Christians and "heretics"

[Keltoi]

I started this thread to explore the various sects of which many Muslims suggest is "true" Christianity, as a couple of them deny the divinity of Christ. There are many misconceptions about what these sects and heretics represent and what their place is in the overall belief of Christianity.


The Circumcisers (1st Century)



The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.



Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)



"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.


Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)



The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.


Arianism (4th Century)



Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.


I hope people pay particular attention to the Gnostic and Arianist heretics. These two sects are pointed to repeatedly by some Muslims as being the true representation of Christianity, which of course is a falsehood.

 

[snakelegs]

thanks - i learned something today.

 

[جوري]

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

are pointed to repeatedly by some Muslims as being the true representation of Christianity, which of course is a falsehood.

A creature? or a Man?... I feel like you are hiding behind ambiguous terms to elude to heresy, and at the end close with an assertion; but that is not sufficient to pass him as a heretic. I have given a far more expansive view of (Arius) in the previous post and you are most welcome not to like it!... in the end I didn't affirm to you the "of course" and the falsity of that which you propose... thus leaving the discerning reader to decipher what he may!

We Muslims don't want to pass him (Arius) as the truth or the non-truth, the distilled version of Christianity if you will ... the decisive judge in the matter isn't Arius but the criterion the (noble Quran)... until you can prove without a reasonable doubt that, the Quran isn't the word of G-D... we will take its contents to be the absolute truth... as in indisputable! In the very least evidenced by its lack of corruption through the ages. I will not get into the bible has been changed bit!

But if I am going to appreciate a book from a non-theological rather a historical light, I'd in the very least demand preservation of its text. And thus far the Quran is the best preserved book dealing with this subject matter of Jesus' so-called divinity!
peace!

 

[Keltoi]

A creature? or a Man?... I feel like you are hiding behind ambiguous terms to elude to heresy, and at the end close with an assertion; but that is not sufficient to pass him as a heretic. I have given a far more expansive view of (Arius) in the previous post and you are most welcome not to like it!... in the end I didn't affirm to you the "of course" and the falsity of that which you propose... thus leaving the discerning reader to decipher what he may!

We Muslims don't want to pass him (Arius) as the truth or the non-truth, the distilled version of Christianity if you will ... the decisive judge in the matter isn't Arius but the criterion the (noble Quran)... until you can prove without a reasonable doubt that, the Quran isn't the word of G-D... we will take its contents to be the absolute truth... as in indisputable! In the very least evidenced by its lack of corruption through the ages. I will not get into the bible has been changed bit!

But if I am going to appreciate a book from a non-theological rather a historical light, I'd in the very least demand preservation of its text. And thus far the Quran is the best preserved book dealing with this subject matter of Jesus' so-called divinity!
peace!

I'm sure you do believe that the Quran is the "best preserved" book dealing with the subject. I, and most Christians, believe that the New Testament is the "best preserved" book dealing with the subject. This isn't about who is "right" or "wrong", it is about the early Christian church and what their beliefs actually were.

As for the word "creature" used in the description, that is repeatedly used in reference to Arius's doctrine.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism.php

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ar/Arianism.html

http://www.monksofadoration.org/arianism.html

The word "creature" in the context of Arianism is used because Arius and his followers believed Christ to be more than Man, but not divine. In other words, Arius believed Christ to be more than a Man, but not eternally coexisting with the Father. That was not the belief of the early Christian church, but was a doctrine created out of different understandings of Scripture. By using Scripture to defend his doctrine, Arius created a major problem and one that had to be addressed by the entirety of the Church. However, portraying this episode as "true" Christianity coming into conflict with some revised form of the religion backed by Constantine is proposterous. Constantine didn't even understand what the argument was about.

 

[جوري]

The argument is about making Jesus (PBUH) more in concert with the pagan beliefs so they can be better digested and incorporated into this new society that was not willing to accept the concept of Monotheism.
Zeus having a child with a mortal woman brining about Hercules so to speak.... so very similar with G-D having a child with Mary thus producing Jesus (astghfor Allah). I'll maintain that there were Christians that were strictly Monotheistic, before all this derangement courtesy of St. Paul....and Asthanthius...... one of them was admittedly Jesus' enemy during his life on earth! and you are most welcome to call them heretics.
peace!

 

[Keltoi]

The argument is about making Jesus (PBUH) more in concert with the pagan beliefs so they can be better digested and incorporated into this new society that was not willing to accept the concept of Monotheism.
Zeus having a child with a mortal woman brining about Hercules so to speak.... so very similar with G-D having a child with Mary thus producing Jesus (astghfor Allah). I'll maintain that there were Christians that were strictly Monotheistic, before all this derangement courtesy of St. Paul....and Asthanthius...... one of them was admittedly Jesus' enemy during his life on earth! and you are most welcome to call them heretics.
peace!

That is completely false. The belief of the early Christian church was that Christ was and is divine. The Council of Nicea was concerned with defining that divinity in the context of Arius using Scripture to muddy the waters.

The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever"

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water"

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts."

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'"

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father"

This could go on and on. Note these quotes are long before the Council of Nicaea. The Trinity, while not clearly defined in Church doctrine until the Council of Nicaea, was very much the belief of the early church. One should also note that publicly practicing Christianity was illegal until right before the time of the Council of Nicaea.

 

[جوري]

Yes! I also see the dates corresponding with all these events! And it speaks volumes to me.
Peace!

 

[Keltoi]

Yes! I also see the dates corresponding with all these events! And it speaks volumes to me.
Peace!

Why should that speak volumes? The dates are before the Council of Nicea which occurred in 325.

 

[جوري]

Why should that speak volumes? The dates are before the Council of Nicea which occurred in 325.

yes the earliest being "(70-155/160)"

If I told you a story by the time it reaches the tenth person it will have already deranged and I am talking just one day or one week..... not "(70-155/160)." Let alone in a different tongue all together than that which Jesus (PBUH) spoke!

At this stage in the game we can agree to disagree! And, I can certainly respect that you'd appreciate the opinion of those who withhold your faith as you know it today rather than a very radical opposing opinion!

 

[Keltoi]

yes the earliest being "(70-155/160)"

If I told you a story by the time it reaches the tenth person it will have already deranged and I am talking just one day or one week..... not "(70-155/160)." Let alone in a different tongue all together than that which Jesus (PBUH) spoke!

At this stage in the game we can agree to disagree! And, I can certainly respect that you'd appreciate the opinion of those who withhold your faith as you know it today rather than a very radical opposing opinion!

I'm slightly confused on what your point is. Are you saying that the message these men were speaking was somehow corrupted by word of mouth over the years? Where is the evidence for that? Your first point was that the concept of the Trinity was designed by the Council of Nicea, and now that I've supplied quotes from early church figures before the Council you have changed your position to the message was corrupted to them. I understand you feel the need to believe the message of Christianity has been corrupted, but the point is that the early church leaders were very much understanding a Trinity. I understand that you don't accept the doctrine of Christianity, that is your choice and between you and God, but throwing out falsehoods about the origins of the Trinity and the beliefs of the early church leaders isn't the way to make your case.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I thought muslims believed Christ to be not devine but just a phrophet, just a normal human being who God chose to communicate to the rest of us through. Is that incorrect?

 

[Keltoi]

I thought muslims believed Christ to be not devine but just a phrophet, just a normal human being who God chose to communicate to the rest of us through. Is that incorrect?

Well, I'm not a Muslim, but yes I believe that is correct. However, I started this thread because there have been many claims on this forum and other places that the "true" message of the Christian church was somehow altered at the Council of Nicea, which isn't true.

 

[جوري]

I'm slightly confused on what your point is. Are you saying that the message these men were speaking was somehow corrupted by word of mouth over the years?.

Not just by word of mouth but active distortion.

Where is the evidence for that?.

I have provided ample evidence-- for starters you've no two bibles that are the same or in Semitic tongue! Surely much will be lost to you from Aramaic to Greek or Latin..... E. x. I can use the word Rab in Arabic to describe (G-D) or I can say (Rab Al-beyt)... which can denote the head figure of the house, certainly in that sense it wouldn't mean (G-D) but the male figure in charge.... Same can be applied when you say Jesus calls (G-D the father).. You translate you might just end up taking it literally.... Do consider the possibility!..... else where is your first Aramiac bible that tells us otherwise?

Your first point was that the concept of the Trinity was designed by the Council of Nicea,?.

Nope, I stated St. Paul propagated that notion of Jesus being divine.... and he was a known enemy of Christ during his life who went by the name of Saul.... You were the one posted of your council -- My mention of Arius and Asthansius wasn't meant to speak of your council so much as to prove that there were early christians who were pure monotheists.

and now that I've supplied quotes from early church figures before the Council you have changed your position to the message was corrupted to them..

I don't think any of the figures you have provided had even known or met Christ in person am I correct?.

I understand you feel the need to believe the message of Christianity has been corrupted, but the point is that the early church leaders were very much understanding a Trinity. I understand that you don't accept the doctrine of Christianity, that is your choice and between you and God, but throwing out falsehoods about the origins of the Trinity and the beliefs of the early church leaders isn't the way to make your case.

Again, we are having a circular argument here... hence I stated we can agree to disagree, but "your or my need to believe" is running on the infantile side at this stage! At some point we'll all have a chance to look at truth, and I don't think a barrage of tactless insults will really matter then!

 

[Keltoi]

Not just by word of mouth but active distortion.


I have provided ample evidence-- for starters you've no two bibles that are the same or in Semitic tongue! Surely much will be lost to you from Aramaic to Greek or Latin..... E. X. I can use the word Rab to describe G-D or I can say Rab Al-beyt... which can denote the head figure of the house.... Same can be applied when you say Jesus calls G-D the father.. You translate you might just end up taking it literally... Do consider the possibility..... else where is your first Aramiac bible that tells us otherwise?


Nope, I stated St. Paul propagated that notion of trinity and he was a known enemy of Christ who went by the name of Saul.... You were the one posted of your council...



I don't think any of the figures you have provided had even known or met Christ in person am I correct?.



Again, we'll have a circular argument here... hence I stated we can agree to disagree, but "your or my need to believe" is running on the infantile side at this stage!

What evidence of distortion? You made the claim, so where is your evidence for this distortion? If you are referring to different translations, then I wouldn't call that a distortion. Yes, some words have slightly different meanings that can't be translated perfectly, but the overall message of Scripture was effected not at all.

As for St. Paul. Yes, he was an enemy of Christ before his conversion and martyrdom. As for him formulating the trinitarian understanding of God himself, there is no evidence of that at all.

Did any of the martyrs and church leaders I quoted personally know Christ? No, but that has nothing to do with reality of the early church doctrine. These men were followers of the Christian faith, before the Council of Nicea, and were representative of Christian doctrine at the time.

As for being "infantile", how else can I describe your claims about Christian history and doctrine other than belief? You speak of all this evidence you have cited, but I haven't seen it....

 

[جوري]

Yes, some words have slightly different meanings that can't be translated perfectly

As for St. Paul. Yes, he was an enemy of Christ

Did any of the martyrs and church leaders I quoted personally know Christ? No

As for being "infantile", how else can I describe your claims about Christian history and doctrine other than belief?

Cutting through all the extraneous details. I thank you for being forth coming!

A belief includes with it an emotional drive that is usually missing from a historical fact! & you have done your best describing a belief!

 

[Keltoi]

Taking sentences out of context now? Surely if you are so convinced of my error you can do better than this.

 

[جوري]

Taking sentences out of context now? Surely if you are so convinced of my error you can do better than this.

I took the portion that we agree upon... all the rest from either side at this stage will be a matter of faith a "belief" if you will!

 

[Keltoi]

I took the portion that we agree upon... all the rest from either side at this stage will be a matter of faith a "belief" if you will!

What is a matter of faith? That a trinitarian doctrine was part of the belief of the early Christian church? That isn't a "belief", that is backed up by many sources, including but not dependent on the teachings of Christian leaders before the Nicean Council.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I'm not sure why this is such a hot button issue for you two.

But I think the fact of the matter is that we do not know if the earliest Christians believed in the trinity or not. Based on the bible writings I doubt it (you'd think it would be presented more frequently and explicitly), but maybe they did. Who knows when the trinity idea was born.

 

[wilberhum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by the church of the biblical data, thrashed out in debate and treatises, eventually formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD in a way they believe is consistent with the biblical witness, and further refined in later councils and writings.[1] The most widely recognized Biblical foundations for the doctrine's formulation are in the Gospel of John.[1]