Was Jesus Heretical? - Why did they crucify Him?

[MatthewG]

Your understanding is considerably worthy.
In my estimation, I can't tell if it was a vision placed in each of the three disciples head, or that it was a reality for their mortal eyes.

Either way would do for me, because the fact is none of them were told in the moment of who the entities were, except that in advance Jesus said that they would see heaven open and angels. I'm going with what Jesus said they would see, whether literally or by a vision. Thanks for sharing that understanding.
Edit: the other question that grabs me is, why the need for Jesus to take them "up into a high mountain apart" for them to see it. According to the power of God, visions can be given at any time, in a person's quiet time.
But, if it was a literal reality, I can understand why Jesus didn't want others to literally see it.

Earburner I was fascinated, when I was doing my verse by verse studies.

So I praise God for the information received,

Here is where we can see it was indeed a vision from youngs literal,

Matthew 17:9
And as they are coming down from the mount, Jesus charged them, saying, 'Say to no one the vision, till the Son of Man out of the dead may rise.'

 

[St. SteVen]

Jesus said that heaven would be open and that they would see angels.
There is no doubt in me, that what Jesus said, came to pass during his transfiguration.

Why do you tie that statement by Jesus to the Transfiguration?
It could just as well be linked to the Ascension, or to another event unrecorded,
or even yet to come. (for them) The Second Coming?

Luke 24:50-52 NIV
When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany,
he lifted up his hands and blessed them.
51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.
52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

Acts 1:9-11 NIV
After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes,
and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going,
when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky?
This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven,
will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Matthew 26:64 NIV
“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you:
From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand
of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 13:26-27 NIV
“At that time people will see the Son of Man
coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect
from the four winds, from the ends of the earth
to the ends of the heavens.

 

[Earburner]

Why do you tie that statement by Jesus to the Transfiguration?
It could just as well be linked to the Ascension, or to another event unrecorded,
or even yet to come. (for them) The Second Coming?

Luke 24:50-52 NIV
When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany,
he lifted up his hands and blessed them.
51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.
52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

Acts 1:9-11 NIV
After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes,
and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going,
when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky?
This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven,
will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Matthew 26:64 NIV
“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you:
From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand
of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 13:26-27 NIV
“At that time people will see the Son of Man
coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect
from the four winds, from the ends of the earth
to the ends of the heavens.

By the scriptures you quoted, you have expanded the implication of Jesus saying that they would see heaven open, and the angels ascending and descending upon the son of man. Of that I do agree.
So then, as a result, I safely conclude that the disciples saw angels during the transfiguration, and NOT Moses and Elijah.

 

[St. SteVen]

By the scriptures you quoted, you have expanded the implication of Jesus saying that they would see heaven open, and the angels ascending and descending upon the son of man. Of that I do agree.
So then, as a result, I safely conclude that the disciples saw angels during the transfiguration, and NOT Moses and Elijah.

I'm sorry for being so thick-headed. A light JUST came on for me while I read your post.
Please correct me if I am STILL misunderstanding you. Thanks.

You seem to be claiming that it was NOT Moses and Elijah that appeared to Jesus and the disciples
in the Transfiguration, but RATHER two angels. Is that stated correctly? (to your liking)

Not sure how that equates to angels ascending and descending on the son of man, but... ???

If so, this puts a completely different light on the subject.
We are talking about the state of the dead. Correct?

Are you claiming that these imposters (of Moses and Elijah) were angels?
Since the dead CANNOT reappear in the physical realm? (your assumed justification)

Do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ?

 

[Marymog]

No, not in those exact words. But...
The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible either. Do you believe in that?

What about the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist? Public, or not?
Or the three thousand in Acts chapter 2? Public, or not? At Peter's order to believe and be baptized.
A "public manifestation of the person’s conversion", or not?
This public confession of faith demonstrated that they "were added to their number that day."
Or the five thousand in Acts chapter 4? Public, or not?

Acts 2:41 NIV
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 4:4 NIV
But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.

36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[a] 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,

15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well,

32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

Public or not?

 

[Marymog]

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

The Apostles were teaching what Jesus taught them. Was Jesus teaching heresy?

Curious Mary

 

[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.

Jesus could not be heretical therefore whatever he taught was not heresy.

 

[St. SteVen]

Public or not?

I would say public.
You don't need a gathering to be out in public.
Are you claiming these baptisms were done in hiding?
I imagine this was LONG before the Church instituted sprinkling as an acceptable form.
What does the Didache say about the preferred methods of baptism? Living water?
Public or not?

 

[St. SteVen]

The Apostles were teaching what Jesus taught them. Was Jesus teaching heresy?

If it didn't align with orthodox Judaism, it was heresy. Right?
Why did they crucify Jesus?

John 5:18 NIV
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

 

[St. SteVen]

Jesus could not be heretical therefore whatever he taught was not heresy.

Interesting to see how respondents to this topic struggle to understand this.
Heresy is not about TRUE or FALSE. Heresy is about disagreeing with the religious status quo.

Would it be heretical to preach about Jesus in front of a Buddhist temple? (yes)
Would it be true or false information? (true)
A statement can be BOTH heretical and true.

 

[St. SteVen]

Point a passage to me that says one has to be baptized in public for it to be a legitimate-wash away your sins-baptism, and I will join your denomination.

You are attempting to control the terms of the discussion. I could do the same, I suppose.
Like this: Point a passage to me that says "God is a Trinity.", or conceded that the claim is unbiblical.
See how that works? (or doesn't)

I should know better than to argue with a woman.
You'll probably find a way to turn that back on me. Or if by some miracle,
I actually WIN the debate, that makes me a bully. (sigh)

 

[Marymog]

If it didn't align with orthodox Judaism, it was heresy. Right?
Why did they crucify Jesus?

John 5:18 NIV
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

He Steven,

I get the gist of what you are saying. Anyone that teaches opposite of orthodox teaching (or the status quo teaching) then they are heretical. Based on that narrow definition of heresy, YES Jesus was a heretic. But you are not looking at the entire definition of heresy. Heresy is also defined as "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth". Jesus and the Apostles were not teaching contrary to the Truth. They were teaching the Truth. That is my point!

Heresy is also adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma. Since Jesus was 'the church' he couldn't hold an opinion opposite of the church.

Hope that helps you better understand the gist of what I am saying.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[St. SteVen]

Based on that narrow definition of heresy,

Sure.
But I would say my definition is the broad one and yours is narrow. (the Catholic view)
The broad view being outside of Catholicism.

Hope that helps you better understand the gist of what I am saying.

Yes, thanks for participating.

 

[Patrick1966]

Jesus could not be heretical therefore whatever he taught was not heresy.

You have a different definition of heretical.

 

[Marymog]

You are attempting to control the terms of the discussion. I could do the same, I suppose.
Like this: Point a passage to me that says "God is a Trinity.", or conceded that the claim is unbiblical.
See how that works? (or doesn't)

I should know better than to argue with a woman.
You'll probably find a way to turn that back on me. Or if by some miracle,
I actually WIN the debate, that makes me a bully. (sigh)

Lol....No Steven, I am not one of those women. If you look back thru my previous posts, you will see that I apologize when I am wrong and will let you know if you "win".

My point about the Trinity is that it is a term, or a single word, to sum up the 3 persons (entities) spoken of throughout all of Scripture. Man has come up with one word to describe the unity of the Godhead. A person can always disagree with that word but still agree that there are 3 individual entities.

Throughout the NT there are MULTIPLE examples/events of baptisms. Some done in private, some done in public. Some done with large crowds, some done with only the family present. It does not say fully immersed or just partially immersed. It doesn't say only adults, no children allowed. There are no clear instructions on how to conduct a baptism. There is not a single word or term that can be used to describe the act of baptism. If there were I am sure men would use it.

With that said I am not trying to control the terms of the discussion. What I am saying is that there is no comparison between the act of baptism and the man-made definition of the Godhead.

Hope that helps.....Mary

 

[Mr E]

Isn't that a misunderstanding of the term "heretical"?
This is the reason I have launched these two topics.
There seems to be a misunderstanding, or even fear, surrounding the terms heretical and unorthodox.

It's a pretty common mistake, or a common way of thinking, but not a correct understanding of the term- which can be used in a variety of ways, so you have to set the scene.

A heretic is by nature a non-conformist. That is, they don't just 'go along' with the orthodox (accepted) ideas and instead they challenge the orthodox perspective-- setting themselves apart as 'unorthodox' thinkers, or believers- if you will. So whatever the 'orthodox' position, the one who refuses to be defined by that position, -who colors outside the lines- -That person does not conform to the accepted, expected, normal, orthodox understanding. They are then labeled a heretic since their belief is considered heresy to the group at large.

In Jesus day--the group at large were the Jews. The Jewish faith as practiced by the religious leaders centered around the temple, temple sacrifices, and the law of Moses as they applied it. Because Jesus didn't 'go along' with their rule-making and 'law enforcement' practices and because he specifically did not agree with their teachings-- he was, by definition and in all practicality-- a heretic.

 

[Marymog]

You have a different definition of heretical.

Nope, I look at ALL definitions of heresy instead of narrowly defining it!

Heresy (or to be heretical) is also adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma. Since Jesus was 'the church' he couldn't hold an opinion opposite of the church.

Does that help you get the gist of what I am saying?

 

[Marymog]

Sure.
But I would say my definition is the broad one and yours is narrow. (the Catholic view)
The broad view being outside of Catholicism.

Yes, thanks for participating.

Steven,

You have narrowed the definition of heresy to Jesus being heretical because he disagreed with Jewish dogma. I have agreed with your narrow definition of the word heresy! QUOTE FROME ME in post #112: YES Jesus was a heretic.

I then broadened the discussion by rightfully pointing out that there is more than one definition of heresy.

For goodness sake....

 

[MatthewG]

People of churches that conclude that Jesus is still coming back today and while i disagree and will love them. I am deemed a heretic by defintion.

I dont see how Jesus was a heretic,

He was the way, the truth, and the life.

He also promised to come back in that time, and therefore I believe it so by faith.

He wasnt a heretic, he was a truth teller and the Jewish people envied him. And desired to kill him.

Remember when he was on trial ?

 

[Marymog]

Interesting to see how respondents to this topic struggle to understand this.
Heresy is not about TRUE or FALSE. Heresy is about disagreeing with the religious status quo.

Would it be heretical to preach about Jesus in front of a Buddhist temple? (yes)
Would it be true or false information? (true)
A statement can be BOTH heretical and true.

Nope, not true. Look the word up instead of giving your opinion:

Heresy: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth

Definition of HERESY

adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma; denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church; an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com