Talk:Jesus/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

"So-called 'heresy'" vs. "heresy."

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)~

Used scare quotes because of some of the negative connotations attached to the term.

Also heretic implies that they were in the minority or have changed from orthodox views when they never shared them in the first place. At the time the repressed sects probably considered the Orthodox Christians as corruptors of the true faith. The Orthodox Church had the power of the Roman Empire behind them, not necessarily the majority of Christians.

Indeed it is arguable that they were the same religion, since what constitutes one religion is unclear. For instance, are the Mormons really Christians?: ChrisG 07:59, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Orthodox Christians of the second through the fourth centuries did not have the power of the Roman Empire behind them, when the Marcionite Gnostics were at their height; and yet, they were well-distinguished from the Orthodox from their beginning. The Gnostics believed many contradictory things. They were often typified by belief not in one god, but two; Jesus only seemed to be a Jew (a servant of the devil), just as he only seemed to be human; and, all the prophets up through John (the baptist) were servants of the evil god. 'Orthodox' 'Christians' serve that same 'evil god'. So, is 'orthodoxy' Christian? Mkmcconn

But, the most important thing is that, there is not a uniform description of Gnosticism. Heresy, is the only thing that these diverse groups all have in common: that is, none of them conformed to the catholic faith. They professed an amalgam of esoteric spirituality and Christian jargon, and rejected Christianity as it was taught in the churches. The only reason for calling them Christian, is that they called themselves Christian. But if they are, then Christianity is not. It is not POV to call them "Gnostic Christians" as opposed to "Orthodox Christians", or "Heretics" as opposed to "Catholic". Mkmcconn

Finally, heretic does not in any way imply that the orthodox outnumber them. It means, simply, one who claims to be of the same faith, but rejects the uniform teaching. Such may have always outnumbered the orthodox, for all we know. Numbers are irrelevant to whether they are heretics. Mkmcconn 16:17, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mightn't "Heterodox" be a more NPOV term than "heretic"? john 22:05, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Since they mean substantially the same thing, that word is acceptable to me. But, I do not expect that any but those sympathetic to orthodoxy would consider this an improvement. Pure relativism reigns. Mkmcconn 00:34, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think "heterodox" means the same as "heretical" at all. "heterodox" just means "other worship" in contrast with orthodoxy's "right worship", but not the same as heresy, which is plainly false. I've heard a number of Orthodox refer to Protestants as "heterodox" as a way to avoid passing judgment on whether their worship is right or wrong. Also, Gnosticism was very different than Orthodox Christianity from the start; Gnosticism was grounded in Greek philosophy and set a premium on "hidden wisdom", for which its teachers could charge large sums of money to dispense. Gnostics generally rejected Hebrew religion and the Old Testament very thoroughly. Orthodox Christians were grounded in the Hebrew religion, and affirmed the use of the Old Testament, with far, far less dependence on Greek philosophy. As time went on they borrowed some Greek philosophical terms to express and define Christianity, but they didn't borrow from it nearly as much as the Gnostics did. And of course there were many Gnostics who weren't Christian at all, in that they had a complete system without any mention of Jesus, or Christ, at all. ("Jesus" and "Christ" were separate entities in many Gnostic Christian systems, to give just a hint of the differences.) Wesley 06:11, 3 Nov 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

ChrisG 02:46, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There was a Church, which appealed for its doctrines to both the Old Testament and those writings which were most widely accepted as authentically having apostolic authority, which appeals against its opponents for evidence of its continuity with the Jewish prophets, apostles and the teachings of Christ, to history, to the universality of its doctrines in dispersed and self-governing jurisdictions, and to the traditions and prayers historically common sometimes even among their opponents. How shall we characterize this definable, historical entity? Historically, it has been called the Orthodox, or Catholic church - because its concern was for unity in doctrine and worship, and it was found in widely diverse places. We might find some synonym, or settle for a descriptive phrase, but I am at a loss for a better description than the names which have always been given to it: Orthodox, and Catholic. Mkmcconn 04:17, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I find myself largely in agreement with Mkmcconn. The main body of the Church, or what you will, was always known as the Orthodox or Catholic Church. They called themselves Orthodox, or Catholic. "Orthodox" certainly seems an appropriate word to contrast the branch from which pretty much all later Christianity developed with the various heterodox Gnostic sects. "Catholic," I think, would probably be better used at earliest to describe Nicene or Athanasian Christianity in contrast to the various forms of Arianism, given the Nicene creed's reference to the one holy catholic and apostolic church... but either term would seem to be the correct term to use, regardless of the fact that both definitely have POV connotations in their actual meanings, and that both have later come to refer to distinctly different branches of Christianity. In spite of this, I think it would be far more POV to make up some other name to refer to Orthodox/Catholic early Christianity by, given that it would have no warrant in either contemporary or scholarly usage, so far as I know. john 07:22, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Added Wikipedia links to these questionable terms, so that readers can check out the terms themselves and make up their own minds. : ChrisG 09:00, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Gnostic 'Heresy'

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)

Wesley, finally had the time to look at your version. Although you have made some good points, which I have included in my compromise version; I feel that you are throwing the Gnostics in an unnecessarily bad light, and putting the orthodox church of the time in a better light than it deserves.

• Have included sentence on Against Heresy because it is an important work, but pointed out he is an orthodox Christian bishop, and like all polemics against 'heresy' are not going to put such beliefs and teachings in an attractive light.
• Included your point about teachings being secret; but I have amended it because only some of their teachings were secret, the esoteric ones. They published plenty of books and alternative gospels that the orthodox Church went around destroying. Historians believe their were at least ten or more gospals in the 2nd century, but the orthodox Church went around destroying all the others. Those gospels were not secret! So I believe it more than fair to say that the book burning was the largest reason.
• I have not included your claim that gnostic christians ask to be paid Possibly you have evidence, can you point it out please.
• As to "so-called" heretics. Your claim that the orthodox church is based on the succession of apostles is dubious. Fact - Paul was not even one of the original 12 apostles chosen by Jesus. You can and the Church does claim that he saw Christ in a vision and became an apostle; but from an historians point of view that is not a justified position.I am quite willing to grant that Paul was well regarded in the early Christians and may even have been accepted as an apostle by the original 12 apostles;but Jesus didn't chose him before he died, and Paul was not trained by any of the original Apostles. None of the gospels is written by an original apostle, and the orthodox Church destroyed every gospel of the Jewish Christian gospel, which is mostly likely to have been the earliest gospel. Paul and the orthodox claim that there were no secret teachings given by Christ is thus second hand. If there were any secret teachings they would have been given to the 12 apostles/and perhaps Mary Magdalen and other women; and the orthodox Church did not directly develop from those sources. : ChrisG 13:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am not Catholic or Orthodox, but I don't have the same trouble following Wesley's reasoning that you are having. In fighting against gnosticism, the Church fought against the utter eradication of the Jewish Christian gospel. They were fighting anti-semitism, ecclesiastical chaos, ethical bankruptcy, moral hypocrisy, intellectual irresponsibility, and historical irrelevancy. Their writings against these faults, we sum up now as their attack on "gnosticism". Mkmcconn 14:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, that is your point of view, and I have mine, which I have tried to ezplain point by point. You've not directly tackled my points, you have raised your own. All I will say until others comment, is that I don't see how historically you can argue that the Church fought against 'the utter eradication of the Jewish Christian gospel', or surely they would have retained a few versions written in Hebrew.

BTW your description of the Gospel of Thomas is better. : ChrisG 14:28, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

* Any reference for the 2nd century book burnings? I haven't run across these, and would like to learn more.

* Irenaeus lists a number of Gnostics who invented unique systems of thought so that people would have to pay them to learn. Simon Magus would be another, if he can be classified as a Gnostic; not sure at the moment.

* Irenaeus was a discpile of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. More importantly, during his life his teaching was in harmony with what the rest of Christianity was teaching. Matthew the Evangelist and John the Evangelist were both among the twelve apostles; I think Luke may have been among the seventy apostles, but I'm less sure about that. There are other gospels such as the Gospel of James and the Gospel of Nicodemus that the church accepted as part of tradition without destroying. I'll address other bits of your history below. Wesley 17:54, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I really don't see the Christian sense of that last remark, since the gospel was being published to the Greek-and-Latin-speaking world, and was being rejected by the Hebrew-speaking world. The Christian church was founded on Pentecost, when the people heard the Gospel being proclaimed in their own language, not in Hebrew. Christians have an incarnational theory of revelation, not a dictation theory of inspiration (unlike Muslims and the Rabbinical tradition); thus, Hebrew is not the only language spoken to men from heaven. The gnostics typically hated the Hebrew Scriptures. Their religion was invented to distance Christianity from what they frequently described as the barbaric circumcision, the fleshly and despised religion of the Jews. Mkmcconn 14:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, I think we have a semantical dispute here, i.e what we mean by gnostic. See further up the talk page for our discussion of some of the terms used and why they are used. From my POV, I don't think you can say Gnostic Christianity and indeed alternative early Christianity was ONE thing. The texts in the Nag Hammadi library reveal that for sure. I suspect you may be right and I'm sure the orthodox Church that some people who considered themslves Gnostic Christians shared the view that you rightly criticise, but not all or even the majority. The polemics against heresy naturally criticised the worst manifestations of gnosticism that they could find, including quite possibly some people who asked for payment to learn the secret teachings of Jesus, there are always people trying to make money out of spirituality. But gnostics and other early Christians should not and cannot be judged as a whole from one perspective. : ChrisG 15:22, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Exactly so, ChrisG. Heresy has no orthodoxy. There is no way to judge Gnosticism as a whole from the perspective of one instance of it: because Gnosticism as a intelligible whole is a modern invention. Elements are borrowed from Mandaeans and Ebionites, Marcionites, and the hundreds of writers spoken against by the fathers, plus the many pseudographs and other writings that survive, to synthesize a view of a single "alternative" for which there is, in fact, no evidence that such a single thing ever existed until the modern era. Mkmcconn 20:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I still not sure were arguing about the same thing. Let me put it another way. The initial leader of the followers of Jesus after Jesus' death was James, who may or may not have been his brother. Initially the followers of Jesus were clearly Jewish Christians, who believed to be a follower of Jesus you had to become a Jew. They followed something called the Gospel of Hebrews I think. At a later date they seem to have become the Ebionites and eventually disappeared in history. At a later date a group formed around Paul, who became converted to Jesus' teaching in a vision. His group or the one he took over, didn't believe you had to convert to Judiasm to be a follower of Jesus. I think their is quite clear textual evidence of this split in the Bible. The two sects initially at least had a relationship, and the James was the acknowledged leader of the followers of Jesus. I'm unsure from memory if there is any evidence of them eventually breaking the relationship. The Bible does not refer to any other sects at that point, though who knows if there were any others.

As I see in time due to being repressed and spreading geographically Christianity split into further sects, including various Gnostic groups and other alternative Christian sects. Each of these sects had their own gospels and various books on Jesus. Leadership based on the Jewish Christians was lost because of Jewish war which led to hundreds of thousands of Jews and presumably Jewish Christians dying.

Orthodox Christianity didn't rear its head until the Council of Nicea which was convened by the Roman emperor Constantine. It was at that event that the various bishops got together and agreed on the Nicene creed and decided what books should be in the New Testament, choosing the four Gospels, etc, and rejected other gospels and materials.

I do not see how sects that existed before that time who believed they followed Jesus, could be described as anything other than so-called heretics. They did not react against orthodox teachings and come up with their own doctrines, they had their own beliefs before orthodoxy ever got created. If I could find a better name for them other than the one given by the orthodox church I would, but there isn't as far as I can see. : ChrisG 02:15, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your history is severely mistaken. The pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision groups reconciled with each other and reached agreement at the church's first council, as recorded in Acts 15. I don't think you can trace the twelve apostles to the Ebionites. As you said, James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and presided at that council. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, and was later succeeded by Ignatius, who had seen Jesus during Jesus' earthly ministry while still a boy. Later, Peter was bishop of Rome. I think it was Mark the Evangelist who established the church in Alexandria and Egypt, which later became another of the early five patriarchates. Photini, the "woman at the well" from John 4, preached the Gospel in North Africa and later Rome, together with at least two of her sons. The Apostle Thomas took the Gospel as far as India and established a church there. Centuries later, Indian Christians re-established contact with Christians in Syria and found they were preserving the same faith. (I wonder if any historians have asked THEM about the "Gospel of Thomas"?) Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, fled for his life soon after his resurrection and eventually became a bishop in Cyprus. All these people and more, including many if not all of the seventy apostles Jesus commissioned during his earthly ministry, had direct contact with Jesus passed on the same teachings and practices to their followers. This is why orthodox Christianity is truly apostolic.

As for the Council of Nicaea, it's true that they were convened by Constantine, who desired unity in his empire. Constantine himself was at best a catechumen at the time, and may have actually favored Arianism. In any case, the bishops wound up affirming the Nicene Creed, but they did NOT establish a New Testament canon at that time. That didn't happen until closer to the end of the fourth century, and it happened somewhat gradually as a consensus emerged from among the different geographic areas and various local synods agreed on the same set. Other works may have been condemned before then, and of course the Gospels and epistles of Paul were in wide circulation, but final consensus on the NT canon didn't happen at Nicaea, and only emerged many decades later. This is a widely agreed on historical fact.

As for the Gnostics, it's true that they had their own beliefs before orthodoxy came along. They had their own beliefs before Christianity came along. In many cases, it's clear that they borrowed names and maybe a few ideas from Christianity and squeezed them into their Gnostic framework of thinking. As such, their teachings, while there were probably over a hundred different variations, all differed radically from the apostolic Christianity being taught and practiced by orthodox Christians. Wesley 17:54, 7 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)

In contrast with the inventiveness and elitism of those he writes against, Ireneus (AD 120-202), in Against Heresies, Chapter X, says of the Church that it is concerned with orthodoxy ...

the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions136 of the world.

...and that it is catholic:

the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.

Mkmcconn 08:14, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Catholic and Orthodox, equivalent to "True"?

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]

A Christian ought to regard this view as discrediting to the Christian faith, and a biased reading of history, built on speculation rather than the existing record. There is a 'standard history', and there is the speculative alternative which is read into the silences: the missing years of Jesus, the words that we do not have, the writings we have no copies of, the wife we have no witness of, etc. The standard history is "orthodoxy" from very, very early. Mkmcconn 15:42, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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

The point that I'm trying to make (testing everyone's patience, and I'm sorry about that), is that the POV is self-identified in a neutral way, by using the conventional terminology: orthodoxy and catholicism. In contrast, there are the "choosers" - that is, the heretics - who selectively took from the Church those things that seemed interesting to them, and blended it with all kinds of beliefs, as it appealed to them. The choosers did not make claims to universality (catholic) but rather to elitist spirituality, and they did not make claims to what was handed down (orthodoxy) but rather to their own qualifications, and to secret traditions, private revelations, new discoveries and writings out of character with what was well-known, and interpretations that varied from place to place and teacher to teacher. It was the task of the Church, beginning with the apostles and their disciples, to show the difference between such choosers, and the orthodox and catholic Church of Jesus Christ. Mkmcconn \

It is fine with me, and NPOV, to call them both Christianity, since the definition of Christianity is what is in dispute between them. But only one of these in the very first centuries made any claim to be single, catholic, orthodox, traditional, or apostolic. While those terms seem to ChrisG to prejudice the case against the Gnostics, it is not necessary that it should be thought of that way, because none of these terms mean "true". It remains undecided, whether the Jesus of the "orthodox" and "catholic" faith speaks the truth concerning Jesus. Mkmcconn 18:10, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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

Yes: we should describe what the different factions claim. But again, the point at issue is what to call those factions. I contend that the second century dispute with the Gnostics is properly and neutrally described, as being between the Orthodox, Catholic Church, and the Heretics, with no "scare-quotes" and no weasel phrases like, "so-called". You might think of this in terms analogous to the dispute between orthodox, traditional, rabbinical Judaism, and the Christians, who were called a sect. Christians will not typically wrap those neutral, descriptive terms in quotation marks; although they would certainly wrap the word "true", in order to make the point that the truth concerning the covenant of God and the meaning of Judaism is what is at issue, between the rabbis and the Christian bishops. Mkmcconn 18:53, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay as regards terms. I happy to accept using the term orthodox for what became the Catholic/Greek Orthodox churches. However, I do feel that it is prejudical to call the 'alternative' Christian sects heretics, which is why I prefer scare quotes or phrases that signal that. I also deny their claim that they indisputedly laid claim to apostlic? succession. As far as I can see the Jewish Christians claimed that themselves, and since James ruled the Church first and may have been Jesus' brother they had good grounds for that claim. There are actually references in the Bible to this in the earlier days. In addition, the gnostics certainly claimed that they received esoteric teachings handed down directly from the apostles. :ChrisG 22:25, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What do you think "heretic" means, that makes you disagree with the term? As I said before, there is no difference between the Jewish Christians of James' day and the later orthodox Christians. I've already pointed to the reconciliation that took place in Acts 15, since you yourself appealed to the New Testament to document their differences. Of course they were both in legitimate apostolic succession. Yes, the gnostics claimed that they received teachings from the apostles that no one else knew about, whereas the orthodox Christians claimed to have teachings from the apostles that everyone knew about. The gnostics had 100+ variations of contradictory "apostolic" teaching. Wesley 22:57, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't agree in calling what became the Orthodox church 'Orthodox' because I think they are particularly true, I just accept that because they historically became official Church, so its a fairly clear appellation. I would call them Paulinists, but that would be confusing to many readers. As regards the New Testament and Acts they are principally Paulinistic writings, at least half our considered to have been written by Paul and/or his disciples. As regards Acts you are right that Acts 15 shows a reconciliation between Pauls flexible (they didn't have to become Jews) teachings and the Jewish Christians(Nazoreans, later Ebionites); however it is James that makes this decision as leader of the Church of the time. Acts are the acts principally of Paul; it doesn't after the first few chapters and Pauls conversion deal with the missionary efforts of other apostles. The Gnostics didn't claim that had teachings from apostles no-one heard about - for instance they used James, Mary Magdalen & Thomas - they just claimed that they had esoteric teachings for those who were sufficiently spiritually advanced. : ChrisG 00:26, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think we are at a point where we must agree to disagree. I don't see James making the final decision in Acts 15 in the manner of a pope, but the assemblage of leaders concluding together, "it seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit... ". I know there are some historians who think that the Jewish Christians became the Ebionites; of these, some doubt that Jesus was an historical person at all. Other historians doubt whether the Ebionites were Christians of any kind; in the fourth century, Eusebius said that the Ebionites generally denied the divinity of Christ. In other words, you're taking for granted a sharp distinction between "Jewish Christians" and "Paulinistic Christians" that is not universally shared, and I suspect is actually a relatively novel minority view. Particularly considering that Paul was himself not only raised and trained as a Jew, but as a Christian he preached first in the synagogues; further, the so-called "Paulinists" did a great deal of borrowing from Judaism, including their scriptures, forms of worship, etc., for a group that is supposed to be sharply separated from "Jewish Christians." As for the teachings the Gnostics received privately from the likes of James and Mary Magdalene, these have been shown to be very different from what was publically known of these peoples' teachings. I still wonder what you think "heretic" means and what your real objection to the neutral use of the term is? Wesley 05:51, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

What should be subject matter of article

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

If the question is "who is Jesus?", there is no resemblance between the Jesus of the Gnostics and the Jesus of the Church. Mkmcconn 15:42, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm with Mkmcconn on this. This is an article about Jesus, as such "who is Jesus?" is surely what it is about. Naturally enough this means it must cover some of the ground of the early history of Christianity article, and so far that is all it is doing (An proper article on the early history of Christianity would get far more detailed!) The problem is it is highly complicated and getting a NPOV text is rather difficult, because it is difficult not to use loaded terms. :ChrisG 16:00, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well it sounds like on this point, at least, all three of us (and more I am sure) agree. Slrubenstein

---

Destruction of alternative Christian texts

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)

re James. The reference to James makes no claim to leading a seperate sect. Read it again. Its just say's leader of Jesus' sect in Jerusalem after Jesus died or at least thats what it should say. Rewrite that if you think it is unclear. Any discussion of a splintering of the followers of Jesus would be clearly after James death and quite possibiy the Jewish War. :ChrisG 19:14, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

re Evidence of censoring and destruction of alternative Christian texts. When I get the time I'll hunt up some references. To be continued. :ChrisG 19:14, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

re: Evidence of censoring and destruction of alternative Christian texts (Constantine). Eusebius of Cesarea the 'father of Church history' wrote the Life of Constantine in 337 after Constantine's death. See [1] for the full text. I've included the relevant three sections because they illustrate it was the policy of the Emperor to find and destroy 'heretical' books, deprive banned groups from having meeting places, and that it was approved of by this bishop, and practised by the orthodox Christians.

I've amended the reference to 2nd and 3rd centuries since of course this process didn't begin until the 'orthodox' church came properly into existence at the council of Nicea. :ChrisG

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.

I've never doubted that such censorship could have and likely did take place starting with sometime after the Edict of Milan, by which Constantine ended the empire's persecution of Christians. Prior to that, in the second and third centuries, they lacked the political power to do any such thing, which has been my main contention. I still maintain that the Council of Nicaea did not "establish" the orthodox church; it was an assembly of orthodox Christian bishops of a Church that had already been around since the first century, and many of whom still bore scars, injuries or were maimed as a result of the persecutions that had only recently ended. The Council defined the faith somewhat more precisely than it had been before, with special care taken to refute the errors of Arianism that were trying to disguise themselves as Christian doctrine.

I see that the article still claims the censorshihp included the second and third centuries; I'll be amending that part shortly. Wesley 17:37, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't mean to be picky, ChrisG, but these paragraphs do not actually say that any documents were destroyed (although I don't doubt that they were). In fact, don't we know that many of the writings were kept by the Catholic Church? It appears to me that the paragraphs might be cited to show that the end of Gnosticism can be accounted for by the compulsory conversion of Gnostics, to the Catholic Church; but it does not offer evidence that this extinction is owing to the destruction of writings, or that these writings were believed by anyone to be ancient, or apostolic. Mkmcconn 18:36, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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)

I do not see the irony. Origen did not differ from the Church in his view of the canon of scripture. And, I do not know what you think that these paragraphs show: there is the one Church, and there are the many heretics. This teaching of Origen was never condemned by the Church. I don't know the purpose of this paragraph. It doesn't show what you ask us to look for in it. Mkmcconn 21:00, 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)

I'm asking you, where does the quotation confirm what you assert? You summarize Origen, but you do not quote him. By doing so, you do not show what you claim; you simply replace a brief and economical assertion with a long, excessive one, and it drifts off topic. Origen can be cited to show another author who rejects the Gnostic writings as forgeries, and who contends that the Catholic Christians are agreed on the number of the gospels, over against heretical Christians who are not agreed. This seems relevant, but again, it is not to your point. Mkmcconn 22:40, 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.

Sigh ..."heterodox" instead of heretics? It's a more useful term to oppose to "orthodox", anyway. john 23:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, ChrisG, I'm all the more amazed, and wonder if you are actually reading what you are quoting! First, he grants for the sake of the argument that there are sects, he points out that this does not in itself discredit the Christian religion showing why, but then shows how Celsus's accusation is concocted by an unwarranted conflation of Christians and anti-Christians. He even says, regarding the Gnostics: "nor can they be Christians who foist upon us these monstrous fictions so distasteful to the followers of Jesus." Once again, you are quoting someone who complains that the Gnostic writings are non-Christian forgeries. Is all this quoting going somewhere? Mkmcconn 23:09, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know. Has it? I have gone to a lot of effort to find and read the original source texts of Eusebius and Origen to back up certain points that are already in the article, which to my surprise were under question:

• in early Christianity there were many different sects of Christianity with very different views on Jesus. (supported by Origen, Eusebius)
• what became the orthodox church nnd the Roman empire systematically established orthodoxy through banning alternative sects, exiling their leaders and destroying their books from the first council of Nicaea.(Eusebius is indeed rather pleased with Constantine for his political interference)

I'm not concerned whether Origen or Eusebius hate the Gnostics because we already knew that orthodox Christians didn't really didn't like them, what's interesting is what they admit in spite of their beliefs. :ChrisG 23:36, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• Whoever distinguishes between the Church and the heretics "admits" that there are many different sects of Christianity - only, in doing so they also make a difference between "orthodoxy" and "heresy". No one denies that there are Christian sects whose teachings (and writings) the Church rejected.
• The orthodox Church preceded Nicea - you are quoting a source which shows this. In fact, Origen's refutation of the Gnostics is premised first of all on the unity and normative authority of the Church. He cites its unity in contrast to the chaos of its opponents, and ultimately, on this basis, denies that they are Christian - that is the bottom line of his argument. The political interference of Constantine against the Gnostics, is unquestioned. What Wesley asked for is proof that the Church destroyed Gnostic writings, and that this could account for the disappearance of Gnostics. Since the supposed cause of their disappearance evidently did not happen in at least some cases (because we still have many of these writings, preserved in fact by the Church that is accused of destroying them), therefore their disappearance can not be accounted for by the destruction of their writings by the Church.
• What the quoted writers admit, is that there have always been sects and heresies. No one denies this. The point at issue has to be something else, or there is no point.

Mkmcconn 00:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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

Well! if that doesn't settle the dispute, what will? :-) Mkmcconn 23:24, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

LOL! Exactly! --Uncle Ed

"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)

The size of the article

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)

so far looks like a good plan. Mkmcconn 06:43, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The plan's done. WhisperToMe 07:03, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Like the edit, now its more like an encyclopedia article than an essay. I moved the Christian timeline, because it was obviously left behind. Is their name for this process within Wikipedia? Seems a standard strategy when articles get too long.

A question:

• Should Sources of Jesus and The historicity of Jesus be merged together in one article? I'm in two minds.
• If not 'Sources of Jesus' needs a better name. :ChrisG 11:20, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)