About a messianic prophecy from the Sibylline Oracles. . .

[andrewcriddle]

And all the early heretics (especially the Valentinians) already showed an interest in a pre-existent god named Man (anthropos).

Out of genuine curiosity, can you reference the Valentinian evidence for us?

See Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1

CHAP. I.--ABSURD IDEAS OF THE DISCIPLES OF VALENTINUS AS TO THE ORIGIN, NAME, ORDER, AND CONJUGAL PRODUCTIONS OF THEIR FANCIED AEONS, WITH THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH THEY ADAPT TO THEIR OPINIONS.

1. THEY maintain, then, that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent AEon,(4) whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus, and describe as being invisible and incomprehensible. Eternal and unbegotten, he remained throughout innumerable cycles of ages in profound serenity and quiescence. There existed along with him Ennoea, whom they also call Charis and Sige.(5) At last this Bythus determined to send forth from himself the beginning of all things, and deposited this production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his contemporary Sige, even as seed is deposited in the womb. She then, having received this seed, and becoming pregnant, gave birth to Nous, who was both similar and equal to him who had produced him, and was alone capable of comprehending his father's greatness. This Nous they call also Monogenes, and Father, and the Beginning of all Things. Along with him was also produced Aletheia; and these four constituted the first and first-begotten Pythagorean Tetrad, which they also denominate the root of all things. For there are first Bythus and Sige, and then Nous and Aletheia. And Monogenes, perceiving for what purpose he had been produced, also himself sent forth Logos and Zoe, being the father of all those who were to come after him, and the beginning and fashioning of the entire Pleroma. By the conjunction of Logos and Zoo were brought forth Anthropos and Ecclesia; and thus was formed the first-begotten Ogdoad, the root and substance of all things, called among them by four names, viz., Bythus, and Nous, and Logos, and Anthropos. For each of these is masculo-feminine, as follows: Propator was united by a conjunction with his Ennoea; then Monogenes, that is Nous, with Aletheia; Logos with Zoe, and Anthropos with Ecclesia.

And further passages.

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

Here Origen very closely associates the 'title' of 'the Good' with God, speaking of "the name of God, or of the Good."

Other, Hebrew names of God are also attributed to God; but in Greek, only "the Good" is attributed to God by Origen.

And thus it will be found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom different localities have been assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the several dialects of place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler idea, however small, of these matters, will be careful not to apply differing names to different things; lest he should resemble those who mistakenly apply the name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the title of the Good from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh and blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth.

And perhaps there is a danger as great as that which degrades the name of God, or of the Good, to improper objects, in changing the name of God according to a secret system, and applying those which belong to inferior beings to greater, and vice versa. And I do not dwell on this, that when the name of Zeus is uttered, there is heard at the same time that of the son of Kronos and Rhea, and the husband of Hera, and brother of Poseidon, and father of Athene, and Artemis, who was guilty of incest with his own daughter Persephone; or that Apollo immediately suggests the son of Leto and Zeus, and the brother of Artemis, and half-brother of Hermes; and so with all the other names invented by these wise men of Celsus, who are the parents of these opinions, and the ancient theologians of the Greeks. For what are the grounds for deciding that he should on the one hand be properly called Zeus, and yet on the other should not have Kronos for his father and Rhea for his mother? And the same argument applies to all the others that are called gods. But this charge does not at all apply to those who, for some mysterious reason, refer the word Sabaoth, or Adonai, or any of the other names to the (true) God.

[MrMacSon]

... Our sources for all the information about the Marcionites: [they] were liars - holy liars. Let's start with the obvious.

... the reports of the Church Fathers on rival traditions are entire built on lies and exaggerations and half truths.

I agree.

I think to understand where you would like come up. To the conclusion that the docetists were represented by Catholics as if they were dangerous criminals ''deniers'' of the one true God - Satanists - when in fact those docetists held views more accommodating and less radical, less anti-Semitic, indeed were far more Jews than catholics themselves. . .

The risk in your logic is that if I take it to the extreme, I should doubt that even docetism was really ''total and absolute denial'' of a body for Jesus. The cartesian doubt should catch anything, even my personal honesty and rationality. . .

Its more Docetism was really about absence of a body for Christ. Most, if not all, Docetics and other Gnostics do not refer to Jesus; they only refer to a nebulous figure - a Christ?

[Peter Kirby]

Most, if not all, Docetics and other Gnostics do not refer to Jesus

That may be overstated. The data on 'docetics' has been presented here:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1305

Some data on the names used by early Christians (including some of the NHL) has been presented here:
http://peterkirby.com/a-table-of-christ ... itles.html

We can quickly dispense with the 'if not all' portion of the claim, and the 'most' part also seems iffy. 'Some' would be justified.

[MrMacSon]

Fair enough. It'd be interesting to categorize those on the basis of the date of their extant texts.

[Peter Kirby]

Fair enough. It'd be interesting to categorize those on the basis of the date of their extant texts.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04163.htm
Book 3, Chapter 13
But it appears to me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies which do not possess even the name of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he had heard of the sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of a similar nature, which had departed in all points from the teaching of Jesus. And yet surely this furnishes no ground for a charge against the Christian doctrine.