Was Jesus Orthodox? (or Baptist?)

[Keiw]

As I said, quote...He condemned them for their selfish power and prestige motivated applications and interpretations of that law. The picking of corn on the Sabbath was their interpretation of harvest. They taught the law, but because of their poor character they showed no mercy. The healing on Sabbath was their interpretation of work. Again, no mercy was being applied to the law. They were teaching strictly as the law dictated. But as Jesus said,
KJV Matthew 23:23
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Notice, they should have done as they were doing, but in showing mercy, which was also according to Jesus, a part of the law, they would have practised the law perfectly.

I would say my point and your point is correct.
They did try to practice law perfectly,( but had it twisted in some aspects as Jesus showed), but in their hate filled hearts, tried Jesus the night he was arrested. Their law was 7 days to build a defense once arrested for a crime.

 

[Wick Stick]

Follow-up to the "Is Universalism Orthodox."[?] topic.

What is this thing with accusations of unorthodox, heretic, heterodox, pagan, etc.
Seems like blatant tribalism to me. Us versus them. When will we ever learn?

So, was Jesus orthodox?
Or did he operate outside the realm of the orthodoxy of his day?
Was he a heretic by their standards?

Perhaps being heterodox is WAY underrated. Do we worship the status quo?

1st-century Judaism didn't have a single orthodoxy. It had 4 or 5 competing sects.

1) Sadducees (Zadokites)
2) Pharisees
3) Essenes/Baptizers
4) Zealots

Jesus doesn't fall neatly into any of them, but He has some things in common with each.

 

[St. SteVen]

1st-century Judaism didn't have a single orthodoxy. It had 4 or 5 competing sects.

1) Sadducees (Zadokites)
2) Pharisees
3) Essenes/Baptizers
4) Zealots

Jesus doesn't fall neatly into any of them, but He has some things in common with each.

The point of this topic is to question the modern use of the terms like orthodox, unorthodox and heretic.
The example of Jesus not being orthodox is intended to be thought-provoking.

Thanks for your good input though. I agree.

]

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

I agree with what you wrote except for your definition of orthodox. And the reason for this topic.

We have a tendency to associate the word orthodox with something good, but something that is very bad can be orthodox according to the thing it relates to.

If we understand orthodoxy as being by-the-book we can understand that it could be in reference to a very BAD book. Like orthodox communism, by-the-book. Any derivation in THAT communism would NOT be orthodox communism. (not by-the-book)

I am Protestant. According to strict Catholicism I am NOT orthodox. (by-the-book) When I share a doctrinal opinion on the forum that someone doesn't like, I may be called unorthodox, or even a heretic. Unorthodox, heterodox and heretical all mean NOT orthodox according to SOME standard. To a Protestant, infant baptism may be considered unorthodox to Protestantism, when it is VERY orthodox to Catholicism.

Therefore, Jesus was not orthodox according to the standard of the ruling religion of his day. And that was a GOOD thing.

Being a heretic is WAY under-rated. - LOL

]

I was brought up a Protestant and Baptised as a baby. as it should be done, if your parents are Christians in fact ! for if one's parents were not Christians then they would not bother to get their baby baptised in fact !
A parent has to bring one up in the eyes of God, baptising means that your mum and dad and god mother and god father have made that conviction to do their best for the child under God.
Water baptism does not mean that one is Saved, born again ? that is why we baptise, so that one has the right to repentance in the Church.
I will have to say that the Jews in Jesus day were Lost in fact in regards to God for a fact ! so they are of this world that Jesus pointed out was not of the Kingdom of God in fact, But Jesus was Orthodox in regards God ! and that's a fact !

It's all about Jesus, Salvation ! first and foremost in ones life and when one is truly Saved you know it is first and all through your live it is the foundation of that God has given you, Life in abundance regarding the Holy Spirit. because you have it ! and no one can take that away from you period ! for such a one is on fire not lukewarm like most are nowadays preaching only a Godless Social message, they are idiots and fool for they are just like the so called Jews, good for nothing, Lost to God in fact ! pushing a religious wheelbarrow of a mans works trip in fact to be sure to be sure.

A car say is a Chev and i put a Ford engine in it ? well that's not orthodox is it, but is it wrong maybe because it's not original, but their may be a reasons why I put the Ford engine in the car, maybe good reasons why or not. supid or the move may of been smart ! because one may know what they truly are doing.

In the 1970's Ford had a fantastic T Bar auto gate shifter that is logical, so you could never mess up a shift regardless how you use it, but GM had a spastic system that only a moron would of came up with. the brain power of the GM T Bar shift gate is so foolish, because you can easy make a shift that goes into Neutral or reverse on the move.
So as time goes on a Church denomination may progress or regress if the head does not know what it's on about or care or is just following the Trends or money or numbers ?

You know that the RCC went down another road with Vatican II, why ? well they lost a lot of people in that lane change, because they were orthodox RCC and understood their religion well ? but that road would of lost many people to the Church in the long run etc, so they adopted the change to follow the trend ? I thought such a move was a good one, but as i grew in Christ i can see it was a wrong move, for it watered down and tossed Christ Jesus out of the Church, for a church that was of this world ! That's why you do not see the Media 24/7 on the attack on Pope Frances.
Pope Ben and Pope JP II Were under attack 24/7 by the Media in Australia, but with Vatican II it was a slow change process that was growing lukewarm fabian in it's nature. but the seeds of bastards was always within the RCC just that this toxic weed grew out of control because the Priest were set up by a system that only wanted weak men who were only lukewarm or Gay or worst Communist ! Freemasons ! and child molesters in fact and the System served this crap up ! and what did the members of the RCC do Nothing at all, the Governments ? Nothing but hide it all in fact ! I tryed to expose such from 1980 on but such fell on deaf ears in fact !
I was thinking to become a Priest but that made me walk away and i am so happy that i did not get mixed up with that Mob of low life trash.

 

[St. SteVen]

Jesus was Orthodox in regards God

That's not the point of this topic.

The point of this topic is to question the modern use of the terms like orthodox, unorthodox and heretic.
The example of Jesus not being orthodox is intended to be thought-provoking.

]

 

[Stumpmaster]

The point of this topic is to question the modern use of the terms like orthodox, unorthodox and heretic.
The example of Jesus not being orthodox is intended to be thought-provoking.

Thanks for your good input though. I agree.

]

Then there's the question of whether He was radical . . . yeah, vexed question to preach a sermon on.

Quote from: Jesus Wasn't A Radical

"It’s often said Jesus was executed because he was a radical. I think we’ve got it backwards. The Romans executed Jesus because they were radical, not because he was. Killing people is always a radical act. We do both Jesus and humanity a disservice when we use selfishness and bigotry to define what’s normal and use generosity and love to define what’s radical.

Jesus wasn’t radical.

We are.

We who refuse to love, to seek liberation, and to be fully human."

 

[Wick Stick]

The point of this topic is to question the modern use of the terms like orthodox, unorthodox and heretic.
The example of Jesus not being orthodox is intended to be thought-provoking.

Thanks for your good input though. I agree.

I have Restorationist tendencies - I tend to put value on the way the early church did things. So how did they do it?

The early churches made creeds, defining what doctrines were essential. Outside of those essentials, where people's beliefs may have diverged they seemed to tolerate the differences. It was okay for others to be "wrong" about non-essentials.

 

[Keiw]

I was brought up a Protestant and Baptised as a baby. as it should be done, if your parents are Christians in fact ! for if one's parents were not Christians then they would not bother to get their baby baptised in fact !
A parent has to bring one up in the eyes of God, baptising means that your mum and dad and god mother and god father have made that conviction to do their best for the child under God.
Water baptism does not mean that one is Saved, born again ? that is why we baptise, so that one has the right to repentance in the Church.
I will have to say that the Jews in Jesus day were Lost in fact in regards to God for a fact ! so they are of this world that Jesus pointed out was not of the Kingdom of God in fact, But Jesus was Orthodox in regards God ! and that's a fact !

It's all about Jesus, Salvation ! first and foremost in ones life and when one is truly Saved you know it is first and all through your live it is the foundation of that God has given you, Life in abundance regarding the Holy Spirit. because you have it ! and no one can take that away from you period ! for such a one is on fire not lukewarm like most are nowadays preaching only a Godless Social message, they are idiots and fool for they are just like the so called Jews, good for nothing, Lost to God in fact ! pushing a religious wheelbarrow of a mans works trip in fact to be sure to be sure.

A car say is a Chev and i put a Ford engine in it ? well that's not orthodox is it, but is it wrong maybe because it's not original, but their may be a reasons why I put the Ford engine in the car, maybe good reasons why or not. supid or the move may of been smart ! because one may know what they truly are doing.

In the 1970's Ford had a fantastic T Bar auto gate shifter that is logical, so you could never mess up a shift regardless how you use it, but GM had a spastic system that only a moron would of came up with. the brain power of the GM T Bar shift gate is so foolish, because you can easy make a shift that goes into Neutral or reverse on the move.
So as time goes on a Church denomination may progress or regress if the head does not know what it's on about or care or is just following the Trends or money or numbers ?

You know that the RCC went down another road with Vatican II, why ? well they lost a lot of people in that lane change, because they were orthodox RCC and understood their religion well ? but that road would of lost many people to the Church in the long run etc, so they adopted the change to follow the trend ? I thought such a move was a good one, but as i grew in Christ i can see it was a wrong move, for it watered down and tossed Christ Jesus out of the Church, for a church that was of this world ! That's why you do not see the Media 24/7 on the attack on Pope Frances.
Pope Ben and Pope JP II Were under attack 24/7 by the Media in Australia, but with Vatican II it was a slow change process that was growing lukewarm fabian in it's nature. but the seeds of bastards was always within the RCC just that this toxic weed grew out of control because the Priest were set up by a system that only wanted weak men who were only lukewarm or Gay or worst Communist ! Freemasons ! and child molesters in fact and the System served this crap up ! and what did the members of the RCC do Nothing at all, the Governments ? Nothing but hide it all in fact ! I tryed to expose such from 1980 on but such fell on deaf ears in fact !
I was thinking to become a Priest but that made me walk away and i am so happy that i did not get mixed up with that Mob of low life trash.

Baptism = a lifelong dedication in ones heart to serve God forever--no infant can do that. One publicly shows that dedication by full water submersion.

 

[St. SteVen]

It was okay for others to be "wrong" about non-essentials.

We could use more of that today.

]

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

That's not the point of this topic.

The point of this topic is to question the modern use of the terms like orthodox, unorthodox and heretic.
The example of Jesus not being orthodox is intended to be thought-provoking.

]

Jesus was correct in fact ! as he is orthodox in regard God, for Jesus only did the will of the Father period !

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Baptism = a lifelong dedication in ones heart to serve God forever--no infant can do that. One publicly shows that dedication by full water submersion.

Baptism is for the remission of Sin.

One is owned by your mum and dad till you reach the day you are on your way, so it's the duty of a Christian to their Children to be brought up on the right path. it all starts from day one.

No the water Baptism does not save you ! only Christ Jesus Saves ones Soul and one is not Saved untill you are truly born again. that's a Spiritual thing that unites you with Christ Jesus and he with you in fact, nothing to do with a religious denomination.

When one gets water baptised it's a dedication to one to enter into the Church for all to see your intent is to bring this child into the Church ? you can or no one can make anyone truly born again, for if one makes a claim that you are born again, because they made you born again, like a fundy mate up the road played on me, he said to say X words after him and bingo he had the right to save people himself ?
I said that i was born again befor hand in fact, so how could be born again twice ?

I clearly know when i was born again and it had nothing at all to do with anyone but me and Christ Jesus, not to mention it was amazing as i was blowen away, that was truly Awesome !

 

[quietthinker]

Was Jesus Orthodox? (or Baptist?)​

Ortho Bapdox?

 

[Brakelite]

I have Restorationist tendencies - I tend to put value on the way the early church did things. So how did they do it?

The early churches made creeds, defining what doctrines were essential. Outside of those essentials, where people's beliefs may have diverged they seemed to tolerate the differences. It was okay for others to be "wrong" about non-essentials.

I think we get into difficulties when we disagree on what is and is not, essential. Then we get into difficulties when we disagree with those who devised the creeds, and their perspective, and use of assumptions, in arriving at their "essential doctrines". But we aren't allowed to talk about that.

 

[Stumpmaster]

I think we get into difficulties when we disagree on what is and is not, essential. Then we get into difficulties when we disagree with those who devised the creeds, and their perspective, and use of assumptions, in arriving at their "essential doctrines". But we aren't allowed to talk about that.

Forums are not for the faint of heart, somebody said.

 

[St. SteVen]

Was Jesus Orthodox? (or Baptist?)​

Ortho Bapdox?

Ortho Heterobapt?

]

 

[quietthinker]

Ortho Heterobapt?

]

:)

 

[Wick Stick]

I think we get into difficulties when we disagree on what is and is not, essential. Then we get into difficulties when we disagree with those who devised the creeds, and their perspective, and use of assumptions, in arriving at their "essential doctrines". But we aren't allowed to talk about that.

I was thinking more along the lines of The Didache than the Nicene Creed.

By the time of the Council of Nicaea the church had developed a monolithic structure with a centralized power that was trying to quell regional differences. I don't want that from a creed, either.

 

[Stumpmaster]

I don't want that from a creed, either.

Why not?

 

[Keiw]

Baptism is for the remission of Sin.

One is owned by your mum and dad till you reach the day you are on your way, so it's the duty of a Christian to their Children to be brought up on the right path. it all starts from day one.

No the water Baptism does not save you ! only Christ Jesus Saves ones Soul and one is not Saved untill you are truly born again. that's a Spiritual thing that unites you with Christ Jesus and he with you in fact, nothing to do with a religious denomination.

When one gets water baptised it's a dedication to one to enter into the Church for all to see your intent is to bring this child into the Church ? you can or no one can make anyone truly born again, for if one makes a claim that you are born again, because they made you born again, like a fundy mate up the road played on me, he said to say X words after him and bingo he had the right to save people himself ?
I said that i was born again befor hand in fact, so how could be born again twice ?

I clearly know when i was born again and it had nothing at all to do with anyone but me and Christ Jesus, not to mention it was amazing as i was blowen away, that was truly Awesome !

I never stated Baptism saves one, it does play a part. Living now( obeying) in this satan ruled system doing Jesus' Fathers will( Matt 7:21) over self gets one entrance into Gods kingdom( being saved)
Acts 3:19--Repent and turn around to get sins blotted out. So no baptism does not do away with ones sins-Repenting and stopping doing them does that.
Jesus appoints the ones taking the lead in his 1 religion. And yes one must listen to them the same as its listening to Jesus and God. If one rejects them, they are rejecting Jesus and God to. Luke 10:16-- Heb 13:17--

 

[Brakelite]

I was thinking more along the lines of The Didache than the Nicene Creed.

By the time of the Council of Nicaea the church had developed a monolithic structure with a centralized power that was trying to quell regional differences. I don't want that from a creed, either.

Why not?

Because you get war and persecution. The historical persecutions waged against the non trinitarians by Constantine after Nicea ought to make every Trinitarian blush. 3 entire nations were destroyed in the 6th century by empirical armies predominantly because they were "Arian"....at least that was the charge against them, but their actual crime I think was because they opposed the idea of a centralised Christianity in Rome, and what that institution had become over the previous centuries. The creeds, and not scripture, became the defining instrument to divide the 'orthodox' from the 'unorthodox'. In some quarters that still happens.
The Goths were branded as Arian. But Arius didn't teach the Goths anything regarding the gospel or theology... He lived a couple of centuries before their time. Ulfilas was the missionary to the Goths, and his version of the Godhead is worth looking at. It isn't Arian. Nor was it Trinitarian in the strictest sense, but it was biblical, clearly not "Catholic", but had to be condemned somehow so "Arian" and the Creed became the Avenue through which they were condemned, and why there is today no nation in Europe descended from the Goths, unlike most other nations who accepted that the creedal writing was on the wall, and took the safest option... Accept the papal creed and live.