Is this heresy?

[~Anastasia~]

I Never Stated my opinion. So the heresy charge was uncalled for i think.

By the way, just to be clear, in case you were referring to my post (and a charge of heresy is serious, so it's worth being accurate on such matters).

Anyway, I never charged anyone with heresy. What I did say was

To deny what the Creed states, is by definition heresy.

So if someone claims, for example, that Jesus was not God incarnate, as the Creed states, that denial would be a heresy.

I did not say that you denied the Creed (which is simply the distilled essence of Christian teaching), nor did I make any charge of heresy.

I said that any teaching which denies it would be heresy. I leave it to persons to examine their own beliefs and see if they deny it or not.

Peace to all.

 

[JIMINZ]

What do you mean?

.
I can't find a better answer than the one I gave you, and you don't accept it as valid.
Therefore I ca't help you any further. ..........Carry on.... Have a good day.

 

[W2L]

.
I can't find a better answer than the one I gave you, and you don't accept it as valid.
Therefore I ca't help you any further. ..........Carry on.... Have a good day.

You lost me. Hey im trying to be open minded here. Im honestly considering what the truth is here. You could be helpful, if you wanted.

 

[W2L]

By the way, just to be clear, in case you were referring to my post (and a charge of heresy is serious, so it's worth being accurate on such matters).

Anyway, I never charged anyone with heresy. What I did say was


So if someone claims, for example, that Jesus was not God incarnate, as the Creed states, that denial would be a heresy.

I did not say that you denied the Creed (which is simply the distilled essence of Christian teaching), nor did I make any charge of heresy.

I said that any teaching which denies it would be heresy. I leave it to persons to examine their own beliefs and see if they deny it or not.

Peace to all.

What was that other poster saying about modelism? I asked him to join this thread but he didnt.

 

[W2L]

.

Anyway, I never charged anyone with heresy.

Yes, i pointed that out further into the thread.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Jesus and the Father are one --- meaning they are of the same Essence (there is only one God, one Essence). They are also one in unity - their wills are perfectly aligned. There is no conflict or disagreement in the Godhead.

However, Jesus and the Father are not "one and the same" ... meaning identical, interchangeable, not distinct.

They are unique and distinct Persons, as is the Holy Spirit. Though all share one Essence, and have full agreement in will and purpose.


And if the answer was missed, the problem with the statement earlier is to say that Jesus is ONLY Spirit, with no body, after the Incarnation. He became man, having a body and a spirit as we all do. His body was resurrected, raised incorruptible, as will the bodies of all persons who have ever lived be raised from the dead and reunited with their spirits before the final judgement.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Modalism, in very basic terms, is that Father, Son, Holy Spirit are just different "modes" which God uses to interact with us. Some believe that He used to be the Father, then became the Son at the Incarnation (which is very mistaken - He is eternally the Son of the Father, NOT the Son because if being born Mary's son), and later became the Holy Spirit. That's a type of modalism. It and other types of modalism are heretical by Christian standards.

The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit are all distinct from one another, and all are eternal. None cease to exist for the sake of "becoming" another.

 

[W2L]

Jesus and the Father are one --- meaning they are of the same Essence (there is only one God, one Essence). They are also one in unity - their wills are perfectly aligned. There is no conflict or disagreement in the Godhead.

However, Jesus and the Father are not "one and the same" ... meaning identical, interchangeable, not distinct.

They are unique and distinct Persons, as is the Holy Spirit. Though all share one Essence, and have full agreement in will and purpose.


And if the answer was missed, the problem with the statement earlier is to say that Jesus is ONLY Spirit, with no body, after the Incarnation. He became man, having a body and a spirit as we all do. His body was resurrected, raised incorruptible, as will the bodies of all persons who have ever lived be raised from the dead and reunited with their spirits before the final judgement.

Jesus and the Father are one --- meaning they are of the same Essence (there is only one God, one Essence). They are also one in unity - their wills are perfectly aligned. There is no conflict or disagreement in the Godhead.

What about Gods Spirit living inside us? Isn't that being one with God? Consider this scripture. Is it an example of us becoming one with god, i.e. one flesh?

Ephesians 5:31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

They are unique and distinct Persons, as is the Holy Spirit. Though all share one Essence, and have full agreement in will and purpose.

I have a hard time seeing How Gods Spirit is a different person than He is. Is my Spirit a different Person than i am?

 

[JIMINZ]

You lost me. Hey im trying to be open minded here. Im honestly considering what the truth is here. You could be helpful, if you wanted.

.
I have been, I began with the shortest verse I could find that said hat the truth actually is, but you won't accept it, you give me one word, and no explanation as to what I am supposed to understand about your answer soooooo. I can't go any further if your not willing to be open enough to give information as to the why you believe or think the way you do.

Just asking a question doesn't give the reader enough information as to the why the question has been asked.

Case in point, everyone answering you OP doesn't have a clue as to what your saying, and most of the answers you have received are meant to give them information you never provided.

How about this,- - - - -> Start again from this point (((.))) and fill in the blanks which people need in order for them to give you an intelligent answer.

Then discuss the answer, giving them the reasons you disagree with them, not just a one word answer about some obscure religious belief, sorry but that just don't cut it.

What is it you are actually attempting to find out, verify, prove, or get others to see and understand?....Because at this point, I don't have a clue.

 

[W2L]

Modalism, in very basic terms, is that Father, Son, Holy Spirit are just different "modes" which God uses to interact with us. Some believe that He used to be the Father, then became the Son at the Incarnation (which is very mistaken - He is eternally the Son of the Father, NOT the Son because if being born Mary's son), and later became the Holy Spirit. That's a type of modalism. It and other types of modalism are heretical by Christian standards.

The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit are all distinct from one another, and all are eternal. None cease to exist for the sake of "becoming" another.

Thanks, thats better than the short description i read.

 

[W2L]

.
I have been, I began with the shortest verse I could find that said hat the truth actually is, but you won't accept it, you give me one word, and no explanation as to what I am supposed to understand about your answer soooooo. I can't go any further if your not willing to be open enough to give information as to the why you believe or think the way you do.

Just asking a question doesn't give the reader enough information as to the why the question has been asked.

Case in point, everyone answering you OP doesn't have a clue as to what your saying, and most of the answers you have received are meant to give them information you never provided.

How about this,- - - - -> Start again from this point (((.))) and fill in the blanks which people need in order for them to give you an intelligent answer.

Then discuss the answer, giving them the reasons you disagree with them, not just a one word answer about some obscure religious belief, sorry but that just don't cut it.

What is it you are actually attempting to find out, verify, prove, or get others to see and understand?....Because at this point, I don't have a clue.

You asked what my hangup was and i answered you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What about Gods Spirit living inside us? Isn't that being one with God? Consider this scripture. Is it an example of us becoming one with god, i.e. one flesh?

Ephesians 5:31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.




I have a hard time seeing How Gods Spirit is a different person than He is. Is my Spirit a different Person than i am?

It is hard to try to understand God in human terms.

But if the Holy Spirit is with you ... does that make you God? Of course it doesn't. God can be everywhere. Our spirit is restricted to our own body.

The way that I think we can come closest to understanding the Holy Trinity is through the way it is explained in the Creed.

The Father is the eternal source. The Son is eternally begotten ....not at a moment in time. Consider also that the Son is the Word of God.

Again, with the Father as the Source, the Holy Spirit eternally "proceeds" (as commonly translated in English) ... but there is also the sense that the Holy Spirit is "breathed forth" ... again, eternally, not at a moment in time.

In meditating on this, we can arrive at the human understanding of the Holy Trinity. But on the other hand, the complete understanding is beyond our human abilities. I think it was St. Gregory the New Theologian (b. 329 AD) who said that we could contemplate the understanding of the Holy Trinity up to a certain point, but beyond that it would drive a person mad.

God has revealed Himself to us in the ways He has done - and God's words must be true. But trying to understand the Holy Spirit by examining and comparing Him to our own spirits is an attempt to make God in our image, and apt to lead to error.

We must accept what God has revealed, not try to make Him some other way through our own reasoning.

The same Councils that developed the Creeds also recognized Scripture as being Scripture, so it makes no sense to take an isolated sentence or two from the book they handed down to us to try to prove them wrong.

 

[hedrick]

Is it possible (gulp) that the creed is not fully correct?

Sure, but the questions you're asking are more basic than the Trinity. You're asking whether Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct. That seems pretty clear in the NT, even if you don't accept the Trinity as it finally developed.

 

[hedrick]

Exactly, i was going to mention that next. Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection. Flesh and blood cant inherit the kingdom, so it must be a sipirit that does. Look here, there is a spiritual body and a natural fleshy one.

I think there's a difference between a spirit and a spiritual body.

 

[hedrick]

Jesus is a Spirit now, isnt He?

I don't think so. 1 Cor 15 speaks of the spiritual body as the result of the resurrection of the dead. Look at 1 Cor 15:50 ff. He's seeing the resurrection of the dead as what happens at the end. At the last trumpet we will be raised with imperishable bodies. By spiritual body he doesn't mean a spirit in the usual sense (something without a body). He means something with a body that has been changed to be imperishable. He sees the resurrected Jesus as the first example of this.

Traditional theology speaks of an "intermediate state," that people after they die but before the final resurrection, exist as spirits without bodies. That's a way to read certain Biblical passages, though I'm not as confident as some people are. But Paul is not saying that Jesus is in that kind of intermediate state. It's pretty clear from 1 Cor 15 that he thinks Jesus is now as we will eventually be, in the kind of resurrected bodies that we'll get at the end. For him, the resurrected Jesus is a sign that we'll be resurrected too.

Note that Paul doesn't always use language consistently. In 15:45 he speaks of Jesus as becoming a life-giving spirit. But it's clear in context that he's referring to Jesus in his spiritual body. One of the problems in dealing with the NT is that it's not a theology textbook. It doesn't define technical terms and then use them consistently. So you have to look carefully to see what the authors were really trying to say.

 

[tulipbee]

THe bible says that the Lord is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:17 Whats that mean?

Isaiah says that a child will be born, and His name will be called eternal Father and mighty God. Isaiah 9:6 WHo is that child and who is the eternal Father?

--------------
there's your proof Jesus IS God
--------------

 

[W2L]

But trying to understand the Holy Spirit by examining and comparing Him to our own spirits is an attempt to make God in our image, and apt to lead to error.

We are made in God's image, so perhaps we can compare ourselves to Him in that way.

 

[W2L]

I think there's a difference between a spirit and a spiritual body.

How do we know?

 

[~Anastasia~]

We are made in God's image, so perhaps we can compare ourselves to Him in that way.

When our logic, making God in our image, goes against what God has revealed to us, I would suggest that is not a safe course.

Of course we can all freely choose to believe as we will. That's about all I've got to say on it.

God be with you.

 

[Meowzltov]

Isaiah says that a child will be born, and His name will be called eternal Father and mighty God. Isaiah 9:6 WHo is that child and who is the eternal Father?

Actually this verse is almost always mistranslated from the Hebrew. Everyone knows that Christ is not the Father. Plus the verse has a double meaning. It is also about king hezekiahs son. The correct translation is And his name shall be called “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God. The everlasting Father is the prince of peace. “