Heresy and Heretics

[lori4dogs]

"Evidence can be gleaned from other versions concerning the NT: Itala, Peshitta, Syriac"

What evidence?

BTW, the Peshitta was used and comes by the Church of the East. Pretty Catholic bunch!

The Old Syriac Gospels were probably produced in the third century (although some date it to the early fourth century).

If you have evidence to the contrary then I will look at that. Don't think I'm not teachable. Unlike some who post on this board I have the ability to admit when I'm wrong and learn from it.

 

[DHK]

"Evidence can be gleaned from other versions concerning the NT: Itala, Peshitta, Syriac"

What evidence?

The evidence that these translations only had the 27 books that we use today. They had the same canon that we have today.

BTW, the Peshitta was used and comes by the Church of the East. Pretty Catholic bunch!

Considering the the RCC didn't start until after the beginning of the fourth century and the Eastern Orthodox after that, your argument makes no sense. The Peshitta was translated in the earlier part of the third century when there was no Catholic Church. If it was used by the Catholic Church then good for them.

The Old Syriac Gospels were probably produced in the third century (although some date it to the early fourth century).

So. The RCC did not even originate until after the beginning of the fourth century which makes your point moot.

Now look at your previous statements, (and the answers I have given), then consider them in light of what you just said:

St. Athanasius (Catholic) authorized the 27 books in 367 AD (we have in our bible today) to be read in his diocese at mass.

382 AD Pope Damasus I (also Catholic) summoned a synod to assist in developing the canon of scripture.

So when people post here that the Bible was canonized 400 years before the Catholic Church came into being it really doesn't make any historical sense to me.

There was no need for the Catholic Church to canonize something that had already been canonized by the early church. Your points make no sense.

 

[billwald]

The KJV was translated from a Latin (Catholic) Bible.

 

[DHK]

The KJV was translated from a Latin (Catholic) Bible.

I suppose then that the translators themselves were lying when in the preface that they wrote they say "from the original languages." Latin was not one of them.

 

[billwald]

I remembered wrong about the KJV.

Sounds like they had a couple of people who could read Hebrew and Greek but mostly used previous English translations.

a sympathetic site:
http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm

King James Bible - Comparison to the Original Manuscripts
The King James Version translation effort was based primarily on the Bishops' Bible, but the translators also used the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, and Geneva Bibles; and because many of the translators were skilled in both Hebrew and Greek, they could also refer to the Masoretic text (Hebrew Old Testament) and the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures) during their work. If all of the Bibles listed here were traced back to their origins (a work beyond the scope of this writing) the path would lead directly back to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments that exist today.


about bishop's bible
http://biblehistory.ca/article.php?fragid=22&year=1568

 

[BobRyan]

So why were not those 27 books and only those 27 books recognized and read from the very beginning.

They were in fact read and accepted "From the very beginning".

Nobody set Paul's writings on the shelf saying "let us set these aside for 300 or so years waiting for the Catholic Church to come along and tell us what we should read".

It is kind of odd that many Catholics fall into the error of apparently making that kind of argument about the NT Apostles.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: "As far as I know the RCC denomination and the Eastern Orthodox are the only ones that do not make that claim."

Anglicans hold to Holy Tradition as well.

The first 300 years the Church operated without your 'Sola Scriptura' and affirmed the truth of Holy Tradition.
.

On the contrary - we see "Sola Scriptura" testing not only in Isaiah 8:19-20 but also in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by PAUL) were SO".

The RC argument is sometimes of the form "NT Christians don't count" when they describe what they believe was goining on in the first 300 years of Church history.

It is not a logical argument.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This thread is titles "Heresy and Heretics" - presumably focused on the dark ages history of the Catholic Church in dealing infallably with what they called "heresy" and "heretics".

I pointed to some examples of that on page 6 of this thread
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1527170&postcount=51

I fully understand why the Catholic participants might not want to go too far down the road of looking into those issues and how they reflect on the concept of an infallable magesterium - but why is everyone else turning from the OP and Thread Title as well?

What is up?

For example in the OP HP specifically asks about "your definition" of heresy and heretic. (Speaking I suppose of each person here). So looking at the history of how they have been dealt with in the past seems valid.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rippon]

So what do you have against Calvin? Did he murder someone or what? I never took the time to sudy (sic)him even though brothers like you like to believe he is my mentor or something.

Well, perhaps if you took the time to 'sudy' him you would repent of constantly calling him a murderer.

 

[Rippon]

Just so I understand your pov, it is "MY" comments that are infantile?

Yes, indeed, your comments have been most immature as the following examples will demonstrate.

You, Mr. Steaver, have said that Calvin planned to round-up all non-believers and kill them.

You insist on calling him a murderer.

You claim that he was a man obsessed with hatred for a man.

You would consider the arch-heretic Servetus your brother in the Lord, but not John Calvin.

You say that Calvin didn't understand the gospel.

You said he was a forerunner for sects such as the KKK.

You make bold to maintain that he didn't possess eternal life -- that he was a pretender.

I do not have anything more I can say unless you actually post something of substance to address. Did you come here to debate or just to cast disparaging comments?

As I plainly laid-out, you're the infantile one here. Your remarks about Calvin have been most disparaging.

It appears I have hit a nerve with you concerning Calvin, you must love the man very much.

You bear false witness regularly. And you have no shame -- just recently you admitted to knowing very little about Calvin. Yet on you go with your juvenile rants.

the old man that wants to belittle our adversaries.

Yes, remember that.

do not blasphemy (sic)the name of Jesus before those who look in to see how we Christians treat each other.

I hope you heed your own words.

 

[DHK]

Very good question.

Paul explained in Romans 7 the man he was before he was saved.

Calvin, from what I have read so far, would well fit into the Romans 7 unregenerated man. Is there any words from Calvin, as we have from Paul, that would suggest he had a change of heart after murdering percieved boogie men?

:jesus:

Steaver,
There is thread in the theology forum about "Calvin, the man" here:
http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2143

The first post also contains a link for those who misalign the character of Calvin. It is here.
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/i.../www.reformed.org/calvinism/jc_character.html

It is worth it to read "the other side" before making up one's mind. In other words read both sides of the story first.

 

[BobRyan]

It is easy to forget that BOTH Luther and Calvin were in fact CATHOLICs - born and raised and educated. After some enlightenment they both became "PROTESTING" Catholics - but they did not see themselves as "a new religion" but rather as the voice of correction against the abuses in their own church.

Thus it is not too surprising if a FEW of the values and methods of Catholicism followed with them for years after they were disowned by their own church.

The point here is not to uphold vice or to condemn reformers - but to show that leaving Rome was a long and difficult process. You can take the man out of Rome - but it is difficult to take Rome out of the man.

Martin Luther on the subject of Jews:

"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves"

"We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them."

"The blind Jews are truly stupid fools"

"Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people."

"eject them forever from this country"

"they are nothing but thieves and robbers"

"What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?"

"Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews"

"They are the real liars and bloodhounds"

"We are at fault for not slaying them."

"I shall give you my sincere advice: first to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."

"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."

"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews."

"Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them"

"If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs"

"If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words `I baptize thee in the name of Abraham'."


The peasants of Germany revolted in 1525 because of their miserable living conditions and were slaughtered


Here is a quote from Luther:

"They should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everybody who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog!"

JOHN CALVIN


(Here are John Calvin's own words about Michael Servetus: )

"If he(Servetus) comes(to Geneva), I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."

"I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."

In Geneva, on October 27, 1553, Michael Servetus was tied to a stake and was burned slowly to death:

www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/11716.html


Here is what John Calvin had to say about Michael Servetus after he was burned to death:

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that(they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt."

 

[steaver]

Yes, indeed, your comments have been most immature as the following examples will demonstrate.

You, Mr. Steaver, have said that Calvin planned to round-up all non-believers and kill them.

Actual words of Steaver; "Was Calvin planning on rounding up all the non-believers and killing the all?" We find it was a question.

You insist on calling him a murderer.

Correct, If Calvin wood have studied the letters of John he wood have known that hatred is murdar.

You claim that he was a man obsessed with hatred for a man.

That is what I percieve from his own werds.

You would consider the arch-heretic Servetus your brother in the Lord, but not John Calvin.

I doe no anything about Servetus' spiritual condation. Why do you believe he wa not saved?

You say that Calvin didn't understand the gospel.

Correct, if he undarstood he would not have conscented to another's deaf over a doctrine of faith.

You said he was a forerunner for sects such as the KKK.

Correct, Calvin had his own twisted view of the gospel.

You make bold to maintain that he didn't possess eternal life -- that he was a pretender.

I can only compear his altitude to scripture. John says if you hate your brother you are a murdererer and we know that no murdererer has eternal life abiding in him.

As I plainly laid-out, you're the infantile one here. Your remarks about Calvin have been most disparaging.

Non of my remerks you listed could be cansidered infantale. You just don't like them and have nothing else to give to refute them.

You bear false witness regularly. And you have no shame -- just recently you admitted to knowing very little about Calvin. Yet on you go with your juvenile rants.

I acttualley asked you twice to "enlighten me" and I was given nothing. From what I have read of his own words it does not appare Christ was in Him. But I could be wrong, as you said, I do not know much about him.

God Bless!

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Steaver,
There is thread in the theology forum about "Calvin, the man" here:
http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2143

The first post also contains a link for those who misalign the character of Calvin. It is here.
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/i.../www.reformed.org/calvinism/jc_character.html

It is worth it to read "the other side" before making up one's mind. In other words read both sides of the story first.

Thanks brother :thumbs:

I read it all and if I had to summarize it would go like this;

On the "good" Calvin side;
A) Calvin showed compassion for he asked that Servetus be murdered with a sword rather than with fire.
B) Calvin was in character with those on the OT who murdered their enemies.
C) Calvin was only acting as his buddies were acting. It was an acceptable behaviour.
D) Look how many writers have written great things about Calvin.

On the "bad" Calvin side;
A) Cavin's own words speak for themselves. He consented to the murdering of those who disagreed with the power that be on Christian doctrinal matters.

Here we have the Calvin defenders pointing to OT Law to justify Calvin's actions and others like him. However Jesus taught grace and mercy and began a new way of life through regeneration. Calvin had the NT teachings just as we do today and he simply did not understand them. Was he spiritually discerned?

We have many here who believe that the Catholic leaders today are blind and unsaved. Even though they profess Jesus Christ is Lord. Why is it different for Calvin or any other?

Mat 7:21¶Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

We have many debates on just who is really a true Christian according to the scriptures. Why should Calvin and his actions be excused? But Daddy, everone else is doing it! And God said to kill the disobedient, so we are Just in killing those who disagree with God's word!

I have to hang my hat on John;

1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

I have asked for some kind of evidence I could consider that Calvin had the Spirit of Christ indwelling him. Catholics, Mormons, JWs and even the KKK profess Jesus Christ is Lord. What evidence is there that Calvin was born again? Because he choose to live poorly?

I don't know if he was or not. I do know that what he had in his heart towards Servetus by his own words is not of the Spirit of Christ. We all have our flaws but John is pretty clear about hatred being murder and no murderer having eternal life.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

What say you?

In light of their own words, do you believe Calvin and Luther understood this gospel?

Mat 5:43¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Luk 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
Luk 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

For those here defending these men by the OT Law, do you understand what Jesus said here? The Law is NO excuse! Did Calvin and Luther not have these instructions from Jesus, did they simply not comprehend what Jesus was saying or did they deliberately choose to disregard Jesus' words?


:jesus:

 

[billwald]

>A) Cavin's own words speak for themselves. He consented to the murdering of those who disagreed with the power that be on Christian doctrinal matters.

Servitus (sp?) was warned that if he returned to Geneva he would be killed thus he participated in his own death.

Who were the 2nd and 3rd cases? "Those" indicates a number larger than 3.

 

[steaver]

Servitus (sp?) was warned that if he returned to Geneva he would be killed thus he participated in his own death.

First of all, don't worry about trivial spelling imperfections. If I were to correct your spelling it would only reflect upon my own heart. Your good with me :thumbsup:

Second, as pertaining to your comment,

And this matters why? Jesus and Paul were warned as well not to go to Jerusalem lest they be killed.

Who were the 2nd and 3rd cases? "Those" indicates a number larger than 3.

"Those" are all who defend Calvin by OT examples of behaviour.

:jesus:

 

[Rippon]

Steaver persists in saying irresponsible things. he has admitted his ignorance yet continues with his infantile rants.

Calvin was not a murderer literally or figuratively.

You should be ashamed of yourself with remarks like he was a forerunner of sects such as the KKK. Perhaps a hot iron has been applied to your conscience.

 

[steaver]

Steaver persists in saying irresponsible things. he has admitted his ignorance yet continues with his infantile rants.

Calvin was not a murderer literally or figuratively.

You should be ashamed of yourself with remarks like he was a forerunner of sects such as the KKK. Perhaps a hot iron has been applied to your conscience.

You have yet to "debate" me with substance?

I have posted scripture that explains to us how we as children of God are to view and treat our enemies. Of which you have not addressed. Can you explain why Calvin did not understand Jesus' words to this instruction?

Could it be as Jesus said?

Jhn 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

:jesus:

 

[Rippon]

Steaver persists in saying irresponsible things. He has admitted his ignorance yet continues with his infantile rants.

Calvin was not a murderer literally or figuratively.

You should be ashamed of yourself with remarks like he was a forerunner of sects such as the KKK. Perhaps a hot iron has been applied to your conscience.

You've got that right Rip!