Heresy And Marcionite Bible

[Evangetholic]

Well then. What do you believe?

[Evangetholic]

Besides that only God can reveal His Christ. (Which is what we believe as well.)

[reyb]

Well then. What do you believe?

That this historical Jesus is a lie or a non-existing Jesus Christ in our world of reality. Meaning, there is no historical Jesus at all. But there is ‘another’ Jesus Christ different from this historical Jesus who is the true and real one and only God can reveal him.

Luke’s testimony is just a story or a narration of the coming of Christ in a form of historical reality just like when Jonah wrote his testimony about the coming of Christ in a form of a big fish where he is 3 days and 3 nights inside the belly of this big fist. It is the same thing when Moses wrote about the burning bush in the mount of Sinai and many other written ‘stories’. All of them are referring to the one and the same ‘coming of the Christ of God’ but written in different narration and in different times although this ‘coming’ is just once and for all and seen by all witnesses at that one time. Nevertheless, none of them are ‘historical realities’ because all of them are just 'stories or narration'. You will never find this big fish, burning bush, light in damascus (in the case of Apostle Paul), and Luke’s historical Jesus in our world of realities.

 

And this is what I believe. If only you earnestly seek him - meaning the truth from God himself - you will find him. By the grace of God, He will reveal his Christ to you because he is not too far from us. He is actually in us.

 

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[Apotheoun]

Let us not use the word ‘Christological orthodoxy or heterodoxy’ because according to wiki Heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church refers to views that differ from strictly orthodox views, but retain sufficient faithfulness to the original doctrine to avoid heresy. While The word orthodox, from Greek  orthos ("right", "true", "straight") + doxa ("opinion" or "belief", related to dokein, "to think"),is generally used to mean the adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion. In the narrow sense the term means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church".

Let me put it this way. I termed this Catholics’ Jesus as historical Jesus because just like you said ‘Catholics believe that the eternal Son of God became incarnate, that is, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; then yes, Catholics  believe in the historicity of the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary as described in the Gospel narratives.  So yes, Catholics really do believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and lived as a man among men, and He gathered a group of disciples around Him, and appointed twelve apostles to continue His ministry after His death, resurrection, and ascension into heavenly glory.'  

So to make it short, you are correct that is the Jesus I called ‘historical Jesus’.  And again you are correct, I do not accept this 'historical Jesus' as the true Jesus Christ mentioned by all God's witnesses like Apostle Paul, Luke, Jonah, Abraham...etc.

Okay, that clarifies matters, because clearly we have nothing in common.

 

 

As St. John said:  "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of anti-christ, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already."

 

You deny that Christ has come in the flesh, while I accept the teaching enunciated by St. John in his epistle.

[Evangetholic]

Else where Reyb I said this tor you, part six is currently relevant:

 

I've numbered your post to better help anyone interested following
this do so. (the mealy mouthed and easily shocked should skip part six)

 

1.
Based on this then you are my brother and a brother to most of the good
people here. Why do you trouble us? (Then I got to sections 4 and 5
where I discovered that you are not a Christian according to the
commonly understood [[theological rather than sociological] meaning this
word.)
 

2. Enoch is not a Biblical text. The only Enoch mentioned in the Bible walked with God long before the Incarnation.

 

3.
You seem to be describing a visionary experience related to your
conversion, many people have had such, but neither dreams, nor visions
are to govern the Christian life. We are not to build doctrines on these
and certainly not to speak to our brothers as if they are not our
brothers because they haven't had this favor granted them by God.

 

4
and 5. Oh I see. You really do sound like one of the (I cannot find a
neutral and inoffensive term to describe them, so take this as it is
intended) heretics of the early centuries of Christianity. You are a
basic anti-materialist--a Manachaean or a Gnostic. What does Paul say of
those who either preach another Gospel than the one we have first come
to believe or who deny that Christ, who I assure you Paul understood as
the Second Person of the Trinity, came in the flesh.

 

6.
Know that you preach a kind of rank heresy the Church (by which thing I
mean to include Catholics, but do not exclusively mean them) defeated by
the Power of the Holy Ghost with pure Biblical light a millennium ago.
Know that I am in no way your brother. There is no secular brotherhood
of mankind. These men are my brothers because we share a Father, a
brother in the Biblical and Historical God-Man, and are the dwelling
place of the Holy Ghost.

 

I do not seek visions, though
many Christians of all traditions have had them. I do not seek another
Lord. The Grace of God invaded my life, and made the scales fall from my
eyes, I have beheld the One By Whom Men Might Be Saved. He is "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace." And was born by the power of the Holy Ghost
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. A real and true human baby, yet He is not
merely human. He had a heart that beat, a mouth that
sought His Mother's Breast, He had flesh, feet, arms, legs, a penis,
toes, a brain, a significant amount of His DNA was shared with
chimpanzees, and yet still He is not merely human.

 

Hear me Reyb, GOD PUT ON FLESH. God became man. He ate, spat, urinated, defecated, bled, felt pain, and even died.
Jesus, called the Christ, became MAN. Do not build some disembodied
spiritualism for yourself when He has revealed Himself. Do not chase
idols, and religious system's of man's devising when "His burden is easy. And His yoke is light."

 

Faith
is only as good as the object of that faith. You have placed your faith
in an  unworthy object either gotten directly from the ancients or
devised by yourself. Trust in the Common Christ all Christendom adores.

 

7. Correct Eucharistic doctrine is plainly taught in John 6.

[reyb]

Okay, that clarifies matters, because clearly we have nothing in common.

 

 

As St. John said:  "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of anti-christ, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already."

 

You deny that Christ has come in the flesh, while I accept the teaching enunciated by St. John in his epistle.

 

Of course, Jesus comes in the flesh that is why I said He is not a ghost as it is written in Luke 24:39. But the problem is this, you are trying to tell me that he is the historical Jesus. So, we will go back to square one again.

It is written in Heb 10:5-7
 

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me ; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am — it is written about me in the scroll — I have come to do your will, O God.'"  

Who’s body is that? (please see Ps 40:17 and tell me who’s body is prepared for him and who is that one who said 'Here I am'.).

Edited March 4, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

Hear me Reyb, GOD PUT ON FLESH. God became man. He ate, spat, urinated, defecated, bled, felt pain, and even died.

 

Jesus, called the Christ, became MAN. Do not build some disembodied
spiritualism for yourself when He has revealed Himself. Do not chase
idols, and religious system's of man's devising when "His burden is easy. And His yoke is light."

 

 

.............

Hear me Reyb, GOD PUT ON FLESH. God became man. He ate, spat, urinated, defecated, bled, felt pain, and even died.
Jesus, called the Christ, became MAN. Do not build some disembodied
spiritualism for yourself when He has revealed Himself. Do not chase
idols, and religious system's of man's devising when "His burden is easy. And His yoke is light."

 

.....................

 

See that bold letter 'urinated, defecated' can you tell me where is it in the bible?

[Evangetholic]

inherent to being human. do not be silly.

[PhuturePriest]

Fact: I have never completely read one of reyb's posts because they're always so long and make absolutely no sense at all that I lose interest halfway through.

[Evangetholic]

He's actually doing much better.

[Apotheoun]

He's actually doing much better.

Yeah, he's just hung up on the word "historical," but if Christ assumed human nature from the Blessed Theotokos and became man, it follows that He entered into this world and into human history.  Go figure.

[reyb]

inherent to being human. do not be silly.

I understand what you are really saying. Of course, if Jesus is a ‘human being’ then he must have been urinated and defecated like you (or something like that). But I am simply ‘emphasizing’ a fact that your statement regarding â€˜Jesus urinated and defecated’ is not written even in your own bible.

Edited March 5, 2013 by reyb

[Selah]

I read this as, "heresy and McDonald's"

[Evangetholic]

Well you caught me! I say things that aren't in the Bible sometimes.

 

I also think he most likely had curly brown/black hair, brown/green eyes, and olive skin.

 

I would also assume that He and His Mother looked more alike than most other mothers and sons.

[reyb]

inherent to being human. do not be silly.

 

 

I understand what you are really saying. Of course, if Jesus is a ‘human being’ then he must have been urinated and defecated like you (or something like that). But I am simply ‘emphasizing’ a fact that your statement regarding â€˜Jesus urinated and defecated’ is not written even in your own bible.

 

 

Well you caught me! I say things that aren't in the Bible sometimes.

 

I also think he most likely had curly brown/black hair, brown/green eyes, and olive skin.

 

I would also assume that He and His Mother looked more alike than most other mothers and sons.

 

 I consider them  ‘speculative reasoning’ but to insist such ‘thing’ is true then it is already a different story.

It seems these heretics like Docetist, Gnostic-Christians like Marcion, Valentinus and others are also believer of Jesus Christ like Ignatius and his group. But they differ on what kind of ‘body’ this Jesus has. Ignatius believed that Jesus Christ has flesh and blood like a human being but these â€˜heretics’ do not accept it.
 

Thus he (Ignatius) said ‘For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." and (also in this same letter) ‘not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be[Christians]’.  (Please see Letter of Ignatius to Smyrnaens in http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-roberts.html).

But this is intriguing, if Valentinus do not really believed that Jesus has a ‘body’ why then he believed on this (please see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/valentinus-e.html)?

 

Edited March 5, 2013 by reyb