Is the Apostle John a Heretic?

I bring up this topic not because I think John is a Heretic but because of my studies of Early Church History and the discussions of this board. There are members who believe that "bible believing churches" have always been in existance since the founding of them by the apostles. These same people believe that certain early church fathers were heretical and that early in Christian History there has been a malignant conspiracy by the Catholic (possibly Orthodox) church to lead people astray. Now most of these people who believe this also hold that the Evil empire Church was instated by Constantine who just took ancient Mystery religions and call them Christian then forced (by pain of death) everyone in the empire to become Christian or Catholic based in Rome. Anyway that is their contention.

The problem of course is that there was not a clear cut canon of the New Testament from the begining or from Apostolic time. Their contention will be that the 2 Peter 3:15-16 shows some knowledge of Pauline letters or the Gospel of John indicates the existance of the synoptic gospels. However, it is clear by the study of the New Testament that there was no clear plan to "distribute apostolic compositions". What is clear is that each of the writings were done by a cause or occasion for their need. Rather than an entire completed New Testiment given to each church. What we see is that Apostolic letters and writings were valued and sought out and Christian communities would "trade" these writings as they could to develope a better Library of works. It was many years before most churches had the majority of works now in the New Testament. Subsequently, there were other writings made and also valued (thus the ECF). The very Earliest chruches were composed of believers who received the Gospel orally from the Apostles who suplimented their teachings with Hebrew books of Scripture what we are now familiar with as the OT. However, we see use of Apocryphal books in such writings as Hebrews and Jude. Not that they were considered as authoritative as what the apostles themselves taught orally. However, by the time of 200 AD not all the churches agreed which writings were authoritative or inspired. Clement of Alexandria was the first to use the word Testament. Marcion was instramental in the development of the idea of canonization because he wanted his cookie cutter religion and excluded writings he did not like. Strangely enough he only wanted Paul's writings. The earliest list of an ordered New Testiment is by Athenasius in 367 AD. However, it wasn't a settled development for all the churches at that time. The Churches were already calling themselves Catholic which we see referenced to by the end of the 1st century. Most scholars speculate that the earliest acceptance of the New Testament as we know it now was at the council of Hippo in 393 but definately at the 3rd synod of Carhtage in 397. Which is after the edict of Milan. This is what history actually alludes to not the first premise.

Here is where my thought is going. History to me seems clear on the establishment of the New Testiment and the entirel bible as we know know it. There are those who believe that some of the ECF who helped establish what we know now as the NT are heretics and that there was no tradition passed on in the Early church. However, these traditions are related to by the earliest christian compositions outside the New Testament. Such as 1 Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias, Ireaneaus, Justin Martyr, whoever wrote the Sheperd of Hermas, etc... There are those here that have called many of these as holding heretical beliefs. As I read their writings I notice one other thing. They all (including Polycarp) claim to have recieved these tradition teachings from John in some fashion whether he gave it himself or by someone who knew him (like Polycarp or Papias). So this being the case did John lead everyone astray? Is he the conspirator that created the Catholic Church? Should we trust his gospel? If not then what evidence does anyone have to support the first premise mentioned?

 

Wow, I mean wow... umm...What? 70 ad Jerusalem was destroyed not the council. By that time Christians had fled primarily because of the persecution. The next prominant place for Christianity was Antioch (where Ignatius was bishop). So are you saying their are two forms of Heretical Christianity? Pauls and Johns? My supposition was that most refer back to John from the ECF rather than Paul. So was it his traditions (John) that led the church astray rather than Paul? I think you need to brush up on your church history a bit. From one extreme (the trail of blood) to the other extreme (whatever billwald is selling).

 

You obviously didn't read the OP. I don't believe that John or Paul is a heretic. I believe that some on this board have developed a poor understanding of Church history and I'm showing why.

 

I believe the bible is the word of God. My hope is in Jesus Christ just like yours. But I believe in looking at history as accurately and clearly as possible. These same ECF who compiled the library of Books which we now call the NT. The NT as a singular document was not passed down entire from the Apostles to every church established. Rather it was many years later that they were entirely compiled. So I think it is significant to understand what these same ECF said regarding these compiled writings of the apostles and others (such as the book of Hebrews). Also Its important to understand how they viewed Christianity. It's actually a review of Historical perspective gendered on this board that baptist were the established churches by the apostles and were persecuted by the false churches throughout history. My contention is that if this gendered view of Christianity is true then John must be a heretic. Because the ECF that are made to be heretics recieved their teaching from the apostles particuarily John. And they seem consistant on that point. As for bound question with regard to what traditions we would have to view Liturgical worship which historical view seems consistant with. Thats at least on example.

 

You've misrepresented my premise so your entire post is inconsequential.

 

You're not following the line of reasoning. My post shows that there is a commonly held view of history that is not substantiated but many here with regard to the early church (just see the history of baptist thread). Then there is historical data that is supported and they are in conflict with each other. The development of the NT is clear. I was contrasting the held view which has no substantive support and actual history with regard to the NT.

If you hold on to one line of reasoning you must conclude that John is a heretic (the initial one I pointed out which many here at the BB believe) based on historical analysis. Or You must give up that line of belief and hold to what actually happened.