth being presented.

Isn't faith without works dead?

 

[§outh§tar]

Perhaps I misunderstood you.


In the application that "you shall know them by their fruit", faith with works is applicable. If I died a microsecond after accepting Christ, do you attempt to say my salvation is null because of the absence of works?

Remember:

We do NOT recieve the Spirit by the works of the law, but by the hearing of faith ALONE.

This is a question I hope you will answer for me:

Galatians 3
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

 

[okinrus]

In the application that "you shall know them by their fruit", faith with works is applicable. If I died a microsecond after accepting Christ, do you attempt to say my salvationis null because of the absence of works?

No, I think of works as allowing God to work within us. It's necessary for the living to do God's work because that is God's will. Someone who truly loves God will do God's will.

We do NOT recieve the Spirit by the works of the law, but by the hearing of faith ALONE.

Paul speaks of someone "shipwrecking" their faith. This cannot be so unless if their faith was dependent on doing God's will after they received their faith. Revelation further speaks of those who were lukewarm, and Jesus said that since they were neither hot nor cold he would spit them out. This is only so because someone who is within Christ must do as Christ says.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Yes, Paul was a member of the Catholic Church. The word "catholic" was first used in writing for the name for the Church by Ignatius around 100AD.

*************
M*W: Although the word "catholic" was used by Ignatius around 110 CE, the context of the word "catholic" used at that time comes into question. The word "catholic" means "one holy apostolic (teaching) body." Paul, on the other hand, lived from ~5 CE-67 CE, which is prior to Ignatius' writing. Therefore, since Paul was beheaded long before this time, Paul was not a "catholic."
*************

A feast of the universal Church commorating the downpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, 50 days after the Resurrection of Christ, also proves that Paul was not a true Apostle. Paul fabricated his Apostleship, since he never knew Jesus in person nor was he present for the Crucifixion nor the Resurrection nor the Pentecost. In fact, Paul was quite well-known as a perpetual prevaricator. Paul was not a member of the "catholic" church. He was not an Apostle except in his own mind. He was not there on the day of Pentecost and did not receive the Holy Spirit when the original Apostles were said to have received it. In fact, the church that Paul professed was not even the church of Jesus. The church of Jesus was led by James, Jesus' brother, and it fell in Jerusalem.

 

[§outh§tar]

I don't believe Paul ever claimed to be an 'Apostle'. EVER. If you would like to show BIBLICAL evidence for ANY of this, go right ahead.

 

[okinrus]

Paul said that he was an apostle(lower case Greek for someone sent by God), to which all Christians proclaim he is.

A feast of the universal Church commorating the downpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, 50 days after the Resurrection of Christ,

40 days, I believe.

In fact, the church that Paul professed was not even the church of Jesus. The church of Jesus was led by James, Jesus' brother, and it fell in Jerusalem.

I thought Jesus was a rabbi? Rabbies don't create their own churches, especially one that would compete with the Jewish temple.