Duvduv

Mountainman, if Antioch then was so important, and it contained a substantial Jewish population as well as followers of the orthodox, Arius and Paul of Samosata, then I am even more amazed that the Jerusalem Talmud does not mention a single case of Amora rabbis encountering any community of believers in Jesus given the fact that Galilee is just a couple of hundred miles from Antioch. The prominent amoraim who were contemporaries of Constantine in Palestine were Eleazar ben Pedat, R. Ammi and R. Assi in Tiberias, R. Hiyya bar Abba, R. Shimon bar Abba, R. Abbahu, and R. Zeira in Cæsarea.
So if Caesarea and Tiberias were the main centers, one would expect to see some encounter from those places in relation to Antioch.

andrewcriddle

IIUC the Paulician were singled out because it was not obvious whether or not their beliefs and practices were close enough to the main-stream church for their baptism to be recognised as valid. In most cases it would have been obvious one way or the other but the case of the Paulicians was more ambiguous.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

But then doesn't that mean that they had to be numerous enough to warrant this concern. There must have been other groups whose situation was just as ambiguous.
In any event, why do you think we don't see any of the issue of hostility to the heretics for the sake of uniformity translated into specific laws and anecdotes in relation to a whole host of sects, or at least some, and the policies involved in opposing them?

mountainman

Which cereal packet or TV channel did you read this on sv?

mountainman

I dont know the answer to this question. My research leads me to say that it is a possibility that Christians were first known by that name in Antioch, as disclosed in Acts, but not in the 1st century, rather the 4th century.

Duvduv

Yes, but the Talmud would not have to refer to them by that name, but by any name identifying their beliefs in Antioch in the third or fourth century. Unless either the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmuds had been censored while leaving Pandera material as in the Berlin manuscript, which would seem rather unlikely.

andrewcriddle

I think you are possibly misunderstanding the real issue here. I don't think it is about an obsession with uniformity, it is about the doctrine of baptism.

If you believe that:
a/ all church members must have been validly baptized
b/ it is wrong to baptize someone twice
c/ baptism by splinter groups is normally valid baptism
d/ baptism by groups whose heretical beliefs affect their baptismal practices is nornally invalid baptism.
then your desire to ensure that all your church members have been validly baptized once and once only will require clear statements about which baptisms by splinter groups are valid and which invalid.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

But the councils and heresiologists weren't dealing only with baptism. They were addressing so-called false teachings and doctrines which would seem to be the rationale of Paul's condemnation of false gospels inserted into epistles.
So all I am wondering about is where are the details about the way the empire handled specific communities representing the alternative teachings to the orthodox.?
Where are the Theodosian laws dealing with all sorts of sects, where were they, and where are the anecdotes about those groups?

mountainman

Much discussion, classification and commentary upon the anti-Christian heresies of the 4th century is sourced in Epiphanius's "Panarion" an English translation of which is not available to the general public on the internet. Ditto for the Theodosian Code.

mountainman

Hence the inflamatory and contraversial nature of "The Acts of Paul and Thecla", where Thecla, a woman, performs baptisms.