Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-25-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Christians throughout history have called each other heretics and blasphemers.

Jerome thinks Origen is a herectic and blasphemer.

Jerome's "Apology to Rufinus."1.4

Just go to Christian-Forum.net and read one Christian call the other a heretic...it's fun. You can't define Christianity by one brand today any easier than they could in ancient times...each community had its belief-de-ju.

Christians get real mean and say evil things when they disagree. Quite unchristian-like.

The Preface of Against Heresies by Irenaeus

Quote:

1. Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith, and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.]

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation.

They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.

By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

fatpie42 · 02-25-2009, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Christians throughout history have called each other heretics and blasphemers.

That was my point. The claim that some people are not 'genuine Christians' on the grounds that they don't match up with Iraneus' views or with the (rather arbitrary) decisions of the ecumenical councils later on seems to be a bit pointless. If we are only allowed to accept Christian views as genuinely Christian if they match up with the later decisions on orthodoxy, it would not be surprising to find that Paul and the gospel writers (separate from their writings of course) would be dismissed as non-Christian.

angelo · 02-26-2009, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The apostle John survived to the time of Trajan and died ca. 100 AD. His disciple Polycarp was alive and preaching in Rome in 150 AD (although very old), and was therefore known to quite a number of people. It is probably for this reason that we have rather more information about John's later life than for any other apostle. Irenaeus' dates are not nearly so certain as given above; we do know that he was writing in 180 AD.

This was exceptional, of course, but no means unique. In effect it means that John the apostle was a young man when he knew Jesus, and lived to be 90+.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

But, what really is known about John?

Eusebius will admit that there may have been some confusion, perhaps the Johns got mixed up.

Church History 3.39.6

Quote:

...... there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's.

It is important to notice this.

For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.

You must admit that there was some confusion about John.

We have a John Doe problem.

John, like Joshua was a very common name at this time. These writers could be speaking of a dozen different Johns. We do have a John Doe problem. In any case, this is not the author of the gospel of John, that name for the fourth gospel was plucked out of thin air.

Roger Pearse · 02-26-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

I don't think Irenaeus regarded the Marcionites or the Valentinians as genuine Christians.

Well of course he thinks of them as heretics.

The word heretic meaning "someone who makes up their own opinions instead of taking them from those who went before."

Quote:

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.

To me too. But then this is the problem; in the 5th century the term began to be used as a term of manipulation and demonisation, not of description. Nestorius never intended to be a heretic. Arius probably didn't either (although I don't think the same is true of the Arians).

To compare Nestorius to Valentinus is a category confusion.

Quote:

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....

Not really -- and Irenaeus, remember, is only one step away from the apostles, -- Polycarp himself denounced Marcion as the first born of Satan; John the apostle condemned Cerinthus as a fake.

These heretics didn't believe what Christians believed, either before or after. We can see that from their teachings. The affiliations of Valentinus are with the pop-paganism of the philosophical schools. Tertullian even lists, heresy by heresy, the philosopher from whom they are borrowing their doctrines.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 02-26-2009, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Well of course he thinks of them as heretics.

The word heretic meaning "someone who makes up their own opinions instead of taking them from those who went before."

To me too. But then this is the problem; in the 5th century the term began to be used as a term of manipulation and demonisation, not of description. Nestorius never intended to be a heretic. Arius probably didn't either (although I don't think the same is true of the Arians).

To compare Nestorius to Valentinus is a category confusion.

Quote:

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....

Not really -- and Irenaeus, remember, is only one step away from the apostles, -- Polycarp himself denounced Marcion as the first born of Satan; John the apostle condemned Cerinthus as a fake.

These heretics didn't believe what Christians believed, either before or after. We can see that from their teachings. The affiliations of Valentinus are with the pop-paganism of the philosophical schools. Tertullian even lists, heresy by heresy, the philosopher from whom they are borrowing their doctrines.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Now, did Tertullian call himself a heretic or a non-christian Montanist?

LogicandReason · 02-26-2009, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The word heretic meaning "someone who makes up their own opinions instead of taking them from those who went before."

Who made up the facts first....or, whose side won the war....but Roger, spend some time with some other Christians on Christian-Forum.net and see how long it takes for you to be called a 'heretic.' They have other monikers for Catholics which make the word 'heretic' seem only a term of endearment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Not really -- and Irenaeus, remember, is only one step away from the apostles, -- Polycarp himself denounced Marcion as the first born of Satan; John the apostle condemned Cerinthus as a fake.

So the side that benefited from Constantine were the only 'authentic' Christians while all others were truly the devil's associates? Rubbish...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

These heretics didn't believe what Christians believed, either before or after. We can see that from their teachings. The affiliations of Valentinus are with the pop-paganism of the philosophical schools. Tertullian even lists, heresy by heresy, the philosopher from whom they are borrowing their doctrines.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Justin Martyr, in his first apology, lists the various syncretisms as well. Basically Roger, you would like to make us think that various Christian sects, who believed differently than what would become orthodox teachings after the 4th century, were not Christians at all - they were. The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas was the very same myth as the Jesus of what became the orthodox Gospels (though each contradicts the other and none of the four gospels of the NT can be harmonized). Forced hegemony and the death of 'heretics' is the only reason some fables are believed and others considered 'heresies.'

Roger Pearse · 02-26-2009, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The word heretic meaning "someone who makes up their own opinions instead of taking them from those who went before."

Who made up the facts first....or, whose side won the war....but Roger, spend some time with some other Christians on Christian-Forum.net and see how long it takes for you to be called a 'heretic.' They have other monikers for Catholics which make the word 'heretic' seem only a term of endearment.

Please consult a dictionary for the pre-Christian use of 'hairesis'.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

show_no_mercy · 02-26-2009, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Not really -- and Irenaeus, remember, is only one step away from the apostles, -- Polycarp himself denounced Marcion as the first born of Satan; John the apostle condemned Cerinthus as a fake.

Valentinus was also supposed to be one step away from the apostle Paul.

Roger Pearse · 02-26-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Not really -- and Irenaeus, remember, is only one step away from the apostles, -- Polycarp himself denounced Marcion as the first born of Satan; John the apostle condemned Cerinthus as a fake.

Valentinus was also supposed to be one step away from the apostle Paul.

And Mani claimed to be a disciple of Jesus; surprised you didn't mention this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

show_no_mercy · 02-26-2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Valentinus was also supposed to be one step away from the apostle Paul.

And Mani claimed to be a disciple of Jesus; surprised you didn't mention this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ummm... the only "Mani" I know about who claimed to be a disciple of Jesus lived around 100 years later than Valentinus and Irenaeus. The point I was making was that claiming to have connection to the "original" apostles is simply an ipse dixit claim.

John > Polycarp > Irenaeus
Paul > Theudas > Valentinus

Irenaeus' connection to Apostolic Authority is no less spurrious than Valentinus'. I don't see how Mani could be analogous to the above situations.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.