Talk:Nicolaitan: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Grady P: I find your choice of the letter to Ephesus odd, since it does not mention the error of Balaam, even though just a few verses later - in the letter to Pergamum, the...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Query on Facebook:''' | |||
Grady P: I find your choice of the letter to Ephesus odd, since it does not mention the error of Balaam, even though just a few verses later - in the letter to Pergamum, the error of Balaam is mentioned along with the Nicolaitans - as separate items in a list. If they are the same, why did the Spirit make them separate (even while noting similarity). | Grady P: I find your choice of the letter to Ephesus odd, since it does not mention the error of Balaam, even though just a few verses later - in the letter to Pergamum, the error of Balaam is mentioned along with the Nicolaitans - as separate items in a list. If they are the same, why did the Spirit make them separate (even while noting similarity). | ||
As I noted earlier, Irenaus - who was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John the Revelator, specifically notes the Nicolaitans as the followers of one Nikolas, who practiced and taught a form of open sexuality later emulated by the Valentinian community of Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". | As I noted earlier, Irenaus - who was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John the Revelator, specifically notes the Nicolaitans as the followers of one Nikolas, who practiced and taught a form of open sexuality later emulated by the Valentinian community of Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". | ||
Later writers also associated Nikolas with eating food sacrificed to idols - this may or may not be a conflation with the error of Balaam. | Later writers also associated Nikolas with eating food sacrificed to idols - this may or may not be a conflation with the error of Balaam. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Epiphanius of Salamis ("Panarion" - 374-375 CE ) - "Nicolaitans, founded by the Nicolaus who was placed placed in charge of the widows by the apostles. From envy of his own wife he taught his disciples, along with the others, to perform the obscene act, (2) and taught them about Kaulakau, Prunicus, and other outlandish names. " | Epiphanius of Salamis ("Panarion" - 374-375 CE ) - "Nicolaitans, founded by the Nicolaus who was placed placed in charge of the widows by the apostles. From envy of his own wife he taught his disciples, along with the others, to perform the obscene act, (2) and taught them about Kaulakau, Prunicus, and other outlandish names. " | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Many believe that Irenaeus was incorrect in his assumption that "Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles". There are other early writers like Clement who denounced | ---- | ||
My response: | |||
Many believe that Irenaeus was incorrect in his assumption that "Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles". There are other early writers like Clement who denounced Irenaeus for discrediting the reputation of Nicolas and there are other things that Irenaeus writes that would be considered heresy today, so his reliability is certainly not infallible. Hippolytus was reliant on Iraneaus who as I said was disputed by Clements. Epiphanius was writing well into the error of [[Constantine]] and a false Church movement that heavily relied on the gifts of [[Caesar]] who was still pillaging people of their property. | |||
But even if he was right about Nicolas the problem was the "deeds". They were "eating food sacrificed to idols". | But even if he was right about Nicolas the problem was the "deeds". They were "eating food sacrificed to idols". | ||
Revision as of 00:12, 18 November 2018
Query on Facebook:
Grady P: I find your choice of the letter to Ephesus odd, since it does not mention the error of Balaam, even though just a few verses later - in the letter to Pergamum, the error of Balaam is mentioned along with the Nicolaitans - as separate items in a list. If they are the same, why did the Spirit make them separate (even while noting similarity). As I noted earlier, Irenaus - who was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John the Revelator, specifically notes the Nicolaitans as the followers of one Nikolas, who practiced and taught a form of open sexuality later emulated by the Valentinian community of Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". Later writers also associated Nikolas with eating food sacrificed to idols - this may or may not be a conflation with the error of Balaam.
Grady P: oops - my error, you did quote the letter to Pergamum - but left out verse 14, where the error of Balaam is mentioned! In verse 14, the Spirit says "I have a few things against you ...". He specifically says that there is a plurality. The Spirit then goes on to list exactly two things - the teaching of Balaam, and the teaching of the Nicolaitans. If the Spirit was equating the two, then the plural "a few things" makes no sense.
Also, I confused my quotes from the Church Fathers - it was Epiphanus who focused solely on the sexual practices of the Nicolaitans, while Irenaus does mention the eating of things sacrificed to idols.
The point is still valid, however - at least three Church Fathers within the 2nd - 4th centuries specifically tie the Nicolaitans to the same Nikolas who was one of the first seven deacons.
Irenaus ("Adversus Haereses" - CE 180) - "The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. Revelation 2:6
Hippolytus ("Refutation of all Heresies" - ca 199 - 217 CE) - "But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols."
Epiphanius of Salamis ("Panarion" - 374-375 CE ) - "Nicolaitans, founded by the Nicolaus who was placed placed in charge of the widows by the apostles. From envy of his own wife he taught his disciples, along with the others, to perform the obscene act, (2) and taught them about Kaulakau, Prunicus, and other outlandish names. "
My response:
Many believe that Irenaeus was incorrect in his assumption that "Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles". There are other early writers like Clement who denounced Irenaeus for discrediting the reputation of Nicolas and there are other things that Irenaeus writes that would be considered heresy today, so his reliability is certainly not infallible. Hippolytus was reliant on Iraneaus who as I said was disputed by Clements. Epiphanius was writing well into the error of Constantine and a false Church movement that heavily relied on the gifts of Caesar who was still pillaging people of their property.
But even if he was right about Nicolas the problem was the "deeds". They were "eating food sacrificed to idols".
The error of Balaam included tempting Israel to partake in what some call "pagan festivities and idolatrous worship". The question is what does that mean and look like.
Rome had temples that put on festivals and offered meat and other dainties that were the product of sacrifice at the temples. Those temples were government-sponsored buildings through which free bread and meats, and even money came to the people, often provided by the fathers of Rome through tribute and taxes. John the Baptist, Jesus and all the prophets have warned over and over again about eating at the table of rulers, or coveting what is your neighbor, the wages of unrighteousness but instead live by charity through faith in hope. The "pagan festivities and idolatrous worship" is the antitheses of that.
Irenaeus complains that the "Nicolatian" "lead lives of unrestrained indulgence". Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 26
He also references the "Apocalypse of John, as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 26, 2
The reference in Revelation "to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication." is not necessarily sexual. Most of the adultery in the Bible is national adultery which is making contractual agreements, covenants, with other "Benefactors", to obtain benefits rather than remaining faithful to the Bride of Christ, the Church.
There appears to have been a gnostic sect called Nicolaitans which may have been a form of antinomianism (lawless). It could be the reverse of what some call legalism suggesting that we can freely partake in sin because the Law of God is no longer binding. This is nonsense because legalism is following rules of men as if they are laws. Paul calls Peter out for trying to impose legal rules according to the interpretation of some Pharisees upon Gentiles (Galatians 2:11...). Paul never suggests the basic principles of the laws of God, echoed in the two commandments of Christ, were done away with or that we can disobey them with impunity.
Coveting what is your neighbors to the point of calling men who exercise authority to take from your neighbor so that you may be socially secure is the antitheses of Christ. To impose heavy burdens and even debt on your neighbor and their children, especially for personal benefit, is not loving your neighbor nor is it the righteousness of God.
In fact, it will make them and you both merchandise and surety for debt, curse your children and entangle you in the yoke of bondage like in the days of Egypt.
The reference to a few things can be that they both "ate things sacrificed unto idols" and signed up with those temples to become eligible to obtain those benefits which is expressed as "to commit fornication"