Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-21-2005, 03:25 PM

Who, when and where were the earliest heretics?

Isn't this really a problem of labelling - which group has the power to be rude about another and impose sanctions?

For example Marcion, is it right he did not believe in an historical Jesus? Why is he labelled a heretic, why does anyone elses' view have more weight than his?

Amaleq13 · 05-21-2005, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Who, when and where were the earliest heretics?

Isn't this really a problem of labelling - which group has the power to be rude about another and impose sanctions?

I think so. You have to have an orthodoxy before you can have heretics.

Quote:

For example Marcion, is it right he did not believe in an historical Jesus?

That depends on your definition, I think. Do you consider belief in a Jesus who appears from heaven as a fully-grown adult to qualify as belief in a "historical Jesus"?

If that accurately describes Marcion's belief, it seems more like a mythical character than a historical one to me.

You might also want to check these earlier threads:

Did Marcion believe in a HJ?

Marcion, the Canon, the Law, and the Historical Jesus

Clivedurdle · 05-21-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

God, who made the world out of nothing through his Son, the Word, has corporeity though he is a spirit (De praescriptione, vii.; Adv. Praxeam, vii.). However Tertullian used 'corporeal' only in the stoic sense, to mean something with actual existence, rather than the later idea of flesh.

Isn't that a mythical concept of Christ? This was written about 200 CE.

Tertullian

Quote:

Tertullian was the first to break the force of such charges as that the Christians sacrificed infants at the celebration of the Lord's Supper and committed incest; he pointed to the commission of such crimes in the pagan world, and then proved by the testimony of Pliny that Christians pledged themselves not to commit murder, adultery, or other crimes; he adduced also the inhumanity of pagan customs, such as feeding the flesh of gladiators to beasts. The gods have no existence, and thus there is no pagan religion against which Christians may offend. Christians do not engage in the foolish worship of the emperors; they do better, they pray for them. Christians can afford to be put to torture and to death, and the more they are cast down the more they grow; "the blood of Christians is seed" (chap. l.).

This sounds more like a philosophical position, it doesn't need a real Jesus to justify it - the logical error is that OK, you can reduce the gods to one, why not go the whole way to zero gods?

Quote:

In the De Praescriptione he develops as its fundamental idea that, in a dispute between the Church and a separating party, the whole burden of proof lies with the latter, as the Church, in possession of the unbroken tradition, is by its very existence a guaranty of its truth.

A further break in logic, that is completely tautological, and the beginning of the inquisition?

andrewcriddle · 05-22-2005, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

God, who made the world out of nothing through his Son, the Word, has corporeity though he is a spirit (De praescriptione, vii.; Adv. Praxeam, vii.). However Tertullian used 'corporeal' only in the stoic sense, to mean something with actual existence, rather than the later idea of flesh.

Isn't that a mythical concept of Christ? This was written about 200 CE.

Tertullian is not talking here about the Incarnate Christ whom he certainly regarded as having flesh in the fullest sense.

Tertullian held the unusual idea that God in Himself quite apart from any issue of Incarnation is corporeal ie in some sense has a body.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-22-2005, 06:33 AM

Quote:

certainly

Evidence?

The guy has an unorthodox (heretical?) view of God, how can we be certain about his views of Jesus? My OP is that heresy is in the eye of the beholder! I get the impression everyone could be labelled heretical!

andrewcriddle · 05-22-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Evidence?!

See On the Flesh of Christ eg

Quote:

They who are so anxious to shake that belief in the resurrection which was firmly settled before the appearance of our modern Sadducees, as even to deny that the expectation thereof has any relation whatever to the flesh, have great cause for besetting the flesh of Christ also with doubtful questions, as if it either had no existence at all, or possessed a nature altogether different from human flesh. For they cannot but be apprehensive that, if it be once determined that Christ's flesh was human, a presumption would immediately arise in opposition to them, that that flesh must by all means rise again, which has already risen in Christ. Therefore we shall have to guard our belief in the resurrection from the same armoury, whence they get their weapons of destruction. Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed. It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? whence was it derived? and of what kind was it? If we succeed in demonstrating it, we shall lay down a law for our own resurrection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The guy has an unorthodox (heretical?) view of God, how can we be certain about his views of Jesus? My OP is that heresy is in the eye of the beholder! I get the impression everyone could be labelled heretical!

Tertullian's Orthodoxy is a matter of real dispute. His belief in the Incarnation as involving Christ taking on real true flesh is not.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-22-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Tertullian's Orthodoxy is a matter of real dispute. His belief in the Incarnation as involving Christ taking on real true flesh is not.

In Maths, if there is an error somewhere, no matter that the rest is correct, the whole falls.

With Tertullian, isn't it the Church that has said later that his views in one area are OK? That sounds like imposing later ideas on earlier thinking.

I see this all over the place, and it worries me. I do not think there is such a thing as heresy and orthodoxy - it is all story and myth built on each other, with some bits fitting later ideas better than others.

At some point, Romans went around sprinkling wine blessed in temples on all the foods in the markets, causing xians real problems. Then we have the vision in Acts that it is OK to eat and drink anything. Sounds llike Orthodoxy was created on the hoof, in reaction to real issues.

andrewcriddle · 05-22-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

With Tertullian, isn't it the Church that has said later that his views in one area are OK? That sounds like imposing later ideas on earlier thinking.

One issue with Tertullian is that he became a supporter of Montanism a puritanical charismatic type of Christianity which most Christians at the time disagreed with.

So when I say there are doubts about Tertullian's orthodoxy I'm not just imposing later categories on his thought.

Some of his views were marginal among Christians at the time.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-22-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Some of his views were marginal among Christians at the time.

But who decides what is marginal and what is orthodox at the time?

Speaking in tongues etc is pretty mainstream now!

There was a selection, an editing process going on, the beliefs evolved. There never has been one starting point in one person in this religion!

Why do we read one author's writing - 60 years later isn't it? - as authoratative when it is obviously a polemic against certain views?

Again, who decides what is the true path, why?

1900 years later we must not give more weight to one writer over another, we have to look at the context, and not take anything at face value - the link only has assertions about the alleged fleshiness of Christ - it is an arms race, a co-evolutionary process, becoming flesh is a solution to issues raised by different interpretations!

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-22-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Who, when and where were the earliest heretics?

The answer here is very easy IMHO. From the later position of Catholic orthodoxy, all early Christians were heretics.

Because up to 100 CE or so (at least), all Christianity was Jewish-Christianity.

Regards,

Yuri.

05-21-2005, 03:25 PM	#1
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The Challenge of the mythicists - the earliest heretics Who, when and where were the earliest heretics? Isn't this really a problem of labelling - which group has the power to be rude about another and impose sanctions? For example Marcion, is it right he did not believe in an historical Jesus? Why is he labelled a heretic, why does anyone elses' view have more weight than his?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.