Christian heresies

[Anonymous No.22115293]

Where do I learn about early church heresies? I have a list and I know bits and pieces about each but not sure what are the best texts to go in more depth.

Here's the list. If you have any thoughts or reccs about any of the names below let me know. Also if you can help with further names that's also appreciated

# 1st century
- Judaizers
-- Ebionitism
-- Nazarenes
- Gnosticism
-- Simonites
-- Mandaeism
-- Cerinthus

# 2nd century
- Gnosticism
-- Marcion
-- Valentius
-- Basillides
-- Saturnius
- Docetism
- Montanism

# 3rd century
- Origenism
- Sabellianism
- Monoarchainnism
- Gnosticism
-- Manicheanism

# 4th century
- Apollinarianism
- Arianism
- Priscillianism
- Messalians/Euchites

# 5th century
- Pelagianism
- Nestoriansm
- Monophysitsm
- Monothelitism

[Anonymous No.22116295]

>>22115293
>-- Marcion
This one is a weird one
Earliest written record of Jesus is on a Marcionite church
The founder is known as st jerome.
He travelled around the sites that Paul visited to compile all of the records he left these were then incorporated into the bible
published a book comparing the word of jesus with the god of the OT, catholic church hunted down and destroyed every copy

[Anonymous No.22116322]

>>22115293
Forgot Novatianism & Donatism

[Anonymous No.22116327]

>>22115293
Ah yes my favorite Old Testament books, Plato and Aristotle

[Anonymous No.22116334]

>>22116327
It's referring to the old testament period

[Anonymous No.22116365]

>>22115293
Hippolytus' Refutation of all Heresies covers a lot of ground. It's a total slog, however.

[Anonymous No.22116402]

>>22116365
Yeah but he was quite early so he didn't get much of the Christological ones

[Anonymous No.22116457]

>>22116327
You are dumb.

[Anonymous No.22116462]

This chart needs tidying up a bit, seperate the bible books from the extra-scriptural texts. Keep the timeline framework, but have a subsection for each period. Also, I didn't know Job is the oldest text, interesting.

[Anonymous No.22116466]

>>22116462
There's already a legend

[Anonymous No.22116540]

>>22116466
?

[Anonymous No.22116543]

>>22116540
Oh, I see.

[Anonymous No.22116554]

>>22116334
>>22116457
Plato and Aristotle have nothing to do with the writing of the Old Testament

[Anonymous No.22116611]

>>22116554
IT SAYS OLD TESTAMENT ERA, ITS A CHART ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY AND PLATO AND ARISTOTLE ARE AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
BRAINLESS ZOOMER RETARD

[aaa No.22116626]

>>22116611
I know theologians use them, but they aren't scripture. Understand the meaning if the word sctipture.

[aaa No.22116631]

Plato and Aristotle aren't part of the scripture mor are they canonized by anyone.

[Anonymous No.22116637]

>>22116626
>>22116631
The chart isn't saying that they are scripture.

[Anonymous No.22116644]

>>22116611
rogue golem that you are, learn to organize your materials better. I am aware that your writers needed to copy Plato's homework but that was well after your equally adopted Hebrew scriptures were written

[Anonymous No.22116740]

Read Irenaeus's Heresies

It's quite comprehensive but highly polemical

[Anonymous No.22116743]

>>22116644
It wasn't, some were written after

[Anonymous No.22116803]

>>22115293
I don't know. I mostly learned from tertiary sources, but I've learned a good deal on the Donatists from some secondary sources. But sometimes I do read primary sources (or well as primary as we can get, meaning the Church Fathers directly). The "heresies" fall into roughly five categories. Category 1 is all the Gnostic groups, they get the most attention but they're actually least interesting since they're the most obviously heretical. Category 2 is the puritan separatists, namely the Novatianists and Donatists, who are very interesting and udnerrated. Category 3 would be Montanism, which is frankly kind of creepy if you dig deeper into them. Category 4 is the Judaizing groups, chiefly Ebionism. It later gave rise to Elchasaism, and this in turn gave rise to both Manicheism and Islam. Category 5 is mostly-orthodox theologians trying to understand the Trinity and stuff like free will, but getting excommunicated by councils. These people I think had their heart in the right place and for all we know, maybe the councils were wrong. This is where you can put the Arians, Sabellians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.

[Anonymous No.22117594]

Kind of related, just found out about newadvent.
apparently church fathers and other theological writings for free.

[Anonymous No.22118037]

>>22116803
>These people I think had their heart in the right place
They didn't, otherwise they'd respect the council decision admitting they don't know.
>and for all we know, maybe the councils were wrong.
Who's we? I know the councils were right since they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.22118060]

>>22115293
For Manichaeism and Mandeism I recommend checking Encyclopedia Iranicas' entries, well written.

Remember Gnosticism is an umbrella term so you should seek books on specifically what interests you. I recommend The Other God by Yury Stoyanov and The Medieval Manichee by Steven Runciman.

Also IP Culianu's Tree of Gnosis is a good overview despite going into bullshit cognitivist theories regarding mind dualism

[Anonymous No.22118066]

>>22116803
Good overview but the problem with this categorization is that most (if not all) of the groups mentioned has direct and reciprocal influences.

For example: Montanism and Manichaeism overlap in more than one way (paraclete, prophetology) as do most gnostic groups (sethians, ophites, ebionism) with Manichaism and radical islamic groups (ghulat); as does marcionsim with Bardaisades' and Mani's teachings.

Problem is that they were all part of the same judeo-christian platonic milleu and what nobody tells anybody is that you cannot be anti-judaic in doctrine if you are not in a way judaizing in the first place. See the Essenes, Bardaisades, etc.

[Anonymous No.22118067]

>>22118037
>they were guided by the Holy Spirit
lmao how convenient

[Anonymous No.22118091]

>>22116803
>Gives a category to a bunch of uninteresting sects
>Groups all the actual interesting ones in category 5
Yeah I don't know about that bro

[aaa No.22118141]

>>22116637
> considered sctipture by all Christian churches
That's what it says.... yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.22118144]

>>22115293
Bart D. Ehrman has some interesting entry-level books into the topic, and in general stuff about the history of the bible as a book

[Anonymous No.22118165]

>>22115293
I'm honestly skeptical of the idea that the Mandaeans actually existed as far back as the first century. I'm willing to believe that they are the ethnic descendants of the Essenes and/or the original non-Christian followers of John the Baptist, but all of their writings are clearly developed in reaction to a defined Christianity and not in parallel to it. Hell they have a book that they claim is written by John the Baptist but it literally talks about fucking Muhammad and mosques and shit. Their own records can't be trusted and there are no clear references to them in the Church Fathers.

They also stole the name of some random unknown group mentioned in the Quran and pretended that they were always them to get legal protections under Islamic rule. They're oily motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.22118197]

>>22118165
>They also stole the name of some random unknown group mentioned in the Quran and pretended that they were always them to get legal protections under Islamic rule. They're oily motherfuckers.
That's nothing out of the ordinary. The Quran mentions the "people of the Book" or ahl al-kitab which warrants protection in both their religious freedom and from violence (while those outright declared pagan have no such legal protection), and it consists of three groups: Christians, Jews and Sabians. Now Christians and Jews we are well familiar with but Sabellians are a mystery, we know almost nothing about them. As such, "Sabian" has been a sort of catch all term for any group that is vaguely monotheistic or Abrahamic but doesn't fall into either Christianity or Judaism, and, because of the legal protection it affords, various Muslim states have applied the term to their non-muslim populations so that they may establish order and placate their subjects. This was the case for Zoroastrians in Persia and even Hindus in the Mugal Empire. It makes perfect sense for a vaguely Abrahamic group which are neither Jewish nor Christian to arive in Bagdad and, motivated by the desire to maintain their religious freedom, look at the Quran and see parallels between them and the mysterious Sabians mentioned in it.

[Anonymous No.22118212]

>>22118091
They're really interesting to categorize this way. Montanism gets a category because it's creepy if you dig in deep, otherwise it wouldn't matter. Same with the Donatists, but in reverse, they're fascinating if you dig in deep. The Ebionite branch is important because it led to three prophetic movements and people usually don't know how Manicheanism and Islam trace from it via Elchasaism. The Gnostics get their own group as a given, and that leaves the category 5 one. I agree 5 is interesting theologically.
>>22118066
Yes for sure, I realize not only the Manicheans but the Elchasaites themselves, and Islam obviously, all were prophetic. They are just traced from Ebionism so they're one separate family. Montanism would be a minor footnote to most but I have reasons for caring about it.

[Anonymous No.22118259]

>>22118212
>They're really interesting to categorize this way.
They're really not. A better categorization would be
1. Gnostics (diverse set full of intellectualist heresiarchs)
2. Trinitarian heresies (arianism and every other heresy around the first council)
3. Christological heresies (adoptionists, docetists, monophysites, etc)
4. Practical heresies (donatism, montanists)
There's nothing fascinating about the 4th category, it's run of the mill heresy like the protestant reform.

[Anonymous No.22118426]

>>22118141
Are you trolling? It is written in blue, which is 'Greek, Roman, or Hebrew philodophy'. Please don't breed.

[aaa No.22118932]

>>22118426
The OP listed Plato and Aristotle under "Considered as scripture by most Chtistian Churches." Of course they aren't in the Bible. They are pagan... Their world views were mistaken as far as the universe structure is concerned (light stuff flies up, earth is s ball within a sphere...). Some of it is useful, though... but it isn't scripture.

[aaa No.22118946]

>>22118426
Sorry for my mistake. I saw it wrongly. It's nlue and not black... I mistook it for black and made a mistake.

[Anonymous No.22118956]

>>22118946
Lord have mercy, please make sure you know what you're talking about before engaging someone.

[Anonymous No.22119232]

>>22116322
Donatism was a diverse political group of churches that were opposed to the Constantinian reforms after the dual synods held at Lateran in 313 and Arles in 314. They had a wide variety of beliefs, as they were basically everyone in Africa province that opposed Constantine. Groups that were unrelated to the faction of Donatus Magnus were comprehended under the label, see Augustine's letter #93 to Vincentius.

The Novatians were just a regular schism among the Sacerdotalists. The Sacerdotalists are a 2nd or 3rd century heresy, of which Novatianism was one part. They changed believer's baptism as it is in the Bible into infant baptism and made alterations to church polity among other things.

[Anonymous No.22119380]

>>22119232
>They changed believer's baptism as it is in the Bible into infant baptism and made alterations to church polity among other things.
Pr*t bait

[Anonymous No.22119390]

>>22119380
It's absolutely true, anon. Sacerdotalism emerged in the 2nd or 3rd century AD, and there are sources to prove it. Otherwise I would not be spending time on this subject.

[Anonymous No.22119444]

>>22119390
>It's absolutely true
Then post definitive evidence that only believer's baptism was practiced before the 2nd century.

[Anonymous No.22119492]

>>22119444
It's the only kind of baptism in the Bible. That's the definitive evidence, and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to verify the facts that came afterward. The existence of Agrippinus at the start of the 3rd century, the laws demanding death against alleged "rebaptizers" by Honorius and later brought back by Justinian, and the refusal of the Welsh Christians to conform their baptism to Augustine of Canterbury in the early 7th century. This all shows continuity of the primitive, congregational form of Christianity. Joseph Vicecomes (in Observationes Ecclesiasticae de Baptismo, Confirmatione, & Missa, Vol. 1, bk 3, p. 262) records that infant baptism didn't spread into Francia until after the reign of Louis the son of Charlemagne. Need I go on?

[Anonymous No.22119511]

>>22119492
>It's the only kind of baptism in the Bible.
First of all, in the Bible, Christianity only started, so there was no second generation of Christians to be baptised initially. Secondly, there's no indication that this was not done: in Acts, we see the holy spirit coming in Cornelius' house over everyone, and it's unknown what were their ages. Thirdly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So no, you have no evidence for what I asked you.
>That's the definitive evidence
See above.
>The existence of Agrippinus at the start of the 3rd century, the laws demanding death against alleged "rebaptizers" by Honorius and later brought back by Justinian, and the refusal of the Welsh Christians to conform their baptism to Augustine of Canterbury in the early 7th century. This all shows continuity of the primitive, congregational form of Christianity. Joseph Vicecomes (in Observationes Ecclesiasticae de Baptismo, Confirmatione, & Missa, Vol. 1, bk 3, p. 262) records that infant baptism didn't spread into Francia until after the reign of Louis the son of Charlemagne. Need I go on?
None of this is evidence of anything, so you can go on or not, it's irrelevant since you failed to prove what I asked you.

[Anonymous No.22119563]

>>22119511
>First of all, in the Bible, Christianity only started, so there was no second generation of Christians to be baptised initially.
Look at Acts 2 for example.

"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
- Acts 2:40-42

Nowhere in this passage does it say that "all" were baptized. It specifically says that all those who "gladly received his word" were baptized. This is the same thing as believer's baptism.

Christ Jesus in the Great Commission gives these things in a specific order as well.

In Matthew 28 it says:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
- Matt. 28:19-20

Notice the order: First teaching, followed by baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and then lastly teaching them to observe all things He has commanded us. The same order exists in Mark 16 and many other places as well.

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
- Mark 16:15-16

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized."
- Acts 18:8

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
- Acts 8:36-38

[Anonymous No.22119565]

>>22119563
Lastly, the baptism of households clearly refers to those who are capable of believing who are in them. See for instance the jailer in Acts chapter 16.

"And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."
- Acts 16:33-34

People often quote verse 33 here, pointing out that his whole household was baptized. But, if you look in the next verse, which is Acts 16:34, it also says that his whole house believed in God as well. Either there are no infants here or they are only part of these groups by synecdoche.

[Anonymous No.22119581]

>>22119563
None of these are relevant to the discussion. No one thinks adults who don't believe should be baptised, so you're diverting the discussion. Why?
>, it also says that his whole house believed in God as well.
Yes, baptised babies believe in God since the Holy Spirit dwells in them at baptism.

Once again, you failed to prove your assertion. I asked you something straightforward (>>22119444) yet you're spamming what you were taught to parrot when asked about it.

You have not managed to prove it, so you have to admit the following logical deduction: your sect broke off from the Church with no evidence supporting your claims. You introduced discord in the Church without proof for your claims.

This is objectively true.

[Anonymous No.22120261]

From Eusebius

[Anonymous No.22120758]

>>22118212
What I want to know is why Manichaeism went all the way to China after getting stamped out in the West instead of either going back to Persia where it came from, becoming an ethnic-esoteric backwater sect like Mandaeism (but I wouldn't be surprised if backwater enclaves of Manichaeism existed in in Syria or Iraq at some point), or become an attempt at a more explicitly temporal-minded movement like Islam.

Why did it survive in China of all places?

[Anonymous No.22120780]

>>22120758
I think Nestorianism and some other sects survived in China at least all the way through to the Ming dynasty because they were isolated from the problems that were going on in the islamic world, which ate up all of the little sects like the Arian remnants and so forth and syncretized their teachings with it. I always find it fascinating to contemplate whether the Nestorians made a long-lost Chinese translation at one point, which would have been destroyed during the Huichang persecution. If so, it would predate all known translations by a significant margin.

[Anonymous No.22120795]

>>22120780
>the islamic world, which ate up all of the little sects
Not all of them though, the Mandaeans survived in Iraq and the Maronites survived in Lebanon.

[Anonymous No.22120807]

>>22120758
Eastern Christianity and Manicheism as missionary religions were spreading pretty nicely to the east. Not just Persia, India, and China, but also Central Asia among the steppe Turks and Mongols. Like the other anon said once Islam showed up it kind of ate up the Manichean and eastern Christian movements. I mean it's worth remembering that North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and Mesopotamia were all very very Christian when Islam showed up. And Persia was fully Zoroastrian and now there's so few of them left too.

[Anonymous No.22120967]

>>22119581
>You introduced discord in the Church
If you say so. I'm simply telling all of you this because I care about the truth and I care about people's souls.
>without proof for your claims.
People tell me the Bible isn't proof all the time, it doesn't mean it's true.

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
- John 5:39

[Anonymous No.22121396]

>>22120758
>more explicitly temporal-minded movement like Islam.
What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.22121787]

>>22121396
Nothing

[Anonymous No.22122063]

>>22115293
The most important historically is Arianism. You should ignore Gnosticism at all costs, have 0 knowledge about it's evils.

[Anonymous No.22122113]

>>22122063
You can't really ignore gnosticism since it's the most influential one and it still exists today. Even this board is full of guenonposting which is just a form of gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.22123431]

>>22121396
Bump

[Anonymous No.22124560]

>>22123431
Last bump