Discussion: Favorite and Least Favorite Heresies

4,975 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by swimmerbabe11
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Inspired from recent tweets




UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My favorite heresy is Anglo-Israelism, closely followed by Replacement Theology and Cessationism.
I am not so certain that Anglo-Israelism is actually a heresy, but rather a detour down a dead end road. It has not been genetically proven despite some interesting ideas it proposes.

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/the-united-states-and-britain-in-bible-prophecy/advocates-of-british-israelism
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If gnosticism is the "coolest" and most "hipster" heresy then it is my least favorite.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Part of the foundation of the British-Israel doctrine is the theological claim that particular blessings were bestowed upon three of the tribes of Israel, in that the tribe of Judah was to be the 'chief ruler' e.g. King David, and that Ephraim was to receive the birthright (See Jacob and Esau). Adherents believe that these blessings have continued down through the ages to modern times, with the British Monarchy identified as the continued blessing upon Judah, and both Britain (Ephraim) and the USA (Manasseh) as recipients of the national birthright blessing. They cite passages such as 1 Chron 5:1-2 and Gen 48:19-20 as supporting this.
It's always so convenient how these myths always work out in favor of the group the advocates belong to.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll throw in a vote for KJV-only-ism.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PacifistAg said:

Quote:

Part of the foundation of the British-Israel doctrine is the theological claim that particular blessings were bestowed upon three of the tribes of Israel, in that the tribe of Judah was to be the 'chief ruler' e.g. King David, and that Ephraim was to receive the birthright (See Jacob and Esau). Adherents believe that these blessings have continued down through the ages to modern times, with the British Monarchy identified as the continued blessing upon Judah, and both Britain (Ephraim) and the USA (Manasseh) as recipients of the national birthright blessing. They cite passages such as 1 Chron 5:1-2 and Gen 48:19-20 as supporting this.
It's always so convenient how these myths always work out in favor of the group the advocates belong to.
Exactly. Follow the money.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Least favorite heresy is marcionism. I can't imagine anything more blasphemous that calling God the Father evil.

Most favorite is Nestorianism. The Trinity is an unfathomable concept and I think he got a bad wrap for a disagreement over something no one understands anyway.

Most fun is Rapture theology. Makes for lots of cool fiction
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
canadiaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Least favorite heresy is marcionism. I can't imagine anything more blasphemous that calling God the Father evil.

Most favorite is Nestorianism. The Trinity is an unfathomable concept and I think he got a bad wrap for a disagreement over something no one understands anyway.

Most fun is Rapture theology. Makes for lots of cool fiction
Apparently Marcionism survived for quite a while in Muslim-controlled West Asia. From wiki:

The Arabic name for Marcionism, markiuyniyya, is attested to by several historical sources of the Islamic Golden Age which appear to reveal that a meagre, though not non-existent, Marcionite community continued to exist in lands of the medieval Near East into the tenth-century. For example, the Christian writer Thomas of Marg states that, at the end of the eighth-century, the Metropolitan of Gln and Daylam, Shuwlsh, travelled into the remote parts of his see, preaching "among the pagans, Marcionites and Manichaeans." In a similar way, the tenth-century Muslim bibliographer Ibn al-Nadm goes so far as to claim that the Marcionites are "numerous in Khurasan" and that there "they practice openly, like the Manichaeans." Although information about the Khorasanite Marcionites is not related in any other historical source, Ibn al-Nadm nevertheless also quotes a "reliable informant" (thia), "whom he says had seen Marcionite books and who reported that their script resembled that of the Manichaeans."

Those medieval Muslim writers who specialized in the study of foreign religions often presented Marcionite theology accurately. For example, al-Masud (d. 956) states that the Marcionites taught "two principles, good and evil, and justice is a third (principle) between the two," which, according to de Blois, are clear references to the Marcionite belief in "the good god, evil matter, and the just god." In the majority of cases, the Islamic references to Marcionism are really references to what has been termed "Neo-Marcionism," a sub-branch of the sect that seems to have lived in Khorasan in the tenth-century. The classical Muslim thinkers rejected all types of Marcionite theology as deviations from the truth, and some thinkers, such as Ibn al-Malim (d. c. 1050) wrote polemics against them as others did against Nicene Christianity. This did not, however, prevent many of the same thinkers from studying the Marcionites from an anthropological or sociological point of view, as is evident from Ibn al-Malim's extended reference to the customs of the Marcionites.


PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oooh, rapture theology is a good one. My least favorite heresy, though, is Calvinism.

***slowly backs out of the room now that the pot has been stirred**
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh boy, HERE WE GO
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I had no idea and learned something today
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've always tended to lean towards Pelagianism myself.
It's so easy to fall into the trap of thinking you can be "good" enough to earn love.
It's rampant in the world today.
It's a temptation in my own life.
It's fun to say.
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My favorite heresy is Messianic Judaism.

I presume you guys consider that a heresy
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PacifistAg said:

Oooh, rapture theology is a good one.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Win At Life said:

My favorite heresy is Messianic Judaism.

I presume you guys consider that a heresy


It would fall under Arianism, no?
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's a fair assertion given the position of some Messianics; including one who used to frequent here. I suppose some Messianics would be considered exactly Arian. Our congregation doesn't believe Yeshau was begotten at a point in time, because we believe most "appearances" of the Mal'ak to the patriarchs we prefigure appearances of Yeshua. Our congregation will admit to fully believing in the divinity of Yeshua, but Trinitarians would accuse us of not believing fully in the divinity of Jesus if we don't accept their Trinity doctrine about Him.

I suppose it's difficult to voice any objection to the Trinity doctrine without somehow coming off as slightly Arian. However, I can't personally say I agree fully with the Trinity doctrine, because the Trinity doctrine says it's a doctrine that can't be understood fully. I have a problem saying I completely agree with something I can't understand. Wouldn't any honest person do likewise?

If you asked me for a complete description of Yeshau, the Father and the Ru'ach Ha'kodesh, I would just re-quote all the scriptures that describe this relationship with a little study into the original languages to better understand. But this exercise will fall short of defining the divinity to the detail described in the Trinity doctrine. I'm okay with that. Some Trinitarians are not.

Shalom
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Win At Life said:

That's a fair assertion given the position of some Messianics; including one who used to frequent here. I suppose some Messianics would be considered exactly Arian. Our congregation doesn't believe Yeshau was begotten at a point in time, because we believe most "appearances" of the Mal'ak to the patriarchs we prefigure appearances of Yeshua. Our congregation will admit to fully believing in the divinity of Yeshua, but Trinitarians would accuse us of not believing fully in the divinity of Jesus if we don't accept their Trinity doctrine about Him.

I suppose it's difficult to voice any objection to the Trinity doctrine without somehow coming off as slightly Arian. However, I can't personally say I agree fully with the Trinity doctrine, because the Trinity doctrine says it's a doctrine that can't be understood fully. I have a problem saying I completely agree with something I can't understand. Wouldn't any honest person do likewise?

If you asked me for a complete description of Yeshau, the Father and the Ru'ach Ha'kodesh, I would just re-quote all the scriptures that describe this relationship with a little study into the original languages to better understand. But this exercise will fall short of defining the divinity to the detail described in the Trinity doctrine. I'm okay with that. Some Trinitarians are not.

Shalom

first off,
thank you very much for not taking my comment as insult, I certainly didn't mean it as such...and from what I understand, the poster you referred to is further fringe? He was certainly Arian..

but.. if you don't believe he was begotten (nor was he made?) then do you believe He was also human man? or divinity disguised as man?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
94chem said:

I'll throw in a vote for KJV-only-ism.

I don't count that as heresy...just silliness. I consider heresy strictly christocentric/non-trinitarian..One can still be a Christian and only read the KJV
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

first off,
thank you very much for not taking my comment as insult, I certainly didn't mean it as such...and from what I understand, the poster you referred to is further fringe? He was certainly Arian..
Why would I be insulted? You've always conducted yourself here with the utmost respect for others. I wish we had more posters like that around here; kind of like back when titan used to post regularly. There were always the crazies, but it seemed like there were enough quality posters back then that the crazies stood out much more as being obviously uncivil. When so many are disrespectful, it kind of lowers the bar of what's considered civil and not civil, and it can drag you down with them if you're not vigilant. (I consider that a good test and a growth exercise, so I stick around).


Quote:

but.. if you don't believe he was begotten (nor was he made?) then do you believe He was also human man? or divinity disguised as man?
Yeshua was certainly human. He had physical flesh. He ate. He pooped (although not recorded in scripture ) And He was certainly divine as well. But does being, human, divine and eternal, etc. all at the same time require the exact Trinity doctrine to exist? I'm not so sure about that one.

I'll concede the Trinity doctrine could ultimately be the correct nature of YHWH Yeshua Ha'Mashiach, but not only can't I understand it, the Trinitarians can't even actually prove it from scripture, because the CHURCH defines her own terms to create the Trinity doctrine, according to the founders of that doctrine; being the Catholic Church.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
swimmerbabe11 said:

94chem said:

I'll throw in a vote for KJV-only-ism.

I don't count that as heresy...just silliness. I consider heresy strictly christocentric/non-trinitarian..One can still be a Christian and only read the KJV


I don't think you understand the depth of the silliness, as evidenced by your last sentence.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
94chem said:

swimmerbabe11 said:

94chem said:

I'll throw in a vote for KJV-only-ism.

I don't count that as heresy...just silliness. I consider heresy strictly christocentric/non-trinitarian..One can still be a Christian and only read the KJV


I don't think you understand the depth of the silliness, as evidenced by your last sentence.
This is a very good point. In the IFBC world I grew up in, if you weren't "saved" with a KJV bible, you weren't saved. I'm not even exaggerating. We commonly referred to the NIV as the New International Perversion, and held disdain for all non-KJV bibles. Those using non-KJV were not real Christians and we were not to associate with them. That said, finding heresies within a cult isn't that difficult.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are two types of KJV-only's.

1. The KJV was sent from heaven and is the literal word of God.
2. The KJV is the best English translation from the Majority Text (Byzantine). Others include the Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, Great Bible, etc.

I have never come across #1. Pacifist apparently has, but his childhood was filled with a lot of crazies.

Those of the #2 would be open to a new translation IF it were from the Majority Text which they believe has been preserved (Orthodox, conservative reformed Presbyterians and Baptist, and a few others) because
a. the Alexander text type history is suspect and/or
b. the Westcott/Hort critical text philosophy denies that the text has been preserved.

It's a matter of faith. I read the ESV which is based on the critical text and produced by a business, not the church.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
as a complete aside, it annoys me to no end when I only hear KJV at Christmas time.. because of the flowery language (although it is pretty) it makes the Christmas passages seem more like a "Story"

I also try to avoid the term "Bible stories" because.. mythology is made up of stories, the Bible is made up of histories.

Although the psalms in KJV are lovely.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Win At Life said:

Quote:

first off,
thank you very much for not taking my comment as insult, I certainly didn't mean it as such...and from what I understand, the poster you referred to is further fringe? He was certainly Arian..
Why would I be insulted? You've always conducted yourself here with the utmost respect for others. I wish we had more posters like that around here; kind of like back when titan used to post regularly. There were always the crazies, but it seemed like there were enough quality posters back then that the crazies stood out much more as being obviously uncivil. When so many are disrespectful, it kind of lowers the bar of what's considered civil and not civil, and it can drag you down with them if you're not vigilant. (I consider that a good test and a growth exercise, so I stick around).


Quote:

but.. if you don't believe he was begotten (nor was he made?) then do you believe He was also human man? or divinity disguised as man?
Yeshua was certainly human. He had physical flesh. He ate. He pooped (although not recorded in scripture ) And He was certainly divine as well. But does being, human, divine and eternal, etc. all at the same time require the exact Trinity doctrine to exist? I'm not so sure about that one.

I'll concede the Trinity doctrine could ultimately be the correct nature of YHWH Yeshua Ha'Mashiach, but not only can't I understand it, the Trinitarians can't even actually prove it from scripture, because the CHURCH defines her own terms to create the Trinity doctrine, according to the founders of that doctrine; being the Catholic Church.



Mostly, because accusing, even if asking, someone if they are a heretic is kind of dicey. I know if I am accused of heresy, I have a bit of a kneejerk annoyance.

I find your explanation to be good and safe. (although I find that Scripture points to the Trinity and reject that Catholics are the only reason I believe it , I believe our Orthodox would say the same)

When confused about the nature of God, often times it is best to shut up and say "I don't know. He is all powerful and beyond my understanding and when He wants me to understand He will let me."

My body will be in the ground when I understand God. I simply pray I never outlive my faith.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

Although the psalms in KJV are lovely.
The Coverdale Psalms predate the KJV and are beautiful as well:
http://www.synaxis.info/psalter/5_english/c_psalms/CoverdalePsalms.pdf

Apparently the Anglican Church is in the process of updating the Coverdale:
http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/1599

The Cambridge Liturgical Psalter is an excellent translation:
http://bible.oremus.org/lp/
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wishing upon all of y'all the heresy of a Shabbat filled with shalom
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Win At Life said:

Wishing upon all of y'all the heresy of a Shabbat filled with shalom


I take back my Pelagian vote. Win at Life is my favorite heretic . (Though tbh, I'm not sure you qualify anymore)
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My favorite heresy is Mormonism and least favorite is Calvinism. I mean, Jesus in a submarine coming to America and then ruling an entire planet or whatever after you die is way cool.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Win At Life said:

Wishing upon all of y'all the heresy of a Shabbat filled with shalom
I chuckled. Thanks.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
88Warrior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc, Where's your practice at?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
88Warrior said:

Doc, Where's your practice at?
In a van down by the river.

Seriously in Beaumont.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

My favorite heresy is Mormonism and least favorite is Calvinism. I mean, Jesus in a submarine coming to America and then ruling an entire planet or whatever after you die is way cool.


I have to say my thirty plus years living in Utah made me aware that many rank and file Mormons are like many rank and file Baptists and Pentecostals. Salt of the earth without the crazy that sometimes infiltrates the dialogue on our little board here. Their hierarchy? I have dealt with a number of them on security details and they are really wonderful (Howard Hunter) or devious and petty (no names).
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UTExan said:

dermdoc said:

My favorite heresy is Mormonism and least favorite is Calvinism. I mean, Jesus in a submarine coming to America and then ruling an entire planet or whatever after you die is way cool.


I have to say my thirty plus years living in Utah made me aware that many rank and file Mormons are like many rank and file Baptists and Pentecostals. Salt of the earth without the crazy that sometimes infiltrates the dialogue on our little board here. Their hierarchy? I have dealt with a number of them on security details and they are really wonderful (Howard Hunter) or devious and petty (no names).
Agree. The Mormons I know are wonderful folks.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
88Warrior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

88Warrior said:

Doc, Where's your practice at?
In a van down by the river.

Seriously in Beaumont.


Wow! I'm about 30 minutes north of you in Wildwood!
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
88Warrior said:

dermdoc said:

88Warrior said:

Doc, Where's your practice at?
In a van down by the river.

Seriously in Beaumont.


Wow! I'm about 30 minutes north of you in Wildwood!
Got a lot of patients from up there.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.