Help please

[Moni_Gail]

It is now Tuesday evening and I need some credible sources, names, and opinions from those of you with a better understanding and more knowledge on the early Gnostics than what I have.

A little background: My husband wrote a paper on early Christianity and it's differing beliefs for his World Religion course. The professor, also a pastor, didn't exactly like the views in the paper and emailed my husband. I need names to better research for an educated response. I know of Origen, Valentinius, among a couple of others. I've also found something about he 5th Ecunemical Coucil stating that the concept of reincarnation within Christianity was thrown out at that time. To me, this clearly implies that it was there in the first place, and to such a degree that it was brought up in the first place. My husband covered Gnostics and also threw in reincarnation.

Here is the professor's email:

I can tell you that Christianity has never believed in reincarnation. That Jesus never said anything against this belief is NOT proof that he believed it or taught it. Arguing from silence can't prove anything. Jesus never spoke of belief in flying horses either but that doesn't mean he therefore believed in their existence.

Also your sources are totally wrong in their view that the Gnostics downplayed the
doctrine of Jesus divinity. Gnostics overemphasized this teaching making Jesus almost totally inhuman.

Sadly, there is a lot of junk science involved in the search for the so-call truth about Christian origins that it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thus, those of us who write about such issues must double-check our sources. The undisputed age of the New Testament documents themselves refutes the idea that Christian doctrine was not developed until the 4th century. Spinning theory does not count of proof. That something could have or may have or was possible is not and never can be proof. That is what holocaust deniers do all the time and it is not the way to do historical or any credible research.

Where he speaks of the idea that Christian doctrine not being developed until the 4th century, my husband was merely trying to point out that there were several differing theologies at the time. The 4th century was Constantine trying to unite Christian thought, purpose, and overall theology.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Buttons*]

you really need Halcyon to help you with this. I'll look for sources for you, though.

 

[Moni_Gail]

Thank you so much Buttons!

I've got pages of notes I've been taking, but am having a difficult time assimilating my thoughts well. I really need someone who can get the point across better. I love the theories and such, but am rather ignorant on the technicalities and documented past. *sigh* I will definitely have to remedy that.

Sadly, I think the grade he gave is based on his disgust given that he is a pastor. He even commented in his initial letter that it was very well written, therefore his issue is with the contents. DH has a perfect grade in that class, I'm really hoping that with appropriate and credible information that I can make a difference. He did write the paper on this subject because of my obsession with it. It was his way of learning more about it, and I feel responsible in a way.

:hug:

 

[Scott1]

I've also found something about he 5th Ecunemical Coucil stating that the concept of reincarnation within Christianity was thrown out at that time.

Not the 5th as I remember it.... that was about the Nestorians... and it was never an issue as I remember it. Bodily resurrection is one of the founding beliefs of Christianity... it has its origins in the Bible and I doubt reincarnation was even an issue enough to need a Ecumenical Council..... read some Tertullian and other Patrisitic Fathers : "The flesh is the hinge of salvation" (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2L 2, 852).

Also your sources are totally wrong in their view that the Gnostics downplayed the doctrine of Jesus divinity. Gnostics overemphasized this teaching making Jesus almost totally inhuman.

The pastor is 100% right... I've never heard of any gnostic or docetist who believed Jesus was human at all.

The 4th century was Constantine trying to unite Christian thought, purpose, and overall theology.

I think you give Constantine too much credit, but I would have to agree.

Peace,
S

 

[Moni_Gail]

Not the 5th as I remember it.... that was about the Nestorians... and it was never an issue as I remember it. Bodily resurrection is one of the founding beliefs of Christianity... it has its origins in the Bible and I doubt reincarnation was even an issue enough to need a Ecumenical Council..... read some Tertullian and other Patrisitic Fathers : "The flesh is the hinge of salvation" (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2L 2, 852).

It is most definitely the 5th Council. No it may not have been called together for just that purpose, but it was discussed at that point and thrown out as heresy. Yet, before earning the term heresy it's easily deduced that it must have been present.

The pastor is 100% right... I've never heard of any gnostic or docetist who believed Jesus was human at all.

The term Gnostic was not coined until Bishop Irenaeus, who lived in the second century. He penned a treatise in 180 CE about the Gnostics, and 40 years later was followed by Bishop Hippolytus, who compiled a ten volume opus of his own.

My point for saying all of this is, they didn't call themselves gnostic. This term/name was given to them. There are quite a few different schools of thought under that one very large umbrella. Just think of all those who claim to be Christian, much of the time you can't agree on the technicalities either.

You must make room for, and remember, those who thought of Jesus as merely a man who reached gnosis, became a Christ, accomplished enlightenment, and so on. Not all felt as the Cathars, that the body was an oppressive hindrance and that Jesus wouldn't come into contact with something so unholy.

I think you give Constantine too much credit, but I would have to agree.

I don't think I give him too much. Depending on who you ask, it was either done for religious or political reasons, but he called many together for that very first council, The Council of Nicaea, in the hopes of unifying the Christians.

 

[Moni_Gail]

Scott and Buttons (Ash?), just wanted to add a quick thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The pastor is 100% right... I've never heard of any gnostic or docetist who believed Jesus was human at all.

I thought the guy was a moron.:yes:

hahahahaha

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What type of course is this?

 

[Moni_Gail]

For further reference it was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553. Yet, some of the things I have found suggest that only one sentence was spent damning Origen and his thoughts on reincarnation.
Yet, I found a Catholic Library which says that Origen did not believe in reincarnation. However, I've been reading many of his writings since last evening and can't see how they came to that decision. :areyoucra Why does this have to be so confusing?!

 

[Moni_Gail]

What type of course is this?

Philosophy/World Religion

In what ways do you think he's a moron?

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find credible sources to refute him.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Philosophy/World Religion

In what ways do you think he's a moron?

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find credible sources to refute him.

I mean --- is it a college course that your husband is paying for or is it a free course offered by a church or community center? Is it grad or undergrad?

 

[Moni_Gail]

I mean --- is it a college course that your husband is paying for or is it a free course offered by a church or community center? Is it grad or undergrad?

College course, paid for, and undergrad. Yet, as for now, he has a high interest in following through to grad.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

College course, paid for, and undergrad. Yet, as for now, he has a high interest in following through to grad.

Well I'm glad to hear that your husband is interested in this stuff.

As for evidence of my accusation that this feller is a moron, let's analyze his email:

I can tell you that Christianity has never believed in reincarnation. That Jesus never said anything against this belief is NOT proof that he believed it or taught it. Arguing from silence can't prove anything. Jesus never spoke of belief in flying horses either but that doesn't mean he therefore believed in their existence.

I doubt that there was ever a Christian anywhere that has never believed in reincarnation. Belief in Enoch and Elijah in NT times comes dang close.:yes:

Also your sources are totally wrong in their view that the Gnostics downplayed the doctrine of Jesus divinity. Gnostics overemphasized this teaching making Jesus almost totally inhuman.

I don't think that he is interacting responsibly with your husband's sources. The divinity of Christ as formulated by later Christian councels cannot be anachronistically imposed on the Gnostics. They did not affirm a divinity of Christ so much as a created a Gnostic mythicalization of Christ. The two are very different concepts.

Sadly, there is a lot of junk science involved in the search for the so-call truth about Christian origins that it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thus, those of us who write about such issues must double-check our sources.

This is a dogmatic refusal of several methodologies with no justification. Aren't we supposed to double-check everything anyway?

The undisputed age of the New Testament documents themselves refutes the idea that Christian doctrine was not developed until the 4th century. Spinning theory does not count of proof. That something could have or may have or was possible is not and never can be proof. That is what holocaust deniers do all the time and it is not the way to do historical or any credible research.

This has so many grammatical errors that I don't understand what he's saying.

 

[Moni_Gail]

LMAO! :biglaugh:

Those were my thoughts exactly, that and the fact that he obviously didn't read my husband's paper very clearly, nor with an open mind. The paper was very obviusly on theories. How can you ask for proof when dealing with religion?! I don't want to be rude, but would like to ask that if he's to go this far, then to please give proof of God or Jesus.

As far as I know the first gospels weren't written until 40 years after Jesus' death, therefore he's putting much stock in it while throwing out the ideals and theories of others. *sigh*

Basically, I'd just like to find some kind of proof that the idea of reincarnation was held within Christians at some point. Also, that Gnostics (which is what I'm looking for in here) didn't all minimize his humanity. Were there other 'schools of thought' which point to the concept of him first being a man and then reaching enlightenment? I need some kind of references to be able to look further into. I keep hitting dead ends.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

LMAO! :biglaugh:

Those were my thoughts exactly, that and the fact that he obviously didn't read my husband's paper very clearly, nor with an open mind. The paper was very obviusly on theories. How can you ask for proof when dealing with religion?! I don't want to be rude, but would like to ask that if he's to go this far, then to please give proof of God or Jesus.

As far as I know the first gospels weren't written until 40 years after Jesus' death, therefore he's putting much stock in it while throwing out the ideals and theories of others. *sigh*

Basically, I'd just like to find some kind of proof that the idea of reincarnation was held within Christians at some point. Also, that Gnostics (which is what I'm looking for in here) didn't all minimize his humanity. Were there other 'schools of thought' which point to the concept of him first being a man and then reaching enlightenment? I need some kind of references to be able to look further into. I keep hitting dead ends.

I enjoy Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy. It's available online at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/. That should familiarize you with the mess of finding out about earliest Christianity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As far as I know the first gospels weren't written until 40 years after Jesus' death, therefore he's putting much stock in it while throwing out the ideals and theories of others. *sigh*

It's far, far more messy than that.

The oldest NT texts date the middle of the second century, and there is precious little archeological evidence for Christianity anywhere before this time. So not only is this feller trusting in documents written 40 years after the fact, he is forced to rely on copies of copies that date at least a hundred years after the eye-witness (if indeed an eye-witness wrote it).

The earliest Gnostic writings found at Nag Hammadhi date in the 3rd to 5th centuries, with the Gospel of Thomas reaching back to the traditions of Jesus (Q) but without Gnostic cosmology evident in later texts.

Mixing these two puzzels requires more than one interpretative theory.

 

[Moni_Gail]

Thanks so much, and I'll definitely check out that link.

 

[Halcyon]

I think angellous and the others have given pretty much all the answers i would have done. I'll still have fun picking apart his answer though if you don't mind;

I can tell you that Christianity has never believed in reincarnation.

I'll use my mind reading powers here and tell you that when this guy refers to Christianity he's referring to orthodox Christianity alone - it still surprises me how many of even our own members are convinced that in ancient Palestine there was Christianity, Gnosticism, Marcionism and the Ebionites as separated groups. All were Christians, and ancient Gnostics did indeed believe in reincarnation.

That Jesus never said anything against this belief is NOT proof that he believed it or taught it. Arguing from silence can't prove anything.

No, he never said anything against it, but he did speak in support of it;
From the Book of Thomas the Contender - "Watch and pray that you may not be born in the flesh, but that you may leave the bitter bondage of this life."

From the Gospel of Thomas -

"When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will bear!"

These are heretical texts but they ARE early Christian texts and so are valid in any discussion of early Christianity.

Also your sources are totally wrong in their view that the Gnostics downplayed the
doctrine of Jesus divinity. Gnostics overemphasized this teaching making Jesus almost totally inhuman.

He obviously doesn't understand Gnostic doctrine. Some ancient Gnostics did indeed consider Jesus human, but they also contend that he played host to the Christ, that the Christ entered into the body of Jesus at his baptism and left it at his death.
Gnostic doctrine was all about the divinity of Christ, Jesus is another matter.

Some other Gnostic groups held to the idea that Jesus/Christ was a phantasm, a ghost-like being that appeared as a fully grown man at Capernaum. These groups obviously didn't downplay Jesus's divinity, they took it to the opposite extreme.
In fact, if i were to sum up the Gnostic view of Jesus Christ it would be totally opposite to what the Pastor says here, if anything Gnostics' overplayed Christ's divinity.

Sadly, there is a lot of junk science involved in the search for the so-call truth about Christian origins that it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thus, those of us who write about such issues must double-check our sources.

It's true that there is a lot of speculation involved in early Christian history since all we have to rely on are biased sources, often written by ancient historians and theologians centuries after the events they describe.
Really, its all chaff, there is no real wheat when we speak of the ministry of Jesus and the origins of Christianity.

The undisputed age of the New Testament documents themselves refutes the idea that Christian doctrine was not developed until the 4th century.

Utter crap. The dating of the new testament documents is still under debate today. Also, the fact that there were so many different Christian groups in those first few centuries is testament to the fact that there was no single Christian doctine. Not to mention the fact that the NT was constructed afterwards and in response to the formation of the orthodox Christian doctrine - not as its source as this bloke seems to be implying.
Plus, what angellous says - we don't have any original NT fragments, they're all copies of copies of translations of copies. Any dating of the originals is an educated guess at best.

Spinning theory does not count of proof. That something could have or may have or was possible is not and never can be proof.

Not knowing precisely what he's talking about here makes it hard to comment, but i can't fail to observe that this statement could refer to to ANY and ALL theories to do with early Christianity.

 

[Moni_Gail]

Thanks Paul. I'm really trying to figure out how to word a response.

The last bit that you weren't sure of the meaning....he was being redundant and speaking again of reincarnation within early Christianity. *sigh* Guess he thinks Jayson can't get the point the first time around.

 

[Halcyon]

Thanks Paul. I'm really trying to figure out how to word a response.

The last bit that you weren't sure of the meaning....he was being redundant and speaking again of reincarnation within early Christianity. *sigh* Guess he thinks Jayson can't get the point the first time around.

Do you still have his paper?

Perhaps angellous (if he's up for it, i'm not volunteering him or anything) or myself could take a look at it alongside the "Prof"s full response, see if there's anything we can come up with to help?