Originally Posted by dog-on

Really?

Doesn't he actually distinguish between early (proto) Christian groups such as the Marcionites, Valentiians, et. al.

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Here is the problem Roger, on the 'Freethought' website all the boys and girls are allowed to think and reason for themselves. While you may believe us inferior to you, we will go ahead and examine the 'evidence' or lack of it and come to our own conclusions. Nobody here is going to determine what will or will not be said and how it is said. Like Irenaeus of Lyons, you seek to silence those who refuse to clap for your vestige of the old rabbit in the hat trick.

Some of the exegesis above is as stretched and unattractive as the nether region of a seasoned prostitute. You may ask yourself why you come her to defend the 'truth' if that is in fact what you are defending. Before you ask people here to stop comparing your beliefs to other ancient myths, remember that Justin Martyr did it first. This may come as a shock, but talking animals and snakes and reanimating dead people all come from myth and are based on 'a priori' epistemology. Your condescending concern for misrepresentation seems only to apply to those who read the tea leaves otherwise.

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If you want to ignore what Irenaeus says about Marcionites and Valentinians and pretend that he refers to them as early Christians, that is your right. But any tendency to falsify sources rather suggests that the atheism of those who do it isn't founded on facts, but on wishful thinking. If that's your position, of course, it's not for me to object.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I don't think Irenaeus regarded the Marcionites or the Valentinians as genuine Christians. The last part of book 1 of Against Heresies seeks to derive later heresies from Simon Magus who is presented as founding an alternative religion to Christianity with himself in the place of Christ. The use of Christian material by the later heretical groups does not for Irenaeus change their basically anti-Christian nature.

Irenaeus may arguably be being unfair to at least some of the groups he attacks but that is another matter. On the other hand few Christians at any time would accept that all groups who claim to worship Christ are, by definition, genuinely Christian.

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by aa5874

But you are argument is extremely weak.

Marcion and the Marcionites may have also considered Irenaeus anti-Christian.

Valentinius and the Valentinians may have thought that the others who worshipped Christ were not genuine Christians.

It should be obvious that anyone in antiquity who believed in any Christ, with or without human body could be deemed to be a christian regardless of what Irenaeus believed.

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Well of course he thinks of them as heretics.

I think the issue here is that you seem to be suggesting that the views of people like Nestorius and Arius "aren't Christian" just because they were objected to. Surely the whole reason Nestorius and Arius are known so well today is precisely because there was a strong query as to whether they were on the right track or not. As such, dismissing them as non-Christian feels wrong.

This is even more the case with Marcionites and Valentinians who are earlier thinkers and were well established before Iranaeus started criticising them. It seems arbitrary to claim them to not be 'real Christians' simply on the basis of what Iranaeus had to say....