Was Jesus Heretical? - Why did they crucify Him?

[St. SteVen]

I think the Pharisees got full of their position in society. They knew that a Messiah was prophesized and decided they would be the ones to choose him.

Do you suppose they considered Jesus to be heretical?

 

[MatthewG]

Luke 12:51
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

That earth means land, and division means: hostility there.

The hostility to the Jewish brothers of Jesus became hostile because of his truth, and his righteousness.

The other is

There is only one occurrence of the word heretic, in the entire bible.

It's found in Titus 3:10

If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them.
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

The definition is

Strong's Concordance
hairetikos: causing division

Original Word: αἱρετικός, ή, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: hairetikos
Phonetic Spelling: (hahee-ret-ee-kos')
Definition: causing division
Usage: disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 141 hairetikós (an adjective, derived from 138 /hairéomai, "to choose, have a distinctive opinion") – a factious person, specializing in half-truths and misimpressions "to win others over" to their personal opinion (misguided zeal) – while creating harmful divisions (used only in Tit 3:10). See 139 (hairesis).

 

[St. SteVen]

I presume for being heretics.

Interesting to see what a struggle it is for forum posters to understand this.

 

[MatthewG]

@St. SteVen, @Patrick1966,

Don't you believe that universalism is heretical?

Did Jesus ever teach that before? Or did he teach separation between believers and unbelievers? Didn't the apostles also teach, separation?

God separated the light and the darkness. John the beloved talks about separation from unbelievers and believers in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Why are faithless people claimed to be outside of the gates of the city in heaven?

 

[Patrick1966]

Interesting to see what a struggle it is for forum posters to understand this.

They misunderstand the proper definition of heresy.

 

[Patrick1966]

@St. SteVen, @Patrick1966,

Don't you believe that universalism is heretical?

Did Jesus ever teach that before? Or did he teach separation between believers and unbelievers? Didn't the apostles also teach, separation?

God separated the light and the darkness. John the beloved talks about separation from unbelievers and believers in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Why are faithless people claimed to be outside of the gates of the city in heaven?

That's quite a segue. @St. SteVen may prefer to stick to the topic in the OP.

 

[MatthewG]

Do you suppose they considered Jesus to be heretical?

I don't think so anymore. I believe they knew that he was telling the truth and the reason they wanted to kill him.

But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Christians are often criticized for claiming that Jesus is the only way to God.

 

[Johann]

Do you agree that anyone who says that Jesus doesn't torture people forever is a heretic?

Don't drag me in here against my will.
J.

 

[Patrick1966]

Don't drag me in here against my will.
J.

Isn't it God's will that Jesus save all?

 

[Johann]

Isn't it God's will that Jesus save all?

What did I just tell you?

 

[Jack]

Isn't it God's will that Jesus save all?

Could God save everyone if He wanted to? Alas, BILLIONS will burn in Hell fire "forever and ever".

 

[St. SteVen]

Isn't it God's will that Jesus save all?

The other question would be...
Was the Atonement complete, or only partially effective?
But this has already been shared with @Johann
Evidently he doesn't believe it to be true?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Marymog]

What is heresy from the Catholic perspective?
How does it differ from a Protestant perspective?
Do both agree on infant baptism, for instance?

Any teaching opposite of the Catholic Magisterium.
Perspectives don't matter. Only the Truth does.
No, both do not agree on infant baptism. Although some Protestants practice infant baptism.

 

[Johann]

The other question would be...
Was the Atonement complete, or only partially effective?
But this has already been shared with @Johann
Evidently he doesn't believe it to be true?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Don't drag me into this blasphemous thread.

 

[Earburner]

Most Christians today believe that some of Jesus's teachings are heretical.
For instance, they don't believe that Jesus will "lose nothing". They believe that Jesus is a loser and is incapable of saving the lost and so he sends them to a place of forever punishment. In fact, the orthodoxy of Christianity is that Jesus FOREVER tortures most of the people who ever lived.

John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Was Jesus a heretic? Absolutely. @St. SteVen and I are routinely called heretics here for believing what Jesus said in John 6:39 along with many other verses.

heretic​

noun​

her·e·tic ˈher-ə-ˌtik
ˈhe-rə-

Synonyms of heretic
1
religion : a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma (see DOGMA sense 2)
especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth
The church regards them as heretics.


2
: one who differs in opinion from an accepted belief or doctrine : NONCONFORMIST

I think that we should becareful in discerning John 6:39. Though the shed blood of Christ is the atonement made available for and to all people, one should not think that EVERYONE shall be saved.

It is God the Father that seeks the hearts of those who are willing to repent towards Him. John 4[23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Therefore, we should pay attention that it is God the Father who does the choosing, and then HE shows/reveals to them His Son Jesus.
John 6[37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
[38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
[39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

 

[Marymog]

This is a misunderstanding of the term "heresy".
The reason for this thread.
Heresy does NOT equal false.

And YES, the Apostles WERE teaching heresy. Why were they persecuted?

No, the Apostles were not teaching heresy. They were teaching what Christ taught them. Were the teachings of Christ heretical (opposite of the teaching of God)?

 

[Marymog]

I believe you misunderstand the definition of heretical. Being a heretic is about teaching things that are contrary to the accepted norm of orthodoxy.

For example, in Jesus's day the orthodoxy of the Sabbath was that nobody worked NO MATTER WHAT and, of course, Jesus taught something different which was "heretical" to the accepted doctrine of that time.

Nope, I do not misunderstand. Jesus teaching was the Truth. The Jews rejected the Truth therefor they were heretical.

 

[Johann]

No, both do not agree on infant baptism. Although some Protestants practice infant baptism.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament, but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39, emphasis added). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Christ Calls All to Baptism
Opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

Now, Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.

In Place of Circumcision
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
infant-baptism

 

[marks]

This seems to be a misunderstanding of the term "heretical".
What you meant was "true"?

Heretical is determined by the status quo, or what we might call the "orthodox" position, or understanding.
This is the reason for this topic. I see a lot of fine folks throwing these terms around without a clue what they mean.
Heretical has nothing to do with true or false from my perspective.
More like approved of, or disapproved of, by the tribe.

Do you believe the Bible proclaims objective truth?

You and your tribes, you make it about comparing yourself to others. But the standard is the Word of God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Especially 20 or 30 years after the events, when they got around to writing their accounts.
(assuming they actually did) Having shared the stories verbally up to that point.
I certainly don't trust my own memory of events 20 to 30 years ago. Do you?

Divine inspiration anyone?

Much love!