303–307.In this very engaging book, Stephen Bullivant takes us to the truth that lies at the very heart of the Christian faith: God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. See Martin Mulsow, “Pluralisierung,” in Anette Völker-Rasor, ed., Oldenhourg Geschichte Lehrbuch (Munich: 2000 ), pp. Lund, ed., The Margins of Orthodoxy: Heterodox Writing and Cultural Response, 1660-1750 ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995 ), pp. Pocock, “Within the margins: The definitions of orthodoxy” in R. See John Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion and Responsibility (Cain-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. McLachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth Century England (Oxford: 1951 ). John Biddle, Considerations on the Explications of Trinity see also his The Apostolical and True Opinion of the Trinity (1653). See Christoph Markschies, “Kerinth: wer war er und was lehrte er?” in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum (1998), pp. See Karlmann Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis (Tübingen: 1974).Ĭhristoph Riedwig, Jüdisch-Hellenistische Imitation eines orphischen hieros logos (Zürich: 1998). Bietenholz, Daniel Zwicker 1612-1678: Peace, Tolerance and God the One and Only ( Florence: Olschki, 1997 ).ĭaniel Zwicker, Irenicum irenicorum (Amsterdam: 1658), pp. Weiner,eds., Jewish Christians and Christian Jews from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment ( Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994 ). Stroumsa, eds., Tolerance nil Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998 ) Taylor, “The Phenomenon of Early Jewish-Christianity: Reality or Scholarly Invention?” in Vigiliae Ciuisüanae 44 (1990), pp. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. There were at least the following types:Ī person x, found traditionally to be a heretic by orthodoxy, is indeed a heretic because of reasons yz.Ī person x, found traditionally to be a heretic by orthodoxy, is indeed a heretic, especially in the light of current modifications of Christianity such as abc.Ī person x, found traditionally to be a heretic by orthodoxy, is indeed no heretic, because he or she did not advocate the condemned doctrine and was only denounced on grounds of historical circumstances yz.Ī person x, found traditionally to be a heretic by orthodoxy, is indeed no heretic, because although he or she advocated the condemned doctrine and thus erred, he or she was deep down a righteous and God-seeking person who was unjustly treated intolerantly.Ī person x, found traditionally to be a heretic by orthodoxy, is indeed no heretic, because the condemned doctrine he or she advocated was in fact the right doctrine.Ī person x, found traditionally to be a heretic by orthodoxy, is indeed a pillar or a precursor of orthodoxy-an orthodoxy gone astray.Ī person x, found traditionally to be a heretic by orthodoxy yet “saved” by heterodox positions for their purposes, cannot be usurped by either dogmatic position but must be understood in a historically unbiased manner from within the given context. Even though most of them treated the same traditional material, diverse types of assertions were possible: accusations, defenses, apologies, or modifications. Early modern histories of heresy took on a wide variety of forms.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |