The Heresies 1) The Judaic Heresy Christ professed himself a Jew. He never at any stage repudiated Judaism. It seems odd that he never stated with crystal clarity that the special status of Jews as the Chosen People was coming to an end and that, upon his death, Jews and Gentiles would be equal in status if they accepted him as their Saviour. Gentiles had never obeyed the Law of Moses and had openly scorned the religious practices of the Jews, yet were now about to be embraced as equals. You would think Christ would have spent a great deal of time explaining that. But it was left to Saul of Tarsus - St Paul - to make it clear that Christianity was open to everyone rather than just the Jews, and that Jewish Law did not have to be obeyed. Before his death, shouldnt Christ have announced that the Jewish religion was about to be superseded? It seems an extraordinary omission. The Jews are no longer the Chosen People, according to Christianity - Christians are. So what are the Jews now? Refuseniks? Insane? The damned? Evil? The children of Satan? The Unchosen Ones? The Old Law was fulfilled in Christ. So why does Judaism still exist? Few of the original Chosen People embraced the new religion of Christianity. How remarkable that Gods Chosen People, almost in their entirety, rejected Christ/God. The people of the Old Testament became heretics when Christ died, wilfully refusing to accept the New Testament. What kind of God is it who loses the devotion of practically every member of the people he had chosen? Anti-Semitism was inevitable. The Jews were an eternal reminder to Christians that the Jews didnt believe in Jesus Christ, and that the Christians were therefore, in the minds of the Jews, in error and worshipping a false God. 2) The Sabellian Heresy The followers of Sabellius rejected the concept of the Trinity. They said that there were not three persons in one God, but instead that God presented himself in three different ways to mankind - as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 3) The Arian Heresy Arius asked the question, If God the Son was begotten of the Father, does that not imply that the Father existed before Him? He argued, He is Son: therefore posterior to the Father; therefore not eternal. Since the Father is Eternal and the Son not, He is unlike the Father. Arius maintained that Christ was a super-angelic being, the first and highest creature of God. (This is what Jehovahs Witnesses believe; for them Christ was the incarnation of Michael the Archangel.) Part of the orthodox response to Arius is that God exists outside of time, hence the begetting of the Son of God by the Father was not a temporal event, and its therefore meaningless to talk about the Father preceding the Son. Because the Son was begotten and not created, he must be of one substance with the Father. Only if he were a created being would he be something different. 4) The Eusebian Heresy Eusebius, trying to find a way of reconciling with the Arians, wanted to use the word Homoiousion - of like substance - to describe the Sons relationship to the Father. The Church insisted on the word Homoousion - of the same substance being applied to God the Father and God the Son. 5) The Apollinarian Heresy Apollinaris argued that Christ was a divine being in a human body (something that Arius also held to be true). Some of his followers said that even Christs human flesh was actually divine. 6) The Nestorian Heresy Nestorius denied that Mary was the Theotokos - the God-bearer, the Mother of God. Nestorius said she was in fact the Christotokos - the Christ-bearer, the Mother of Christ. He argued that Christ had two distinct natures and that Mary was the mother of the human nature, but not of the divine nature. He said that Jesus the man was the temple of the Word, but that God did not die on the Cross, only the man did. He claimed that if Mary was the Mother of God then she would have to be a Goddess. And he pointed out, A mother cannot bear a son older than herself. (This resembles the Arian dispute.) Nestoriuss position was that in Jesus Christ there were not just two natures but two distinct beings. The Churchs orthodox stance was that Christ was not united to an already existing being; Christs human nature was not given a moment of a purely human existence. Protestantism is a version of the Nestorian heresy since Protestants do not acknowledge Mary as the Mother of God. 7) The Eutychian and Monophysite (single nature) Heresies Eutyches opposed Nestorius by arguing that Christ had a single, divine nature - there were not two distinct beings and natures. Accused of heresy, Eutyches was challenged to accept that Christ had two natures (human and divine) in one human person. Eutyches responded, Of two natures - but not in two natures. He was excommunicated for maintaining this position. The official doctrine was that there were two distinct natures existing in one person. The supporters of Eutyches became known as the Monophysites and they insisted, One nature only after the union. Eventually some were prepared to accept that Christ existed in two natures but they argued that the union of the two natures meant that the human nature was incapable of its own distinct, natural acts. The Coptic Church and several other Churches in the Middle East hold the monophysite position to this day. If this position is true then Christs flesh was different from everyone elses - being imbued with divinity. That, of course, would mean that Christ did not suffer as an ordinary human being. Perhaps he didnt suffer at all. The Passion might have been an illusion. 8) The Monothelitism (one will) Heresy In an attempt to heal the rift caused by the Monophysite heresy, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, came up with a new formula. They affirmed that Christ had two natures, divine and human, but worked via a single theandric operation i.e. he had two natures but one divine will. This teaching was declared heretical at the Sixth General Council of Constantinople. According to the orthodox view of the early Christian Church, Christ was God and man (two natures) united in one person. Of course, there is an immediate problem with this: God cannot sin, hence Christ the God/Man cannot sin either. Since all men sin and Christ didnt sin then he cant be said to be a representative of ordinary humanity. But the whole point of the Incarnation was that Christ was to suffer as an ordinary man - yet he was nothing like an ordinary man. Hypostasis means, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. It is a term used to distinguish reality from appearances. Christ, according to the Christian Church, appeared as one person, but the reality was that he was a hypostatic union of two natures: the divine and the human. The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that in Christ the two natures retained their own properties, but were united in one subsistence and one person. They were not joined in a moral or accidental union as Nestorius argued, and nor were they commingled as Eutyches maintained. Nevertheless, they were substantially united. One other person was sinless - Christs mother Mary. The expression immaculate conception applies to Mary and not to Christ as is often erroneously believed. It was essential for Mary to be sinless so that she couldnt pass on original sin to her child. 9) The Pelagian heresy denies the reality of original sin. 10) Origens Heresies Origen was accused of heresy on four grounds: a) He believed in the pre-existence of souls rather than souls being created at the moment of conception. b) He therefore believed that Christs human nature as well as his divine nature existed before the Incarnation. c) At the Resurrection, human souls will be given ethereal bodies rather than physical bodies. d) All men and even all devils will be saved at the last. ***** The Illuminati, over many centuries, have, under various guises, questioned Christian priests and lay people about the nature of Christ and discovered that most Christians have no idea about the nature of the Man/God in whom they profess to believe. Many easily fall into the sorts of heretical positions described above. There is no more abstract statement in human history that the Nicene Creed, in which Christianity was first defined in a rigorous way. Read it and then ask yourself, isnt this the most bizarre thing I have ever read in my life? The highly intelligent heresiarchs mentioned above couldnt make any sense of it and tried to change it to something more logical. Their attempts were crushed by the Church. The Nicene Creed I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. ***** And what of this, an extract from Milan Kunderas The Unbearable Lightness of Being? When I was small and would leaf through the Old Testament retold for children and illustrated in engravings by Gustave Dore, I saw the Lord God standing on a cloud. He was an old man with eyes, nose, and a long beard, and I would say to myself that if He had a mouth, He had to eat. And if He ate, He had intestines. But that thought always gave me a fright, because even though I come from a family that was not particularly religious, I felt the idea of a divine intestine to be sacrilegious. Spontaneously, without any theological training, I, a child, grasped the incompatibility of God and shit and thus came to question the basic thesis of Christian anthropology, namely, that man was created in Gods image. Either/or: either man was created in Gods image—and God has intestines!—or God lacks intestines and man is not like Him. The ancient Gnostics felt as I did at the age of five. In the second century, the great Gnostic master Valentinus resolved the damnable dilemma by claiming that Jesus ate and drank, but did not defecate. Shit is a more onerous theological problem than is evil. Since God gave man freedom, we can, if need be, accept the idea that He is not responsible for mans crimes. The responsibility for shit, however, rests entirely with Him, the Creator of man. ***** The whole story of Christ is absurd from beginning to end, and anyone who thinks carefully about the Trinity and the Incarnation quickly finds these concepts to be incomprehensible. Is the Trinity even compatible with monotheism? It is truly astounding that this religion has spread all across the face of the earth and has more followers than any other. The Illuminati will provide the shocking truth about Christ at a later date. The truth is connected with the ultimate puppetmasters who have been mentioned before on this site. © The New World Order
Posted on: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:57:16 +0000