@pandirasbox you speak as if that's a bad thing. The Church is a living institution, not something dead sealed in a cave somewhere a long time ago. but seriously, if you're going to level this charge, how do you deal with the fact that what you call "Gnosticism" today has changed drastically from what it was in the second century, or the fact that there was a huge diversity even then as to what gnosticism was? so where is the higher standard? no offense.
@pandirasbox "The council of Nicaea is sheer garbage"
Thanks for sharing your opinion, now care to back it up with something, ANYTHING of substance? I mean, if you're going to claim direct private revelation from God, I guess the conversation is over. but if you can provide some historical, documentary or textual evidence, I'm all ears.
But clearly it was a pressing enough issue in the region by 325, that the Council of Nicea had to make a ruling on it... to separate out those who were willingly vs. unwillingly castrated amongst the clergy.
They would point to Paul's warning against "those who mutilate the flesh" and identify it with Gnostic hatred of the body. Origen is an interesting case because he spends so much energy on symbolic and spiritual interpretation. why would he take the call to be a eunuch (or cut off the body part that offends you) literally? maybe that affected his mode of exegesis (he probably regretted the action if he did it), or maybe not. who knows
@SaudaraLink Origen seems to have been ordained a priest, but there was controversy over this because it was apparently without the patriarch's permission (I suppose making it valid but illicit). He died in 254. There's still some debate over whether he was really castrated or if that was a smear rumor by his opponents. In any case, it was before the council and his more novel teachings were not publicly condemned until 553 (2nd Council of Constantinople)
@XSC3 I remember now about the controversy over his ordination. I wonder if they had him in mind, still, when this canon was released. Maybe it was a big problem. I suppose if one were castrated, celibacy would not be a big deal, and some of them might gravitate to the priesthood. But celibacy on the priest level was not expected at this time either, was it? Were all monarchical bishops even celibate at this time?
@SaudaraLink It was not universal, but there was always the ideal of such, and it was obviously a big problem for someone who vowed celibacy to sin by reneging on that vow (similar to how adultery would be viewed for a married person). I'm not precisely sure about the bishops. when clerical celibacy was mandated in the west, the trend had been to recruit monks for the bishopric (and also a needed reform against lay investiture)
@SaudaraLink apparently many also regarded the wholeness of the priest in the Christian church as important (as in the Jewish temple priesthood). Many Christian priests had been purposely disfigured during persecutions in order to hinder the practice of their offices for this very reason. as such, councils of this sort gave dispensation to people who had been disfigured by others, rather than multilated themselves
@XSC3 Presbuteros correspond with Hazaqen not Kohenim. But that makes sense considering the prevailing understanding associating elders with kohenim. Were there Christian groups that took the same approach to the subject that Origin did in his youth? Or were there many eunuch converts to Christianity?
@SaudaraLink I honestly don't know. I do know that celibacy and chastity were very popular in the early Church. there were also sects that went to extremes (such as prohibiting all marriage or sexual activity even within marriage), though these were pretty consistently condemned by what we'd call orthodoxy in that time. Whether there were those who willingly castrated themselves for this purpose, I don't doubt, but how common it was, I can't say.
So the controversy over his ordination could have been for a lot of reasons. it might have had to do with his state of castration or his unorthodox teachings or it might have been some other reason. He was certainly a complex figure, and sadly a lot of his works no longer survive (but enough to give us a taste).
@pandirasbox Jesus is Jewish.
XSC3 5 months ago
Yea the church always changes it mind and teachings and rules from century to century. If you can't notice that you are so lost.
pandirasbox 5 months ago
@pandirasbox you speak as if that's a bad thing. The Church is a living institution, not something dead sealed in a cave somewhere a long time ago. but seriously, if you're going to level this charge, how do you deal with the fact that what you call "Gnosticism" today has changed drastically from what it was in the second century, or the fact that there was a huge diversity even then as to what gnosticism was? so where is the higher standard? no offense.
XSC3 5 months ago
The council of Nicaea is sheer garbage
pandirasbox 5 months ago
@pandirasbox "The council of Nicaea is sheer garbage"
Thanks for sharing your opinion, now care to back it up with something, ANYTHING of substance? I mean, if you're going to claim direct private revelation from God, I guess the conversation is over. but if you can provide some historical, documentary or textual evidence, I'm all ears.
XSC3 5 months ago
But clearly it was a pressing enough issue in the region by 325, that the Council of Nicea had to make a ruling on it... to separate out those who were willingly vs. unwillingly castrated amongst the clergy.
XSC3 1 year ago
They would point to Paul's warning against "those who mutilate the flesh" and identify it with Gnostic hatred of the body. Origen is an interesting case because he spends so much energy on symbolic and spiritual interpretation. why would he take the call to be a eunuch (or cut off the body part that offends you) literally? maybe that affected his mode of exegesis (he probably regretted the action if he did it), or maybe not. who knows
XSC3 1 year ago
Was Origin ordained? I know he was pre-Nicene.
SaudaraLink 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink Origen seems to have been ordained a priest, but there was controversy over this because it was apparently without the patriarch's permission (I suppose making it valid but illicit). He died in 254. There's still some debate over whether he was really castrated or if that was a smear rumor by his opponents. In any case, it was before the council and his more novel teachings were not publicly condemned until 553 (2nd Council of Constantinople)
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 I remember now about the controversy over his ordination. I wonder if they had him in mind, still, when this canon was released. Maybe it was a big problem. I suppose if one were castrated, celibacy would not be a big deal, and some of them might gravitate to the priesthood. But celibacy on the priest level was not expected at this time either, was it? Were all monarchical bishops even celibate at this time?
SaudaraLink 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink It was not universal, but there was always the ideal of such, and it was obviously a big problem for someone who vowed celibacy to sin by reneging on that vow (similar to how adultery would be viewed for a married person). I'm not precisely sure about the bishops. when clerical celibacy was mandated in the west, the trend had been to recruit monks for the bishopric (and also a needed reform against lay investiture)
XSC3 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink apparently many also regarded the wholeness of the priest in the Christian church as important (as in the Jewish temple priesthood). Many Christian priests had been purposely disfigured during persecutions in order to hinder the practice of their offices for this very reason. as such, councils of this sort gave dispensation to people who had been disfigured by others, rather than multilated themselves
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 Presbuteros correspond with Hazaqen not Kohenim. But that makes sense considering the prevailing understanding associating elders with kohenim. Were there Christian groups that took the same approach to the subject that Origin did in his youth? Or were there many eunuch converts to Christianity?
SaudaraLink 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink I honestly don't know. I do know that celibacy and chastity were very popular in the early Church. there were also sects that went to extremes (such as prohibiting all marriage or sexual activity even within marriage), though these were pretty consistently condemned by what we'd call orthodoxy in that time. Whether there were those who willingly castrated themselves for this purpose, I don't doubt, but how common it was, I can't say.
XSC3 1 year ago
@SaudaraLink obviously I don't have the last word on any of these topics, I'm just going by what I know. I'd have to research it further.
XSC3 1 year ago
So the controversy over his ordination could have been for a lot of reasons. it might have had to do with his state of castration or his unorthodox teachings or it might have been some other reason. He was certainly a complex figure, and sadly a lot of his works no longer survive (but enough to give us a taste).
XSC3 1 year ago