Was Jesus Heretical? - Why did they crucify Him?

[St. SteVen]

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".

Sorry for my blanket criticism. (based on some BAD experiences) Apologies.

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.

Agree.
In reference to baptism we may have a different definition of "public".

I understand where the original poster that brought this up was coming from. (don't remember who)
Here's the Protestant view. (evangelical/fundamentalist)

Baptism is viewed as a public confession of faith. Even if the baptism is done indoors in a church.
The public is invited to witness the baptism. Usually family members that attend (or don't attend) elsewhere.

The view is that a religious ceremony is an outward (public) demonstration of an inward reality.
This is why we dedicate babies and baptize "believers". It involves a conscious confession of faith from the one being baptized.

I don't personally have anything against infant baptism, but many Protestants do. As you probably know.

 

[St. SteVen]

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....

No worries. I was clarifying my view. Thanks.

 

[St. SteVen]

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

Are you claiming that...
It would NOT be heretical to preach about Jesus in front of a Buddhist temple?

 

[Mr E]

As to the second part of your question-- 'Why did they crucify him?' -it wasn't for heresy. They hated him for opposing them in that he taught ideas that were unorthodox and that countered the orthodox ideas that they upheld-- but that's not why they had him killed specifically. Jesus himself testified, when they brought him up on charges>>>

Day after day I sat teaching in the temple courts, yet you did not arrest me...

So it wasn't for the positions he held that they considered heretical. It was much more like Jack here when asked>>> "Was Jesus heretical?"

Near BLASPHEMY!

That was the crime they convicted him of, punishable by death.

Now the ones who had arrested Jesus led him to Caiaphas, the high priest, in whose house the experts in the law and the elders had gathered. But Peter was following him from a distance, all the way to the high priest’s courtyard. After going in, he sat with the guards to see the outcome. The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were trying to find false testimony against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find anything, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” So the high priest stood up and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that they are testifying against you?” But Jesus was silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? Now you have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?” They answered, “He is guilty and deserves death.”

 

[St. SteVen]

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

The "truth" determined by whom?
This is where the definition narrows. IMHO
It hinges on a Catholic definition/position.

 

[Mr E]

Folks like Mary here, or Jack and others cling to this idea that Jesus could never be considered a heretic and one could argue that among Catholics and Evangelicals alike, -that- is the orthodox position, so in thinking otherwise anyone who doesn't agree with them and go along with that line of thinking is 'a heretic' for drifting away from that position.

Join the club. Heretics Anonymous. The heretic pic-a-nic will be held on the shores of Lake Galilee on Sunday afternoon. Bring Chick-Fil-A.... doh! Closed on Sundays.

 

[Marymog]

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?

Oh goodness......Steven, Steven, Steven!

In the case of the Eunuch, it literally says they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch! Does it say anything about anyone else being around? Or is your argument that they were outside along a public road so there could have been other people around and "technically" they were out in public.

In the case of Ananias it literally says that he went to a house. It does not mention ANYONE else being around in the house when he baptized Paul. What is your theory on that one??????

In the case of the jailer.....are you saying that was public???????

At no point at no time did I ever suggest they were in hiding.

Yes, the Didache says that living water is preferred. Does that mean that when one goes down to a river (living water) to be baptized that there has to be a crowd (public) to witness for it to be a valid baptism???? Just because someone is out in nature, that does not mean they are in public.

Do you agree with the Didache?

 

[Marymog]

The "truth" determined by whom?
This is where the definition narrows. IMHO
It hinges on a Catholic definition/position.

Steven,

The Truth is determined by the Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Thank you for your opinion. I did not narrow the definition. I expanded it.

What I have presented is not a Catholic definition. It is a dictionary definition.

 

[Marymog]

Are you claiming that...
It would NOT be heretical to preach about Jesus in front of a Buddhist temple?

Nope, not claiming that at all.

Preaching (revealing/telling the Truth) to non-Christians is not a heretical act. It would be heretical to the adherents of Buddhism, but not heretical to God.

 

[Marymog]

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.

Well put. Thank you!

 

[St. SteVen]

Do you agree with the Didache?

No.

 

[Jack]

Folks like Mary here, or Jack and others cling to this idea that Jesus could never be considered a heretic and one could argue that among Catholics and Evangelicals alike, -that- is the orthodox position, so in thinking otherwise anyone who doesn't agree with them and go along with that line of thinking is 'a heretic' for drifting away from that position.

Join the club. Heretics Anonymous. The heretic pic-a-nic will be held on the shores of Lake Galilee on Sunday afternoon. Bring Chick-Fil-A.... doh! Closed on Sundays.

I'm here to defend our Christian Bible with Scripture.

 

[St. SteVen]

Preaching (revealing/telling the Truth) to non-Christians is not a heretical act. It would be heretical to the adherents of Buddhism, but not heretical to God.

But would God need to be Catholic to fit your definition? (bigger than that)
More evidence of a narrow view. - LOL

My point all along has been that Jesus was heretical to orthodox Judaism.

 

[Mr E]

I'm here to defend our Christian Bible with Scripture.

The fact that your knee-jerk reaction to @St. SteVen was identical to the 'experts in the law's' reaction to Jesus stands for itself.

 

[Jack]

I'm here to defend our Christian Bible with Scripture.

What is so funny about defending our Bible? You should try it for a change instead of attacking our Bible.

 

[Marymog]

But would God need to be Catholic to fit your definition? (bigger than that)
More evidence of a narrow view. - LOL

My point all along has been that Jesus was heretical to orthodox Judaism.

Lol....I never mentioned, suggested, implied, brought up the thought, etc that God needed to be Catholic to fit my definition. That is a suggestion that you are erroneously putting on me by asking that question and claiming it as "evidence of a narrow view".

Yup, Jesus was heretical to orthodox Judaism....I already agreed with you on that.

 

[Marymog]

No.

Why did you bring up the "living waters" part of baptism written about in the Didache?

Why don't you agree with the writings of men that lived during the times of the Apostles, but agree with the writings of men from the Reformation (or later)?

 

[Mr E]

Lol....I never mentioned, suggested, implied, brought up the thought, etc that God needed to be Catholic to fit my definition. That is a suggestion that you are erroneously putting on me by asking that question and claiming it as "evidence of a narrow view".

Yup, Jesus was heretical to orthodox Judaism....I already agreed with you on that.

Similarly, if you (for example) don't believe in all of the Catholic Churches, definitions, doctrines and dogmas-- you are a heretic to Catholicism.

 

[St. SteVen]

Lol....I never mentioned, suggested, implied, brought up the thought, etc that God needed to be Catholic to fit my definition.

There you go, trying to limit the scope of the discussion again.

Preaching (revealing/telling the Truth) to non-Christians is not a heretical act. It would be heretical to the adherents of Buddhism, but not heretical to God.

Certainly "mentioned, suggested, implied, brought up" here.

 

[MatthewG]

@Marymog it has an interesting defintion, in my opinion, it reminds me of when Jesus talks about the broad path and the narrow way.