Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 04-20-2013, 06:31 AM

The discussion about the alleged Jerusalem Church got me wondering.

Has heresy been defined? For example, is Judaism a heresy? Worship of Zeus?

How did people understand this term at various points? When was the word invented? Why?

What is the history of heresy?

DCHindley · 04-20-2013, 09:00 AM

Clive,

It can mean a lot of things. Here is what they have at Perseus.org:

Liddle & Scott Lexicon:

αἵρεσις , εως, ἡ,

[I.]

A.
[1.] taking, esp. of a town, Hdt.4.1, etc.; ἡ βασιλέος αἵ. the taking by the king, Id.9.3; “ἐλπίζων ταχίστην -σιν ἔσεσθαι” Th. 2.75; αἵ. δυνάμεως acquisition of power, Pl.Grg.513a:—generally, taking, receiving, “ἐπιγενημάτων” PTeb.27.66 (ii B. C.).

B.
[1.](αἱρέομαι) choice, “αἵρεσίν τ᾽ ἐμοὶ δίδου” A.Pr.779; “τῶνδε . . αἵρεσιν παρδίδωμι” Pi.N.10.82; foll. by relat., αἵ. διδόναι ὁκοτέρην . . , εἰ . . , etc., Hdt.1.11, cf. D.22.19; αἵ. προτιθέναι, προβάλλειν, Pl. Tht.196c, Sph.245b; “εἰ νέμοι τις αἵρεσιν” S.Aj.265; “αἵρεσιν λαβεῖν” D.36.11; “ποιεῖσθαι” Isoc.7.19; “αἵ. γίγνεταί τινι” Th.2.61; οὐκ ἔχει αἵρεσιν it admits no choice, Plu.2.708b.

2. choice, election of magistrates, Th.8.89, cf. Arist.Pol.1266a26, al.; αἱρέσει, opp. κλήρῳ, 1300a19, etc.

3. inclination, choice, πρός τινα Philipp. ap. D.18.166, Plb.2.61.9, etc., cf. IG2.591b; opp. φυγή, Epicur.Ep.3p.62U.; περὶ αἱρέσεων καὶ φυγῶν, title of treatise by Epicurus.

II.

[A.]
[1.] purpose, course of action or thought, like προαίρεσις, Pl.Phdr.256c; “ἡ αἵ. τῆς πρεσβείας” Aeschin. 2.11; αἵ. Ἐλληνική the study of Greek literature, Plb.39.1.3:—conduct, PTeb.28.10 (ii B. C.).

2. system of philosophic principles, or those who profess such principles, sect, school, Plb.5.93.8, D.S.2.29, Polystr.p.20 W., D.H.Amm.1.7, Comp.2,al., cf. Cic.Fam.15.16.3; κατὰ τῶν αἱ., title of treatise by Antipater of Tarsus; περὶ αἱρέσεων, title of Menippean satire by Varro, cf. Fr.164; αἵρεσις πρὸς Γοργιππίδην, title of work by Chrysippus, D.L.7.191; esp. religious party or sect, of the Essenes, J.BJ2.8.1; the Sadducees and Pharisees, Act.Ap.5.17, 15.5, 26.5; the Christians, ib.24.5,14, 28.22, generally, faction, party, App.BC5.2.

3. corps of epheboi, OGI 176 (Egypt).

4. Astrol., 'condition', Ptol.Tetr.21; ἡ ἡμερινὴ αἵ. Vett. Val.1.13.

III.

[A.]
[1.] proposed condition, proposal, D.H.3.10.

2. commission, ἡ ἐπὶ τοὺς νέους αἵ. Pl.Ax.367a; embassy, mission, IG4.937 (Epid.).

3. freewill offering, opp. vow, LXX Le.22.18,al.

4. bid at auction, “τὴν ἀμείνονα αἵ. διδόντι παραδοθῆναι” POxy.716.22 (ii A. D.), cf. 1630.8 (iii A. D.).

The formatting is mine (I hate the way Lexicons display intormation, a carry over from 17th-19th century conventions)

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The discussion about the alleged Jerusalem Church got me wondering.

Has heresy been defined? For example, is Judaism a heresy? Worship of Zeus?

How did people understand this term at various points? When was the word invented? Why?

What is the history of heresy?

mountainman · 04-20-2013, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The discussion about the alleged Jerusalem Church got me wondering.

Has heresy been defined? For example, is Judaism a heresy? Worship of Zeus?

According to the "Panarion" of Epiphanius these beliefs were heretical in the later 4th century.

Quote:

How did people understand this term at various points? When was the word invented? Why?

What is the history of heresy?

Most early christians (including the gospel authors) were heresiologists.

All Christians of the 4th century were heresiologists.

Eusebius tells us that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E.

the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius
Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

I therefore think that the earliest heresy was UNBELIEF.

When people dont believe an authority they ridicule it.

The author of the letters of John defined antichristian belief as the refusal to confess that Jesus had appeared "in the flesh" (i.e. "in history").

This suggests that the NT was written with the with the expectation of mass unbelief in Big J..

With the rise of the Christian Emperors in the 4th century you would have to be a complete idiot to refuse to confess that Jesus was real. The majesty of the Emperor was at stake, and if you went against this majesty it was all over red rover.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 04-20-2013, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The discussion about the alleged Jerusalem Church got me wondering.

Has heresy been defined? For example, is Judaism a heresy? Worship of Zeus?

According to the "Panarion" of Epiphanius these beliefs were heretical in the later 4th century.

Quote:

How did people understand this term at various points? When was the word invented? Why?

What is the history of heresy?

Most early christians (including the gospel authors) were heresiologists.

All Christians of the 4th century were heresiologists.

Eusebius tells us that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E.

the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius
Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

I therefore think that the earliest heresy was UNBELIEF.

When people dont believe an authority they ridicule it.

The author of the letters of John defined antichristian belief as the refusal to confess that Jesus had appeared "in the flesh" (i.e. "in history").

This suggests that the NT was written with the with the expectation of mass unbelief in Big J..

With the rise of the Christian Emperors in the 4th century you would have to be a complete idiot to refuse to confess that Jesus was real. The majesty of the Emperor was at stake, and if you went against this majesty it was all over red rover.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

But, was it not a 4th century Emperor of Rome who wrote this Heresy?

Julian's "Against the Galileans

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

It has become clear to me that "Church History" was manipulated. It is becoming clearer and clearer that "Church History" is a massive forgery.

Who was Eusebius? Who was the Bishop of Rome c 326 CE in "Church History". Who established "orthodoxy"? Eusebius or the Sitting Bishop of Rome?

There is no acknowledged Roman Bishop or authority in "Church History" in the time of Eusebius.

If Eusebius was NOT the Bishop of Rome then how did he manage to write the history of the Church of Rome without even acknowledging the sitting Roman Bishop??

Clivedurdle · 04-20-2013, 11:58 PM

Because he was in Constantinople?

mountainman · 04-21-2013, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

The author of the letters of John defined antichristian belief as the refusal to confess that Jesus had appeared "in the flesh" (i.e. "in history").

This suggests that the NT was written with the with the expectation of mass unbelief in Big J..

With the rise of the Christian Emperors in the 4th century you would have to be a complete idiot to refuse to confess that Jesus was real. The majesty of the Emperor was at stake, and if you went against this majesty it was all over red rover.

But, was it not a 4th century Emperor of Rome who wrote this Heresy?

Julian's "Against the Galileans

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

Julian was not a christian emperor.

He belonged to that inferior species of humanity that dwelt in antiquity called the pagans.

Quote:

It has become clear to me that "Church History" was manipulated. It is becoming clearer and clearer that "Church History" is a massive forgery.

Who was Eusebius?

He's the one everyone trusts for chronology.

He submitted a thesis in history at Nicaea concerning Christian history.

It was peer reviewed by Constantine's army.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MICHAEL J. HOLLERICH

Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as:

a political propagandist [1],
a good courtier [2],
the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine [3],
the great publicist of the first Christian emperor,[4]
the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, [5]
the herald of Byzantinism, [6]
a political theologian, [7]
a political metaphysician [8], and
a caesaropapist. [9]

[1] Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich, 1951 ), p. 91;
[2] Henri Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée ê Eusèbe de Césarée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 39 ( 1953 ): 462-479, quoted in T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981 ), p. 401;
[3] Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963 ), p. 85;
[4] Robert Markus, "The Roman Empire in Early Christian Historiography," The Downside Review 81 ( 1963 ): 343;
[5] Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940; reprint, Oxford, 1966 ), p. 183;
[6] Hendrik Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939 ), pp. 21-22;
[7] Hans Eger, "Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 ( 1939 ): 115;
[8] Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala, 1962 ), p. 318;
[9] J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie 'césaropapiste,'" Byzantion 42 ( 1972 ): 593

It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely suppressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment. Scholars have often observed, for example, that his literary works in defense of the new order depict Constantine and his reign in eschatological terms that rival and even supplant the Incarnation and Parousia in salvation history.

Quote:

Who was the Bishop of Rome c 326 CE in "Church History". Who established "orthodoxy"? Eusebius or the Sitting Bishop of Rome?

Constantine established "orthodoxy" by the sword.

When Bullneck went to the underworld, his son Constantius, after he orchestrated a mass execution of family members, estabished orthodoxy by inquisition, torture and execution.

Quote:

There is no acknowledged Roman Bishop or authority in "Church History" in the time of Eusebius.

The story is that the bishop of Rome was absent from Nicaea on sick leave.

Quote:

If Eusebius was NOT the Bishop of Rome then how did he manage to write the history of the Church of Rome without even acknowledging the sitting Roman Bishop??

The same way he managed to write the history of the church of Alexandria.

Early Alexandrian Christianity - Robert M. Grant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert M. Grant

Nearly everything that is recorded about the early history of Alexandrian Christianity lies in the Church History of Eusebius. Many Alexandrian theological writings are preserved, but as might be expected they cast little light on historical events.

Now the basic difficulty with Eusebius' work is that it has to be classified as "official history." It therefore contains a judicious mixture of authentic record with a good deal of suppression of fact and occasional outright lies.

He wrote it in defence of himself and his friends and their outlook toward the nascent imperial church establishment under God's messenger Constantine.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mbczion · 04-21-2013, 04:37 AM

Heresy is in the eyes of the beholder?

aa5874 · 04-21-2013, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....It has become clear to me that "Church History" was manipulated. It is becoming clearer and clearer that "Church History" is a massive forgery.

Who was Eusebius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

He's the one everyone trusts for chronology...

You also trust the chronology of Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...He submitted a thesis in history at Nicaea concerning Christian history.

It was peer reviewed by Constantine's army.

What?? When did Eusebius do such a thing??

When did Constantine's Army review the stories in "Church History"?

You now Trust "Church History"!!

This is most fascinating.

You seem to believe Eusebius wrote actual History.

mountainman · 04-21-2013, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....It has become clear to me that "Church History" was manipulated. It is becoming clearer and clearer that "Church History" is a massive forgery.

Who was Eusebius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

He's the one everyone trusts for chronology...

You also trust the chronology of Eusebius.

Just a minute. I trust nothing in Eusebius's chronology for the period covering "early christian orgins" (i.e. before Nicaea).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...He submitted a thesis in history at Nicaea concerning Christian history.

It was peer reviewed by Constantine's army.

What?? When did Eusebius do such a thing??

When did Constantine's Army review the stories in "Church History"?

The claim is that Eusebius's thesis in ancient history was not peer reviewed.

Quote:

You seem to believe Eusebius wrote actual History.

I think that Eusebius wrote theological romance ... fiction.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 04-21-2013, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You also trust the chronology of Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Just a minute. I trust nothing in Eusebius's chronology for the period covering "early christian orgins" (i.e. before Nicaea).

Once you admit you trust nothing in Eusebius' chronology before Nicaea then you need to explain why you trust Eusebius' chronology during and after Nicaea.

How did you manage to trust Eusebius' chronology for anytime period?

04-20-2013, 06:31 AM	#1
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Heresy The discussion about the alleged Jerusalem Church got me wondering. Has heresy been defined? For example, is Judaism a heresy? Worship of Zeus? How did people understand this term at various points? When was the word invented? Why? What is the history of heresy?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2013, 11:58 PM	#5
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Because he was in Constantinople?

04-21-2013, 04:37 AM	#7
mbczion Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Middle East Posts: 290	Heresy is in the eyes of the beholder?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.