This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Since Gnostics are heretics by definition, why are the 'scare-quotes' and "so-called" used to refer to them? Mkmcconn 22:20, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)~
Mkmcconn, I would just like to say that I am equally uncomfortable with my choice of language. Its just the best I could come up with. If you can think of clearer terms please alter the text.
Also there are two reasons to call them Christians rather than one as you say. Not only did they consider themselves Christian, but also the Catholic Church admits they are by labelling the heretics. Else they would be unbelievers.
Also we should be very careful what we say about these 'heretical' sects because are views of them are coloured by how the Catholic Church has presented them. What they actually believed is likely to very different to what the Catholic Church says they believed.
Also I would prefer a better term to Orthodox Christians. Catholic would have been fine, except for the split with the Greek Orthodox. But again I can't think of anything that is clearer
Regarding early "Gnostic Christians" and whether it's proper to label them as heretics or as "so called" heretics. They are called heretics because they were calling themselves Christians, yet their teachings about Christ and God were radically different from what the Apostles of Jesus Christ and their followers were teaching. That their teachings were different, I think we can all agree. From the beginning, the Gnostics claimed to have received secret knowledge about things Christ taught that no one else knew about. If you wanted to learn these valuable teachings, you needed to pay a Gnostic teacher to reveal them to you. The apostles and their followers said that such teachings were nonsense, that the content of the Christian faith had been preached freely and openly from the beginning, and that it was therefore easy to compare the teachings of the Gnostics with what all the Christians had been teaching from the beginning and see who was making stuff up. Christians didn't have any imperial power to censor until Gnosticism was nearly all washed up.
In order to refute the charge of heresy, one would have to demonstrate either that their teachings really didn't conflict with the teachings of the apostles and orthodox Christianity, or that they constituted an entirely separate religion from Christianity. Hindus and Muslims aren't considered heretics; their beliefs are very different from Christianity, but they don't pretend to be Christians either. Wesley 18:07, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't know what the sentence in question is, having just noticed this leading edge of the discussion, but it strikes me that the phrase "now regarded as heretical by" could come in handy, so long as the issue of heresy isn't a distraction. I mention it because attribution doesn't always occur to people.
168... 02:39, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I found the sentence and suggested a change, of which an aspect was to remove reference to an orthodox church, but I see now that that aspect has been rejected. I'd like to ask about this. I'm sure I know less about the relevant history than most people who are discussing this, but I can't help suspecting that "The Church" and "The Orthodox Church" is a designation being applied retroactively to what in the 2nd century was only one of several parallel streams of practice and belief. Well, I guess even at the time the stream in question must have designated itself as orthodox, if indeed it felt justified in actively repressing the others, as was stated explicitly in an earlier version of the sentence. But I'm thinking that a neutral and non-anachronistic description of what this group of practioners was would have to regard their self-designation as the One True Church as having been, at the time, tentative, since I imagine it might have come to pass that a different tradition than that one supplanted all the rest and lived to call itself orthodox.
168... 03:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I hope you do not mind another suggestion from an outsider. I think Mkmcconn and ChrisG are talking across one another, but in a way that can fit together. I believe ChrisG is right that Orthodoxy was not established until the Nicene Creed. Thus, Ireneus represents a view that would become orthodox, and certainly he claimed it to be absolutely correct, but at the time he wrote his words were just that, his claim, his point of view. On the other hand, I think Mkmcconn is making a larger and more important point that ChrisG should recognize: even if Orthodoxy was not established/institutionalized until the Nicene Creed, Christians were debating it over the centuries preceeding, and over the course of those debates there were dominant and minority views, and trends. There are reasons for why the Nicene Creed came to be established as Orthodox. No doubt some of these reasons had to do with Constantine and Roman politics. But some of these reasons also had to do with a history of debate among Christians prior to Constantine. [[user:Slrubenstein]Slrubenstein]
As you make clear, this is how "A Christian" would "regard this;" that is, it is a POV. I have no objection to this POV being representes -- if not here, then in the article on Christianity -- as long as the POV is clearly idnetified and other POVs are represented (and of course clearly identified), Slrubenstein
You are certainly not testing my patience -- I honestly do not have a good understanding of how Christians classify themselves and others who claim to follow Jesus, and my knowledge of how historians classify them is limited -- so I am glad to be able to learn. As a long-time Wikipedia contributor, however, I do insist (to echo a frequent point made my Ed Poor) that the article clear about who uses a particular term, when they began doing so, and who, if anyone, uses different terms or systems of classification. About speaking "the truth" about Jesus since as you say this remains undecided I just don't see how it can be in the article; at best we can describe different factions' claims about "the truth" about Jesus -- again, situating them historically and culturally, if necessary/possible. Slrubenstein
Frankly, I think all of this discussion belongs in the article on Christianity, not here. Here it is important to recognize that there have been changing debates and divisions among Christians concerning both Jesus and Christianity and it is important to sum up different early Christian views of Jesus and name them according to both Christian conventions (e.g., as 168 suggested, "what would become the orthodox Christian position" as well as whatever conventions there are among historians (and if historians debate how to identify these positions, say so), with a link to the article on Christianity (or the History of Christianity) for a complete discussion. Slrubenstein
Well it sounds like on this point, at least, all three of us (and more I am sure) agree. Slrubenstein
The article says that Christians censored or destroyed many or most of the early Gnostic texts. Is there any citation or credible evidence for this? Which historians make the claim, and what evidence do they rely on for it? It seems unlikely that they would have been in a position to do so prior to the fourth century. If there is no basis for the claim, I'm going to remove it from the article.
On a separate note, calling James the Just the leader of a separate sect is I think at best only one interpretation of the evidence, but more likely an anachronistic projection of today's denominationalism onto the first century. If he is the author of the Protevangelion of James, as is traditionally believed, then his theology would have been markedly different than the Jewish Ebionites. (Origen noted a distinction between Jewish Ebionites who thought Jesus was wholly man, and Gnostic Ebionites who thought Jesus was wholly divine.) The discussion of James should at least be qualified a bit. Wesley 17:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
CHAPTER LXIV: Constantine's Edict against the Heretics.
"VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to the heretics. "Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, (1) and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; full of absurdities and fictions: and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one's ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one's own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure?
CHAPTER LXV: The Heretics are deprived of their Meeting Places.
"FORASMUCH, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. (1) We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In any case, the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with and mar the felicity of our present times: I mean the impious and wretched double-mindedness of heretics and schismatics. For it is an object worthy of that prosperity which we enjoy through the favor of God, to endeavor to bring back those who in time past were living in the hope of future blessing, from all irregularity and error to the right path, from darkness to light, from vanity to truth, from death to salvation. And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded, as before said, that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if such be worthy of the name, which belong to heretics, and that these be made over without delay to the catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering; in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public."
CHAPTER LXVI: How on the Discovery of Prohibited Books among the Heretics, Many of them return to the Catholic Church.
THUS were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the emperor's command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor's threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the Church. For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were detected, and, these were ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind. (1) Others, however, there were, who voluntarily and with real sincerity embraced a better hope. Meantime the prelates of the several churches. continued to make strict inquiry, utterly rejecting those who attempted an entrance under the specious disguise of false pretenses, while those who came with sincerity of purpose were proved for a time, and after sufficient trial numbered with the congregation. Such was the treatment of those who stood charged with rank heresy: those, however, who maintained no impious doctrine, but had been separated from the one body through the influence of schismatic advisers, were received without difficulty or delay. Accordingly, numbers thus revisited, as it were, their own country after an absence in a foreign land, and acknowledged the Church as a mother from whom they had wandered long, and to whom they now returned with joy and gladness. Thus the members of the entire body became united, and compacted in one harmonious whole; and the one catholic Church, at unity with itself, shone with full luster, while no heretical or schismatic body anywhere continued to exist. (2) And the credit of having achieved this mighty work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of all who had gone before him, was able to attribute to himself.
The argument over which gospels were 'true' writings and should be part of the New Testament had been going on for a long time before this. From my reading the best source is probably Origen (185-232). See [2] for a summary of Origen's view on what was and wasn't cannon. And [3] and [4] for views of his importance. And [5] for the full text of what he wrote. Make your own judgment but Origen admits that Christianity is a number of sects with very different views (Chapter CHAP. XVI):
Origen quotes Celsus' reproach :"Having grown in numbers and being widely dispersed, they are further split and divided; every body wants to have his own party." And again he says, "Being too numerous to keep together, they refute one another; they share, so to speak, if they do share it, the one name, the only thing that in spite of their divisions they are ashamed to give up; as for the rest they are all one here, one there. And they even say the most shameful things of one another; they would not make the least concession in the interests of harmony; for they utterly detest one another." Origen then explains it as being like the sects of Judaism and like different schools of mathematics, and elucidates on some of the differences :
Origen also says in the Homily to Luke: "The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many, of which one is entitled 'The Gospel according to the Egyptians', and another 'The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles'. Basilides also has presumed to write a gospel, and to call it by his own name. 'Many have taken in hand ' to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called 'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted. " The irony of this is that Origen was considered by some at the time to be a heretic. : ChrisG 20:08, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The line about irony should have been with the first quote, but I added the second quote because I thought it had some relevance, and I forgot to move my line about irony. :)
As regards Origen he was considered a heretic in his own time by some people, which proves my point(Check the references above) The important point I am trying to make is that Origen DID NOT DENY Celsus' criticism that Christians were divided into a number of sects. Origen - an outsider - did not see the Christians as one homogeneous Church he saw them as: "Being too numerous to keep together, they refute one another; they share, so to speak, if they do share it, the one name, the only thing that in spite of their divisions they are ashamed to give up; as for the rest they are all one here, one there. And they even say the most shameful things of one another; they would not make the least concession in the interests of harmony; for they utterly detest one another." Origen spent time explaining why there was these disagreements, not denying they existed. And the very fact Origen felt he had to directly quote Celsus' view reveals that there was more than a little truth to it.
The fact Origen says they are 'The Church' and the others were heretics does not mean that the 'heretics' agreed with him that they were heretics! Origen came out on the winning side. BTW as I have said before I have no problem asserting that the Paulinists were probably in the majority from the second century and evolved into the orthodox Church. : ChrisG 22:19, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Here you go. From the reference to the full text by Origen I listed above [6]: ChrisG 22:59, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
CHAP. XVI. ----Concerning those who slander Christianity on account of the heresies in the Church. Book III. against Celsus.
1. Then, as if he would like to blame the Word for the evils of heresy associated with Christianity, he reproaches us, saying, "Having grown in numbers and being widely dispersed, they are further split and divided; every body wants to have his own party." And again he says, "Being too numerous to keep together, they refute one another; they share, so to speak, if they do share it, the one name, the only thing that in spite of their divisions they are ashamed to give up; as for the rest they are all one here, one there." In reply, we will say that you never find different sects in any department of thought unless the principle involved is one of grave importance and practical use. Take the science of Medicine. It is useful and necessary to the human race, and the questions which arise as to the healing of the body are many. This is why, as is admitted, there are several sects among the Greeks, and I suppose among Barbarians also, as many as profess to practise the healing art. Let us take another illustration, Philosophy, inasmuch as it professes the pursuit of truth and the knowledge of realities, suggests the proper mode of life, and endeavours to teach things profitable to our race. But the points in question involve much diversity of opinion, and this is why there arose such an incredible number of philosophic sects of more or less distinction. Nay, even Judaism had a pretext for the rise of sects, through the varied interpretation of the writings of Moses and the words of the Prophets. Similarly, because Christianity appeared, not only to the low-minded, as Celsus says, but also to many learned Greeks, to be a matter of grave importance, sects of necessity arose, and not altogether through factiousness or contentiousness, but because so many even of the literary class were anxious to understand the meaning of Christianity. In consequence of this, because scholars differently interpreted what were believed on all sides to be Divine utterances, sects sprang up bearing the names of thinkers who had a reverent regard for the origin of the Word, but somehow or other through specious and plausible reasoning were brought into conflict with one another. But no man of sense would shun the science of Medicine because of its different sects; nor would a man of proper aims make the many sects of philosophy a pretext for hating it; and, similarly, we must not condemn the sacred books of Moses and the Prophets on account of the Jewish sects.
2. If all this hangs together, may we not offer a similar apology for the sects of Christianity? What Paul says concerning them seems to me truly marvellous: "There must be also sects among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." For as a man "approved" in the science of Medicine is he who is familiar with the practice of many different sects, and having fairly considered their claims, has chosen the best; and as the advanced student of Philosophy who, having an extensive knowledge of his subject, is familiar with its details, and therefore gives his adhesion to the stronger reasoning, may be called "approved"; so, I would say, he who carefully examines the sects of Judaism and Christianity becomes the wisest Christian. But any one who blames the Word on account of our sects would also blame the teaching of Socrates, because from the study of that Philosopher many different schools of thought have arisen. Nay, a man might blame even the doctrines of Plato because Aristotle gave up the study of him and took a line of his own, a point to which we have already referred. But Celsus seems to me to have become acquainted with certain sects which do not even share the name of Jesus with us. Rumours may have reached him of the Ophites and Cainites, or the holders of some other opinion altogether alien to the teaching of Jesus. But Christian doctrine is not in the least to be blamed for this.
3. Granting that there are some amongst us Christians who do not allow that our God is the same as the God of the Jews, it by no means follows that they are to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same God is God of the Jews and of the Gentiles; Paul plainly shows this, when, after leaving the Jewish religion and embracing Christianity, he says, "I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience." Let us grant, too, that there is a third class composed of those who call some persons psychical and others spiritual (I suppose Celsus means the Valentinians); but what have we who belong to the Church to do with that? We are the accusers of those who introduce the doctrine of natures so constituted that they must be saved, or must perish. Let it further be granted that there are certain persons who also profess to be Gnostics, like the Epicureans who call themselves Philosophers; our answer is that men who destroy a belief in Providence could not really be Philosophers, nor can they be Christians who foist upon us these monstrous fictions so distasteful to the followers of Jesus.
4. Celsus goes on to say, "And they even say the most shameful things of one another; they would not make the least concession in the interests of harmony; for they utterly detest one another." In reply, even in Philosophy, as we have already said, rival sects may be found, and so it is in Medicine. We, however, following the Word of Jesus, and having made it our study to think and speak and do whatever He has said, being reviled, bless: being persecuted, we endure: being defamed, we entreat; and we would not say shameful things of those whose views differ from our own; but we would do all in our power to raise them to a higher level through persevering loyalty to the Creator alone, and by acting as men who will one day be judged. But if the heterodox will not be persuaded, we have our rule for dealing with them. "A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned." And again, men who understand the words, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and "Blessed are the meek," would not utterly detest opponents who debase Christianity.
I'm amazed that that men like you
Can be so shallow, thick and slow
There is not a man among you
Who knows or cares if I come or go!
--Jesus, in Jesus Christ Superstar
"Oh come on..." is a phrase used a loton the internet as a shortcut to mean, "In my opinion, you are exaggerating." it is used here in response to my granfather's JESUS MISHEGAHS: THE JEWISH XMAS BOOK by Yoesh (the Priest) Gloger, which I praised as being the definitive negative biography of jesus. well, it's true. name another. The fact is that there are none. Maybe, someday a better book that trashes the historical jesus will be published, but so far grandpa's is it, and it's been out there for 13 years in English, being read all over the world, from a monastery in Greece to an Iowa dormitory where a young jewish lady is being harassed by her dorm mates. I invite you to read it free and see for yourself. About 40 USA libraries have it and make it available for the inter-library loan system, so that any town's public library can borrow it for a few weeks. ... Sincerely, Yehoshua Gloger
A couple of observations. First, the First Council of Nicaea said nothing about banning books. Read the canons for what it did say [7]. It did have things to say about who was a Christian and who wasn't. If you want to call a "Christian" anyone who used the word "Christ" in any sort of religious sense, then I suppose I would have to agree that there were lots of "Christian sects". But I think such usage is misleading, and amounts to redefining a word in order to project today's divisiveness onto the first century. You may as well call Muslims "Christians", since they hold him in about as much regard as many of the Ebionites and some of the Gnostics did. Perhaps those Hindus who consider Christ one of their Avatars are also Christians. Now that I think about it, the comparison between Hindus who venerate or worship Jesus Christ as an avatar are probably more analogous to those Gnostics who venerated or worshipped Jesus and Christ as two different, good Aeons. Wesley 02:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to slice out parts of the article into different pieces, and will keep doing this until the article is at or less than 30 KB. If there is already an established main article for a subject matter, ALL matter about this will go to the main article. WhisperToMe 06:22, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The plan's done. WhisperToMe 07:03, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Since Gnostics are heretics by definition, why are the 'scare-quotes' and "so-called" used to refer to them? Mkmcconn 22:20, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)~
Mkmcconn, I would just like to say that I am equally uncomfortable with my choice of language. Its just the best I could come up with. If you can think of clearer terms please alter the text.
Also there are two reasons to call them Christians rather than one as you say. Not only did they consider themselves Christian, but also the Catholic Church admits they are by labelling the heretics. Else they would be unbelievers.
Also we should be very careful what we say about these 'heretical' sects because are views of them are coloured by how the Catholic Church has presented them. What they actually believed is likely to very different to what the Catholic Church says they believed.
Also I would prefer a better term to Orthodox Christians. Catholic would have been fine, except for the split with the Greek Orthodox. But again I can't think of anything that is clearer
Regarding early "Gnostic Christians" and whether it's proper to label them as heretics or as "so called" heretics. They are called heretics because they were calling themselves Christians, yet their teachings about Christ and God were radically different from what the Apostles of Jesus Christ and their followers were teaching. That their teachings were different, I think we can all agree. From the beginning, the Gnostics claimed to have received secret knowledge about things Christ taught that no one else knew about. If you wanted to learn these valuable teachings, you needed to pay a Gnostic teacher to reveal them to you. The apostles and their followers said that such teachings were nonsense, that the content of the Christian faith had been preached freely and openly from the beginning, and that it was therefore easy to compare the teachings of the Gnostics with what all the Christians had been teaching from the beginning and see who was making stuff up. Christians didn't have any imperial power to censor until Gnosticism was nearly all washed up.
In order to refute the charge of heresy, one would have to demonstrate either that their teachings really didn't conflict with the teachings of the apostles and orthodox Christianity, or that they constituted an entirely separate religion from Christianity. Hindus and Muslims aren't considered heretics; their beliefs are very different from Christianity, but they don't pretend to be Christians either. Wesley 18:07, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't know what the sentence in question is, having just noticed this leading edge of the discussion, but it strikes me that the phrase "now regarded as heretical by" could come in handy, so long as the issue of heresy isn't a distraction. I mention it because attribution doesn't always occur to people.
168... 02:39, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I found the sentence and suggested a change, of which an aspect was to remove reference to an orthodox church, but I see now that that aspect has been rejected. I'd like to ask about this. I'm sure I know less about the relevant history than most people who are discussing this, but I can't help suspecting that "The Church" and "The Orthodox Church" is a designation being applied retroactively to what in the 2nd century was only one of several parallel streams of practice and belief. Well, I guess even at the time the stream in question must have designated itself as orthodox, if indeed it felt justified in actively repressing the others, as was stated explicitly in an earlier version of the sentence. But I'm thinking that a neutral and non-anachronistic description of what this group of practioners was would have to regard their self-designation as the One True Church as having been, at the time, tentative, since I imagine it might have come to pass that a different tradition than that one supplanted all the rest and lived to call itself orthodox.
168... 03:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I hope you do not mind another suggestion from an outsider. I think Mkmcconn and ChrisG are talking across one another, but in a way that can fit together. I believe ChrisG is right that Orthodoxy was not established until the Nicene Creed. Thus, Ireneus represents a view that would become orthodox, and certainly he claimed it to be absolutely correct, but at the time he wrote his words were just that, his claim, his point of view. On the other hand, I think Mkmcconn is making a larger and more important point that ChrisG should recognize: even if Orthodoxy was not established/institutionalized until the Nicene Creed, Christians were debating it over the centuries preceeding, and over the course of those debates there were dominant and minority views, and trends. There are reasons for why the Nicene Creed came to be established as Orthodox. No doubt some of these reasons had to do with Constantine and Roman politics. But some of these reasons also had to do with a history of debate among Christians prior to Constantine. [[user:Slrubenstein]Slrubenstein]
As you make clear, this is how "A Christian" would "regard this;" that is, it is a POV. I have no objection to this POV being representes -- if not here, then in the article on Christianity -- as long as the POV is clearly idnetified and other POVs are represented (and of course clearly identified), Slrubenstein
You are certainly not testing my patience -- I honestly do not have a good understanding of how Christians classify themselves and others who claim to follow Jesus, and my knowledge of how historians classify them is limited -- so I am glad to be able to learn. As a long-time Wikipedia contributor, however, I do insist (to echo a frequent point made my Ed Poor) that the article clear about who uses a particular term, when they began doing so, and who, if anyone, uses different terms or systems of classification. About speaking "the truth" about Jesus since as you say this remains undecided I just don't see how it can be in the article; at best we can describe different factions' claims about "the truth" about Jesus -- again, situating them historically and culturally, if necessary/possible. Slrubenstein
Frankly, I think all of this discussion belongs in the article on Christianity, not here. Here it is important to recognize that there have been changing debates and divisions among Christians concerning both Jesus and Christianity and it is important to sum up different early Christian views of Jesus and name them according to both Christian conventions (e.g., as 168 suggested, "what would become the orthodox Christian position" as well as whatever conventions there are among historians (and if historians debate how to identify these positions, say so), with a link to the article on Christianity (or the History of Christianity) for a complete discussion. Slrubenstein
Well it sounds like on this point, at least, all three of us (and more I am sure) agree. Slrubenstein
The article says that Christians censored or destroyed many or most of the early Gnostic texts. Is there any citation or credible evidence for this? Which historians make the claim, and what evidence do they rely on for it? It seems unlikely that they would have been in a position to do so prior to the fourth century. If there is no basis for the claim, I'm going to remove it from the article.
On a separate note, calling James the Just the leader of a separate sect is I think at best only one interpretation of the evidence, but more likely an anachronistic projection of today's denominationalism onto the first century. If he is the author of the Protevangelion of James, as is traditionally believed, then his theology would have been markedly different than the Jewish Ebionites. (Origen noted a distinction between Jewish Ebionites who thought Jesus was wholly man, and Gnostic Ebionites who thought Jesus was wholly divine.) The discussion of James should at least be qualified a bit. Wesley 17:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
CHAPTER LXIV: Constantine's Edict against the Heretics.
"VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to the heretics. "Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, (1) and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; full of absurdities and fictions: and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one's ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one's own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure?
CHAPTER LXV: The Heretics are deprived of their Meeting Places.
"FORASMUCH, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. (1) We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In any case, the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with and mar the felicity of our present times: I mean the impious and wretched double-mindedness of heretics and schismatics. For it is an object worthy of that prosperity which we enjoy through the favor of God, to endeavor to bring back those who in time past were living in the hope of future blessing, from all irregularity and error to the right path, from darkness to light, from vanity to truth, from death to salvation. And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded, as before said, that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if such be worthy of the name, which belong to heretics, and that these be made over without delay to the catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering; in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public."
CHAPTER LXVI: How on the Discovery of Prohibited Books among the Heretics, Many of them return to the Catholic Church.
THUS were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the emperor's command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor's threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the Church. For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were detected, and, these were ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind. (1) Others, however, there were, who voluntarily and with real sincerity embraced a better hope. Meantime the prelates of the several churches. continued to make strict inquiry, utterly rejecting those who attempted an entrance under the specious disguise of false pretenses, while those who came with sincerity of purpose were proved for a time, and after sufficient trial numbered with the congregation. Such was the treatment of those who stood charged with rank heresy: those, however, who maintained no impious doctrine, but had been separated from the one body through the influence of schismatic advisers, were received without difficulty or delay. Accordingly, numbers thus revisited, as it were, their own country after an absence in a foreign land, and acknowledged the Church as a mother from whom they had wandered long, and to whom they now returned with joy and gladness. Thus the members of the entire body became united, and compacted in one harmonious whole; and the one catholic Church, at unity with itself, shone with full luster, while no heretical or schismatic body anywhere continued to exist. (2) And the credit of having achieved this mighty work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of all who had gone before him, was able to attribute to himself.
The argument over which gospels were 'true' writings and should be part of the New Testament had been going on for a long time before this. From my reading the best source is probably Origen (185-232). See [2] for a summary of Origen's view on what was and wasn't cannon. And [3] and [4] for views of his importance. And [5] for the full text of what he wrote. Make your own judgment but Origen admits that Christianity is a number of sects with very different views (Chapter CHAP. XVI):
Origen quotes Celsus' reproach :"Having grown in numbers and being widely dispersed, they are further split and divided; every body wants to have his own party." And again he says, "Being too numerous to keep together, they refute one another; they share, so to speak, if they do share it, the one name, the only thing that in spite of their divisions they are ashamed to give up; as for the rest they are all one here, one there. And they even say the most shameful things of one another; they would not make the least concession in the interests of harmony; for they utterly detest one another." Origen then explains it as being like the sects of Judaism and like different schools of mathematics, and elucidates on some of the differences :
Origen also says in the Homily to Luke: "The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many, of which one is entitled 'The Gospel according to the Egyptians', and another 'The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles'. Basilides also has presumed to write a gospel, and to call it by his own name. 'Many have taken in hand ' to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called 'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted. " The irony of this is that Origen was considered by some at the time to be a heretic. : ChrisG 20:08, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The line about irony should have been with the first quote, but I added the second quote because I thought it had some relevance, and I forgot to move my line about irony. :)
As regards Origen he was considered a heretic in his own time by some people, which proves my point(Check the references above) The important point I am trying to make is that Origen DID NOT DENY Celsus' criticism that Christians were divided into a number of sects. Origen - an outsider - did not see the Christians as one homogeneous Church he saw them as: "Being too numerous to keep together, they refute one another; they share, so to speak, if they do share it, the one name, the only thing that in spite of their divisions they are ashamed to give up; as for the rest they are all one here, one there. And they even say the most shameful things of one another; they would not make the least concession in the interests of harmony; for they utterly detest one another." Origen spent time explaining why there was these disagreements, not denying they existed. And the very fact Origen felt he had to directly quote Celsus' view reveals that there was more than a little truth to it.
The fact Origen says they are 'The Church' and the others were heretics does not mean that the 'heretics' agreed with him that they were heretics! Origen came out on the winning side. BTW as I have said before I have no problem asserting that the Paulinists were probably in the majority from the second century and evolved into the orthodox Church. : ChrisG 22:19, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Here you go. From the reference to the full text by Origen I listed above [6]: ChrisG 22:59, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
CHAP. XVI. ----Concerning those who slander Christianity on account of the heresies in the Church. Book III. against Celsus.
1. Then, as if he would like to blame the Word for the evils of heresy associated with Christianity, he reproaches us, saying, "Having grown in numbers and being widely dispersed, they are further split and divided; every body wants to have his own party." And again he says, "Being too numerous to keep together, they refute one another; they share, so to speak, if they do share it, the one name, the only thing that in spite of their divisions they are ashamed to give up; as for the rest they are all one here, one there." In reply, we will say that you never find different sects in any department of thought unless the principle involved is one of grave importance and practical use. Take the science of Medicine. It is useful and necessary to the human race, and the questions which arise as to the healing of the body are many. This is why, as is admitted, there are several sects among the Greeks, and I suppose among Barbarians also, as many as profess to practise the healing art. Let us take another illustration, Philosophy, inasmuch as it professes the pursuit of truth and the knowledge of realities, suggests the proper mode of life, and endeavours to teach things profitable to our race. But the points in question involve much diversity of opinion, and this is why there arose such an incredible number of philosophic sects of more or less distinction. Nay, even Judaism had a pretext for the rise of sects, through the varied interpretation of the writings of Moses and the words of the Prophets. Similarly, because Christianity appeared, not only to the low-minded, as Celsus says, but also to many learned Greeks, to be a matter of grave importance, sects of necessity arose, and not altogether through factiousness or contentiousness, but because so many even of the literary class were anxious to understand the meaning of Christianity. In consequence of this, because scholars differently interpreted what were believed on all sides to be Divine utterances, sects sprang up bearing the names of thinkers who had a reverent regard for the origin of the Word, but somehow or other through specious and plausible reasoning were brought into conflict with one another. But no man of sense would shun the science of Medicine because of its different sects; nor would a man of proper aims make the many sects of philosophy a pretext for hating it; and, similarly, we must not condemn the sacred books of Moses and the Prophets on account of the Jewish sects.
2. If all this hangs together, may we not offer a similar apology for the sects of Christianity? What Paul says concerning them seems to me truly marvellous: "There must be also sects among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." For as a man "approved" in the science of Medicine is he who is familiar with the practice of many different sects, and having fairly considered their claims, has chosen the best; and as the advanced student of Philosophy who, having an extensive knowledge of his subject, is familiar with its details, and therefore gives his adhesion to the stronger reasoning, may be called "approved"; so, I would say, he who carefully examines the sects of Judaism and Christianity becomes the wisest Christian. But any one who blames the Word on account of our sects would also blame the teaching of Socrates, because from the study of that Philosopher many different schools of thought have arisen. Nay, a man might blame even the doctrines of Plato because Aristotle gave up the study of him and took a line of his own, a point to which we have already referred. But Celsus seems to me to have become acquainted with certain sects which do not even share the name of Jesus with us. Rumours may have reached him of the Ophites and Cainites, or the holders of some other opinion altogether alien to the teaching of Jesus. But Christian doctrine is not in the least to be blamed for this.
3. Granting that there are some amongst us Christians who do not allow that our God is the same as the God of the Jews, it by no means follows that they are to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same God is God of the Jews and of the Gentiles; Paul plainly shows this, when, after leaving the Jewish religion and embracing Christianity, he says, "I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience." Let us grant, too, that there is a third class composed of those who call some persons psychical and others spiritual (I suppose Celsus means the Valentinians); but what have we who belong to the Church to do with that? We are the accusers of those who introduce the doctrine of natures so constituted that they must be saved, or must perish. Let it further be granted that there are certain persons who also profess to be Gnostics, like the Epicureans who call themselves Philosophers; our answer is that men who destroy a belief in Providence could not really be Philosophers, nor can they be Christians who foist upon us these monstrous fictions so distasteful to the followers of Jesus.
4. Celsus goes on to say, "And they even say the most shameful things of one another; they would not make the least concession in the interests of harmony; for they utterly detest one another." In reply, even in Philosophy, as we have already said, rival sects may be found, and so it is in Medicine. We, however, following the Word of Jesus, and having made it our study to think and speak and do whatever He has said, being reviled, bless: being persecuted, we endure: being defamed, we entreat; and we would not say shameful things of those whose views differ from our own; but we would do all in our power to raise them to a higher level through persevering loyalty to the Creator alone, and by acting as men who will one day be judged. But if the heterodox will not be persuaded, we have our rule for dealing with them. "A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned." And again, men who understand the words, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and "Blessed are the meek," would not utterly detest opponents who debase Christianity.
I'm amazed that that men like you
Can be so shallow, thick and slow
There is not a man among you
Who knows or cares if I come or go!
--Jesus, in Jesus Christ Superstar
"Oh come on..." is a phrase used a loton the internet as a shortcut to mean, "In my opinion, you are exaggerating." it is used here in response to my granfather's JESUS MISHEGAHS: THE JEWISH XMAS BOOK by Yoesh (the Priest) Gloger, which I praised as being the definitive negative biography of jesus. well, it's true. name another. The fact is that there are none. Maybe, someday a better book that trashes the historical jesus will be published, but so far grandpa's is it, and it's been out there for 13 years in English, being read all over the world, from a monastery in Greece to an Iowa dormitory where a young jewish lady is being harassed by her dorm mates. I invite you to read it free and see for yourself. About 40 USA libraries have it and make it available for the inter-library loan system, so that any town's public library can borrow it for a few weeks. ... Sincerely, Yehoshua Gloger
A couple of observations. First, the First Council of Nicaea said nothing about banning books. Read the canons for what it did say [7]. It did have things to say about who was a Christian and who wasn't. If you want to call a "Christian" anyone who used the word "Christ" in any sort of religious sense, then I suppose I would have to agree that there were lots of "Christian sects". But I think such usage is misleading, and amounts to redefining a word in order to project today's divisiveness onto the first century. You may as well call Muslims "Christians", since they hold him in about as much regard as many of the Ebionites and some of the Gnostics did. Perhaps those Hindus who consider Christ one of their Avatars are also Christians. Now that I think about it, the comparison between Hindus who venerate or worship Jesus Christ as an avatar are probably more analogous to those Gnostics who venerated or worshipped Jesus and Christ as two different, good Aeons. Wesley 02:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to slice out parts of the article into different pieces, and will keep doing this until the article is at or less than 30 KB. If there is already an established main article for a subject matter, ALL matter about this will go to the main article. WhisperToMe 06:22, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The plan's done. WhisperToMe 07:03, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)