![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
What about this anagram: - That is not an anagram. That is cherry picking whatever suits you. Nor would anyone have reason to suspect such.
NI is Nicea
CO is Constantinopole
(and probably LA is Laodicea, if it suits in greek?)
and NICOlaitanes refers to results of Nicene and Constantinopole creeds, the disputes of Filioque clause, leading later to separation of churches, and 1500 year battle for few words... To a start of condemnation of anyone differing as a heretic (like Arians)...
Trying to match this with some sect in Jerusalem, Ephesus or Pergamum in the times of John writing the Book is only a strait solution, since the seven churches of the Revelation heading are actually seven ages of Christianity until today... ~ S.Psi. 2006-09-19
Since the original document was written in Greek, I don't see the relevance of anagrams of the English translations (Nicolaitanes, Armageddon).
Kevin Cundiff
The seven churches of the Revelation heading are actually seven ages of Christianity until today... ~ S.Psi. 2006-09-19 This is not correct teaching, as what is not correct written below. It's root is the root of Docetism.
Added connection to Nicolas of Antioch, the seventh (named) deacon of the Apostolic Church. I have found no records other than those of critics widely reported - Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. However, no information yet as to the reason for its decline. L Hamm 03:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Continuing some research to see if anything can be fleshed out as to the actual nature of Nicolaitanes. Found this in Paul B Duff's Who Rides the Beast? : Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse (Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2001.) p 39:
What do these people believe? 28 Given what the text says about the crimes of Balaam, there can be little doubt that the teachings of the Nicolaitans are those that the seer connects with Balaam, specifically "eating ειδωλóθυτα" (meat sacrificed to idols) and committing πορνειο (usually translated "fornication"). 29 It is apparent from the threat section of the letter (D) that John considers these teachings to be a significant danger to the faithful. As opposed to the rather mild warning delivered in the Ephesian letter, here the Son of Man threatens violence. 30 The blatant hostility of the threat might suggest that "those who hold the teachings of the Nicolaitan" comprise a significant number of Christians in Pergamum. Regardless, it certainly indicates that the controversy between the "faithful" and "those holding the teachings of the Nicolaitans" is particularly bitter in this community.
L Hamm 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
what's about:
nikos: to conquer or have victory over
laos: the people
nicolaitane: conquering the people
It appears from the Biblical text that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was well understood to the audience of the day, but that understanding has simply been lost to us today. From samplings of web and paper literature, two main lines of reasoning are pursued to try to rediscover what that doctrine is. It looks like the most common approach is to appeal to the etymology of the word, almost without regard to historical writings on the subject. The other approach is to appeal to the early church fathers. The article as it currently stands (2006-11-28) has an unclear mish-mash of both.
I think it would be fair to acknowledge both approaches in the article, but make the two lines much clearer in the text. The article should discuss current thinking about the etymological route, as in:
Etymologically, there are two possibilities: 1. Nico + laos = conquer the people -> invention of clergy-laity division 2. Nicolas-followers = people who follow the doctrines of Nicolas
The article should give the most credence to the historical examination of Nicolaitanism. Currently, the article rightly appeals to the church fathers. But it could do a better job of citing and explaining. The Catholic Encyclopedia reference is very illuminating and should be better incorporated into this article. Another good article in this vein is at http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/38.html.
Also, the correct spelling is Balaam, not Baalam. The latter is not found in Neither (NEITHER NOT EITHER) the original language or in any English Bible. Tell me, what is the original language for the believers in Baal. YOU ARENT RIGHT> You cannot use a translation of the original langto prove this point. I gurantee examples of Balaam, Balaam, Baal Bilaam, etc. WHY? 1) Many of these old languages don't have VOWELS. RTRD.
My dear anonymous poster (internet rule- web is for data. Mess with the mojo, post nonsense, get trolled)--
I've done my best to clarify the article as you suggest, adding text from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Barnes' Notes, and Scofield, while keeping any of the original editor's text that seemed to be in line with other authorities. Hopefully the text can be expanded further with more details from the early authors, etc.
And, yes, Balaam (Bil'am) is easily confused in spelling with Baal (Ba'al). There is a triple pun (Balaam-Nicolaos-Baal) going on somewhere here. A pun, of course, is two words that seem the same but have different meanings, and the difference/similarity is funny, or in this case, ironic. Alfarero 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it Possible that The Catholic church still practices this even today? 66.194.196.3 ( talk) 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I found plenty of texts that offer an alternative explanations to the word Nicolaitan. Here are some of them: http://www.acts1711.com/nic.htm http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/nicoltn.html http://www.triumphpro.com/nicolaitans.htm "The alternative explanation is that Nicolaitans refers to those teachers in the Body of Christ who began to elevate the clergy above the laity, a distinction that did not exist in the Christian Church until the end of the second century." 195.148.75.83 ( talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone left this sarcastic message at the bottom of the article: " If you're going to copy and paste from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11067a.htm , at least give explicit credit." i've moved it in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.114.0 ( talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Should there really be so much talk of "Heresy" in this article? It does not sound neutral. It is sufficient to point out that the Church considered this belief to be heretic. -- 85.226.42.150 ( talk) 11:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This entire "Other Interpretations in History" section reads like a blog post, not a Wikipedia article. If someone wants to rewrite it, here it is:
Kramden ( talk) 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it was a John who wrote the Revelation, but he wasn't John the Apostle. 3 John is pseudonymous, see Authorship of the Johannine works. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Does this really belong under the category of Gnosticism? The church fathers sure liked that interpretation, but aside from the Nicolaitans having antinomianism (a feature of SOME Gnosticism) it doesn't have much to do with the later doctrines of the 2nd century, and there may not have even been a chain of transmission from Nicolaitans to gnostics. 74.133.128.54 ( talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This article used to be very clear and concise. Now it seems to be weighted down with long and redundant citations that serve only to obscure. Judicious editing seems needed to bring this back to order. Kramden ( talk) 19:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Steiner was a clairvoyant guru. We have no use for his POV. I removed it as WP:OR. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The text states that they were influenced by Cerinthus. I think Irenaeus is saying it was the other way around:
Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
What about this anagram: - That is not an anagram. That is cherry picking whatever suits you. Nor would anyone have reason to suspect such.
NI is Nicea
CO is Constantinopole
(and probably LA is Laodicea, if it suits in greek?)
and NICOlaitanes refers to results of Nicene and Constantinopole creeds, the disputes of Filioque clause, leading later to separation of churches, and 1500 year battle for few words... To a start of condemnation of anyone differing as a heretic (like Arians)...
Trying to match this with some sect in Jerusalem, Ephesus or Pergamum in the times of John writing the Book is only a strait solution, since the seven churches of the Revelation heading are actually seven ages of Christianity until today... ~ S.Psi. 2006-09-19
Since the original document was written in Greek, I don't see the relevance of anagrams of the English translations (Nicolaitanes, Armageddon).
Kevin Cundiff
The seven churches of the Revelation heading are actually seven ages of Christianity until today... ~ S.Psi. 2006-09-19 This is not correct teaching, as what is not correct written below. It's root is the root of Docetism.
Added connection to Nicolas of Antioch, the seventh (named) deacon of the Apostolic Church. I have found no records other than those of critics widely reported - Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. However, no information yet as to the reason for its decline. L Hamm 03:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Continuing some research to see if anything can be fleshed out as to the actual nature of Nicolaitanes. Found this in Paul B Duff's Who Rides the Beast? : Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse (Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2001.) p 39:
What do these people believe? 28 Given what the text says about the crimes of Balaam, there can be little doubt that the teachings of the Nicolaitans are those that the seer connects with Balaam, specifically "eating ειδωλóθυτα" (meat sacrificed to idols) and committing πορνειο (usually translated "fornication"). 29 It is apparent from the threat section of the letter (D) that John considers these teachings to be a significant danger to the faithful. As opposed to the rather mild warning delivered in the Ephesian letter, here the Son of Man threatens violence. 30 The blatant hostility of the threat might suggest that "those who hold the teachings of the Nicolaitan" comprise a significant number of Christians in Pergamum. Regardless, it certainly indicates that the controversy between the "faithful" and "those holding the teachings of the Nicolaitans" is particularly bitter in this community.
L Hamm 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
what's about:
nikos: to conquer or have victory over
laos: the people
nicolaitane: conquering the people
It appears from the Biblical text that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was well understood to the audience of the day, but that understanding has simply been lost to us today. From samplings of web and paper literature, two main lines of reasoning are pursued to try to rediscover what that doctrine is. It looks like the most common approach is to appeal to the etymology of the word, almost without regard to historical writings on the subject. The other approach is to appeal to the early church fathers. The article as it currently stands (2006-11-28) has an unclear mish-mash of both.
I think it would be fair to acknowledge both approaches in the article, but make the two lines much clearer in the text. The article should discuss current thinking about the etymological route, as in:
Etymologically, there are two possibilities: 1. Nico + laos = conquer the people -> invention of clergy-laity division 2. Nicolas-followers = people who follow the doctrines of Nicolas
The article should give the most credence to the historical examination of Nicolaitanism. Currently, the article rightly appeals to the church fathers. But it could do a better job of citing and explaining. The Catholic Encyclopedia reference is very illuminating and should be better incorporated into this article. Another good article in this vein is at http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/38.html.
Also, the correct spelling is Balaam, not Baalam. The latter is not found in Neither (NEITHER NOT EITHER) the original language or in any English Bible. Tell me, what is the original language for the believers in Baal. YOU ARENT RIGHT> You cannot use a translation of the original langto prove this point. I gurantee examples of Balaam, Balaam, Baal Bilaam, etc. WHY? 1) Many of these old languages don't have VOWELS. RTRD.
My dear anonymous poster (internet rule- web is for data. Mess with the mojo, post nonsense, get trolled)--
I've done my best to clarify the article as you suggest, adding text from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Barnes' Notes, and Scofield, while keeping any of the original editor's text that seemed to be in line with other authorities. Hopefully the text can be expanded further with more details from the early authors, etc.
And, yes, Balaam (Bil'am) is easily confused in spelling with Baal (Ba'al). There is a triple pun (Balaam-Nicolaos-Baal) going on somewhere here. A pun, of course, is two words that seem the same but have different meanings, and the difference/similarity is funny, or in this case, ironic. Alfarero 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it Possible that The Catholic church still practices this even today? 66.194.196.3 ( talk) 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I found plenty of texts that offer an alternative explanations to the word Nicolaitan. Here are some of them: http://www.acts1711.com/nic.htm http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/nicoltn.html http://www.triumphpro.com/nicolaitans.htm "The alternative explanation is that Nicolaitans refers to those teachers in the Body of Christ who began to elevate the clergy above the laity, a distinction that did not exist in the Christian Church until the end of the second century." 195.148.75.83 ( talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone left this sarcastic message at the bottom of the article: " If you're going to copy and paste from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11067a.htm , at least give explicit credit." i've moved it in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.114.0 ( talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Should there really be so much talk of "Heresy" in this article? It does not sound neutral. It is sufficient to point out that the Church considered this belief to be heretic. -- 85.226.42.150 ( talk) 11:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This entire "Other Interpretations in History" section reads like a blog post, not a Wikipedia article. If someone wants to rewrite it, here it is:
Kramden ( talk) 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it was a John who wrote the Revelation, but he wasn't John the Apostle. 3 John is pseudonymous, see Authorship of the Johannine works. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Does this really belong under the category of Gnosticism? The church fathers sure liked that interpretation, but aside from the Nicolaitans having antinomianism (a feature of SOME Gnosticism) it doesn't have much to do with the later doctrines of the 2nd century, and there may not have even been a chain of transmission from Nicolaitans to gnostics. 74.133.128.54 ( talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This article used to be very clear and concise. Now it seems to be weighted down with long and redundant citations that serve only to obscure. Judicious editing seems needed to bring this back to order. Kramden ( talk) 19:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Steiner was a clairvoyant guru. We have no use for his POV. I removed it as WP:OR. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The text states that they were influenced by Cerinthus. I think Irenaeus is saying it was the other way around:
Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)