Talk:Cerinthus

Gospel of John

Could include that it seems that the Gospel of John the Apostle was written against Cerinthus.

Gonzalez, Justo L., A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), pp.133

Spunkiel 11:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no one knows for sure. --Legghat (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic?

In what sense was Cerinthus gnostic? In that he thought a lesser god made the physical world? That's not gnostic. Gnostic is that an evil god made the physical world. Cerinthus's creation story is similar to that of Philo of Alexandria. His modest view of Jesus, his millennialism, and his adherence to Jewish law aren't gnostic, either. Irenaeus apparently called him gnostic. Why? Just because of the demiurge thing? Jonathan Tweet 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Catholie Encyclopedia: Cerinthus provides a fair summary: "Cerinthus's doctrines were a strange mixture of Gnosticism, Judaism, Chiliasm, and Ebionitism. He admitted one Supreme Being; but the world was produced by a distinct and far inferior power. He does not identify this Creator or Demiurgos with the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Not Jehovah but the angels have both made the world and given the law. These creator-angels were ignorant of the existence of the Supreme God. The Jewish law was most sacred, and salvation to be obtained by obedience to its precepts. Cerinthus distinguished between Jesus and Christ. Jesus was mere man, though eminent in holiness. He suffered and died and was raised from the dead, or, as some say Cerinthus taught, He will be raised from the dead at the Last Day and all men will rise with Him. At the moment of baptism, Christ or the Holy Ghost was sent by the Highest God, and dwelt in Jesus teaching Him, what not even the angels knew, the Unknown God. This union between Jesus and Christ continues till the Passion, when Jesus suffers alone and Christ returns to heaven. Cerinthus believed in a happy millennium which would be realized here on earth previous to the resurrection and the spiritual kingdom of God in heaven."

Jewish Encyclopedia might have an article on Cerithus, but apparently it is currently temporarily unavailable online.

Of the Catholic Encyclopedia's summary, what in C's beliefs amounts to gnosticism? A hundred years ago (when the CE was written), Catholics identified him as gnostic, but was he? If so, in what sense? Jonathan Tweet 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think a careful reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia is called for here. It doesn't call Cerinthus gnostic, it says: "strange mixture of Gnosticism, Judaism, Chiliasm, and Ebionitism". If I parse through I interpret: "world was produced by a distinct and far inferior power" [Gnostic]; "does not identify this Creator ... with the Jehovah" [Gnostic]; "Jewish law was most sacred" [Judaism]; "salvation ... by obedience to its precepts" [Ebionitism? Legalism?]; "Jesus was mere man" [Adoptionism?] ...

Personally, I wouldn't characterize Cerinthus as just a gnostic, the situation is much more complex than that.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are claiming he wasn't gnostic at all? That might be correct. Since Gnosticism and Marcionism were the major opponents to orthodox Christianity in the early centuries, there is a strong tendency to label all opponents as gnostic, even Marcion. An argument could also probably be made that Simon Magus wasn't gnostic either. Valentinus (Gnostic) was certainly gnostic however.

Perhaps a way forward here is to go with the Catholic Encyclopedia's specific claims, i.e. "world was produced by a distinct and far inferior power", etc., and then explain where these claims might come from, for example that first claim might be gnostic, but it might be more accurately credited to Philo as I believe you claim? Another option is to see what the Anchor Bible Dictionary (actually an encyclopedia) has to say about Cerinthus, a good library will have that very modern reference work, and it in turn probably lists all useful modern references on Cerinthus.

Thanks for engaging on a detailed level. Even parsed down to individual tenets, there's nothing gnostic here.

* "world was produced by a distinct and far inferior power" Not really gnostic because the inferior power is still divine and not evil.

* "does not identify this Creator ... with the Jehovah" Also not gnostic, as the gnostics DID identify the evil creator as Yahweh.

My conclusion is that Cerinthus wasn't Gnostic at all but got lumped in with Gnostics as an early Christian heretic. The "Angels created the universe for God" heresy is common and reappears even in the Middle Ages. If no one can show me that he's really Gnostic, I guess it's time to find a good source that can clarify the situation. Jonathan Tweet 01:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new external link, Schaff's History of the Christian Church, volume II, chapter XI: THE HERESIES OF THE ANTE-NICENE AGE section 123: Cerinthus, is very informative. Jonathan Tweet 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Tweet ,

The initial part of the first sentence of the summary of main article, "Cerinthus (c 100) was an early Christian originator of a heretical sect", to which you have appended the warning ^{[neutrality is disputed]} is part of a full sentence, concluded and qualified by a "heresiarch" in the view of the Church Fathers (emphasis added here). Therefore it is objective, because there is no doubt that Irenaeus considered him a "heresiarch" (see External links, Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Book I, III).

Besides, at the 3rd paragraph of the main article we read:

"In defining the world's creator as the demiurge, he matched Greek philosophy and anticipated the Gnostics. His description of Christ as a bodiless spirit that dwelled temporarily in the man Jesus matches the Gnosticism of Valentinus."

So, if you object to the initial statement, it is to the whole summary, in fact to the whole article that you should object. But, once again, the qualified sentence is perfectly ... objective. Therefore I am going to remove your ^{[neutrality is disputed]} warning, and replace it, ar the end of the sentence, with a reference to Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Book I, III, and relative External Links. Before attempting to reintroduce the warning, you should discuss here.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Note on Valentinus

The article previously said that Cerinthus' "description of Christ as a bodiless spirit that dwelled temporarily in the man Jesus matched that of Valentinus." There is no source for this claim. I'm not even sure this is correct statement regarding Valentinus' Christology. Until someone finds a source, I'm going to delete this statement.

Artemzista (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cerinthus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]