Let me stop you there. if someone disagrees with me, I don't immediately call them a heretic, especially if we're not talking about the Bible.
I call people heretics who disagree with what Scripture says, who reject scripture in favor of their own interpretation. I call you a heretic because you reject scripture in favor of your own interpretation.
I honestly don't care how deep you go in your studies. If you disagree with what Scripture says, or place your own interpretation of it above what scripture says, you're a heretic, no matter how deeply you've thought about it.
And you put your own interpretation above the Bible's, instead of letting scripture interpret scripture.
While I agree that some churches have abandoned scripture to varying degrees, it still doesn't give you the right to place your own interpretation of scripture above the Bible.
Keypurr, you have yet to establish which teachings were introduced by pagans.
Your faith comes from your own understanding of scripture, and not simply what the Bible says.
You deny the deity of Christ so casually, yet you ignore the fact that over 400 times in the Old Testament it says "Thus saith the LORD" (yes, small capital letters indicating YHWH), but not once in the New Testament does it say that, but instead Jesus says over 100 times "I say unto you."
False. You are a heretic because you reject scripture.
Keypurr, there's a difference between calling someone stupid because it's the truth and calling someone stupid as libel (bearing false witness). One is a sin and a crime, the other is righteous judgment. I'm sure you can figure out which is which.
Calling me stupid just because you don't like me calling you a heretic because you reject what scripture plainly states does not reflect well on your character.
Me calling you a heretic is a statement of fact. You are a heretic because you reject scripture.
You calling me stupid is your own opinion, and you have no supporting evidence. Therefore it's libel (written).
So is your interpretation right because it follows right along with the majority?
Is his wrong because it is against the majority? Are they not both derived from scripture, even if one is from the traditions of the masses and the other is not?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk