The Pagels Imposture

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2006-11-22 01:02am

I am discussing the early catholic church and their attempted destruction of "opposing viewpoints'

The person who I discussing with posted this article to refute Elaine Pagel's authority

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43736

What are opinions on this article?

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-11-22 01:47am

Many fundies are getting ancy about the seemingly inevitable return of Gnosticism. I've been hearing more about it in the mainstream lately.

There's nothing like a religion that says 'the Judaic god is the incarnation of evil' to get their knickers in a bunch.

Honestly, though, the good father lost me at trying to dismiss the sheer variety of faiths that made up the early Christian movement. At least, that was the impression I got - as if the Church was one solid body of Catholicism throughout history.

And so he attacks a 27-year-old work. Right.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2006-11-22 01:57am

I consider myself to be a pretty good reader (although not with as good a writing skills as I would like) but the article is almost unreadable. Do others find it really readable?

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2006-11-22 02:18am

It's simply an article that attacks Pagel's credibility as a history scholar, accusing her of making up stuff to support her work.

The article is difficult to read because of those quotations in latin. The author of this article did not bother to interpret the text he quotes into English, which make it hard for me to really agree or disagree.

And, are the Catholics saying that their predecessors did not destroy documents they deemed heretical?

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2006-11-22 02:22am

Ravencrow wrote:And, are the Catholics saying that their predecessors did not destroy documents they deemed heretical?

The Caltholic I am arguing with claims that it was by secular authorities not by the church

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2006-11-22 02:22am

Oh stupid me. He did translate it.

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2006-11-22 02:24am

Kitsune wrote:
Ravencrow wrote:And, are the Catholics saying that their predecessors did not destroy documents they deemed heretical?
The Caltholic I am arguing with claims that it was by secular authorities not by the church

Where's the evidence for that?

General Trelane (Retired) · Post by **General Trelane (Retired)** » 2006-11-22 02:46pm

Kitsune wrote: What are opinions on this article?

On a quick read, it seems pretty damning for Pagel. Its entire point is to demonstrate that Pagel has, at least once, inappropriately conflated quoted sources so as to misrepresent what those sources were actually saying. It also claims that she does this often, but it provides no proof beyond this one example. It claims not to accuse her of deliberately doing this, but the way it's worded certainly implies that this is the case, which thus attacks her integrity.

This article is a valid criticism, but I would be more impressed had it targetted a more recent work. Hopefully you didn't base your argument on appeals to her authority.

Kitsune wrote:
Ravencrow wrote:
And, are the Catholics saying that their predecessors did not destroy documents they deemed heretical?
The Caltholic I am arguing with claims that it was by secular authorities not by the church

The evidence is to the contrary. For example, in 367 CE, the Bishop of Alexandria circulated a letter condemning various gnostic texts. That certainly wasn't by secular authorities.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2006-11-22 07:33pm

General Trelane (Retired) wrote:The evidence is to the contrary. For example, in 367 CE, the Bishop of Alexandria circulated a letter condemning various gnostic texts. That certainly wasn't by secular authorities.

Trouble is that I have been unable to find any specific wording for that

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-11-22 08:19pm

The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD is the authority the Church used to destroy most of the heretical Gospels (at one point, there were over 400, apparently, though only 14 or so survive today, most of them in fragments) and denounce other heresies such as Unitarianism.

More damning is evidence the Bible was changed:
http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/corrupt.html

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2006-11-22 08:26pm

I'm in the middle of reading Bart Ehrman's book "Lost Christianities" in which he writes about how the other gnostics died out and how the current orthrodox views emerged. This is a recent work published in 2005 and I recommend this book.

So far from what I read: The emerging orthodox church was actively condemning gnostics who worshiped among them. They threw out books they considered as heretical and didn't include them as canon. I would think that bishops writing letters condemning gnostic beliefs is enough evidence that it is the church is the one mainly responsible for wiping out the gnostics, since believers follow what their bishops tell them to do.

However, Ehrman also writes that the church would not have survived if gnostic beliefs were championed instead of what we call orthodox today. Reason is that Christianity would not have been recognized by secular authority as a serious religion if it is not the way it is packaged as we see it today. It seemed that it was the church which had to openly condemn gnostic views and reject them in order to convince people of that time that they were not just some cult that sprung out of nowhere.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2006-11-22 09:29pm

The article seems a bit nitpicky in the sense that the author is zeroing in on a 20+ year old piece of work, as noted by other posters. It does nothing to challenge the ideas that the church operated against the gnostics in its ranks, only attacks the credibility of Pagel.

It's interesting to note that the catholic you're arguing with tries to assert that secular authorities initiated the destruction of church material - is he suggesting that there has historically been a much stronger division of church and state? I'd point out that religious power and government authority, at least when it comes to ancient Rome and most of world history until the French and American revolutions, were one and the same. Of course, if he's willing to accept that there is a much longer tradition of church and state separation than previously thought, than I would say you're making pretty decent progress in your debate.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2006-11-22 09:58pm

Actually I got him with the Fourth Council of the Lateran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Cou ... he_Lateran

Trying to tell me that my source is a poor interpretation but is the wiggling of a worm on a hook in my opinion

Canons 3-4. Procedure and penalties against heretics and their protectors, including the provision that "Catholics who have taken the cross to exterminate heretics shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who fight for the Holy Land"

Canon 68. Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress to enable them to be distinguished from Christians (see Judenhut, yellow badge). This is partly so that Christians will not unknowingly have sexual relations with Jews or Muslims. The latter are not to go outdoors during four days of Easter week

Also trying to tell me that Exterminate does not mean killing but preaching to them