Talk:Nicolaism

message: What about this anagram: - That is not an anagram. That is cherry picking whatever suits you.  Nor would anyone have reason to suspect such. 
NI is Nicea
CO is Constantinopole
(and probably LA is Laodicea, if it suits in greek?)
and NICOlaitanes refers to results of Nicene and Constantinopole creeds, the disputes of Filioque clause, leading later to separation of churches, and 1500 year battle for few words... 
To a start of condemnation of anyone differing as a heretic (like Arians)...
-------------------------
Trying to match this with some sect in Jerusalem, Ephesus or Pergamum in the times of John
writing the Book is only a strait solution, since the seven churches of the Revelation heading are actually seven ages of Christianity until today...  ~ S.Psi. 2006-09-19
:No thanks! No WP:OR. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NI-CO-laitanes 

message: Added connection to Nicolas of Antioch, the seventh (named) deacon of the Apostolic Church.  I have found no records other than those of critics widely reported - Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.  However, no information yet as to the reason for its decline. L Hamm 03:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicolaitan Heresy 

message: what's about: 
nikos: to conquer or have victory over
laos: the people
nicolaitane: conquering the people
:1. sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~);    
:2. I think we should have less of those kinds of speculations.
:Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  greek experts here? 

message: It appears from the Biblical text that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was well understood to the audience of the day, but that understanding has simply been lost to us today. From samplings of web and paper literature, two main lines of reasoning are pursued to try to rediscover what that doctrine is. It looks like the most common approach is to appeal to the etymology of the word, almost without regard to historical writings on the subject. The other approach is to appeal to the early church fathers. The article as it currently stands (2006-11-28) has an unclear mish-mash of both.
I think it would be fair to acknowledge both approaches in the article, but make the two lines much clearer in the text. The article should discuss current thinking about the etymological route, as in:
Etymologically, there are two possibilities: 
1. Nico + laos = conquer the people -> invention of clergy-laity division
2. Nicolas-followers = people who follow the doctrines of Nicolas
The article should give the most credence to the historical examination of Nicolaitanism. Currently, the article rightly appeals to the church fathers. But it could do a better job of citing and explaining. The Catholic Encyclopedia reference is very illuminating and should be better incorporated into this article. Another good article in this vein is at http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/38.html.
Also, the correct spelling is Balaam, not Baalam. The latter is not found in Neither (NEITHER NOT EITHER) the original language or in any English Bible. Tell me, what is the original language for the believers in Baal. YOU ARENT RIGHT> You cannot use a translation of the original langto prove this point. I gurantee examples of Balaam, Balaam, Baal Bilaam, etc. WHY? 1) Many of these old languages don't have VOWELS. RTRD.
My dear anonymous poster (internet rule- web is for data. Mess with the mojo, post nonsense, get trolled)--
I've done my best to clarify the article as you suggest, adding text from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Barnes' Notes, and Scofield, while keeping any of the original editor's text that seemed to be in line with other authorities.  Hopefully the text can be expanded further with more details from the early authors, etc.
And, yes, Balaam (Bil'am) is easily confused in spelling with Baal (Ba'al).  There is a triple pun (Balaam-Nicolaos-Baal) going on somewhere here.  A pun, of course, is two words that seem the same but have different meanings, and the difference/similarity is funny, or in this case, ironic.  Alfarero 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs clarification... 

message: Is it Possible that The Catholic church still practices this even today?66.194.196.3 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative explanations 

message: Should there really be so much talk of "Heresy" in this article? It does not sound neutral. It is sufficient to point out that the Church considered this belief to be heretic. --85.226.42.150 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello 85, I'm a lay-person but I thought this myself, and as a result I've been attentive to whenever it's used and what I have found is it seems to me, personally, that the term "Nicolatian Heresy" is used all over the place, and when you say it people know specifially what you're talking about. I guess it's like Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, it seems mean to call Albert 'Fat Albert' but if you DO call him 'Fat Albert' everyone knows who you're talking about. Even Albert. If you don't use it,  you're the odd man out.Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are real Nicolaites, the issue is not serious, because in the WP:NPOV policy, giving minority positions undue weight is discouraged. If the number of Nicolaites amounts to zero members, the issue is almost ignorable, but of course: if you feel like doing it, improving the neutral tone of the article will be welcome – please be WP:BOLD! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This entire "Other Interpretations in History" section reads like a blog post, not a Wikipedia article. If someone wants to rewrite it, here it is:  
:The idea that 'Nicolaitan' refers to clergy dominating the laity is the same or similar to a Christodelphian concept found in Eureka written a few hundred years ago.  The line of argument in these is a bit better than in some of the later groups that espoused it.
:Some of the Plymouth Brethren taught this as well.  I can see how they would be tempted to ascribe to this view since they were plural eldership people in the midst of churches with episcopalian church government systems.  Plus, they acknowledged the role of the brethren to speak and minister in the assembly, unlike churches in their day. 
:Watchman Nee was influenced by Darby's writings.  The churches he helped found and establish in the faith in China were actually for a time associated with some exclusives brethren churches in Australia, until the exclusives cut them off for Watchman Nee not being exclusive enough (taking communion at a church where T. Austin Sparks ministered, etc. on a trip to English.)  This movement also taught this idea that the clergy-laity separation was Nicolaitan.  They had 'open' style meetings apparently with a more prominent role for women. Saints took turn speaking, certain brethren would be expected to minister as prophets.
:This idea that Nicolaitanism is the clergy dominating the laity is also popular in some house church circles.  This may come from from the influence of Nee's writings most likely, or other sources that drew from Darby or earlier authors.
Kramden (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe these wild allegations shouldn't be used in the article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Interpretations in History 

message: Of course, it was a John who wrote the Revelation, but he wasn't John the Apostle. 3 John is pseudonymous, see Authorship of the Johannine works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote the Revelation and 3 John 

message: Does this really belong under the category of Gnosticism? The church fathers sure liked that interpretation, but aside from the Nicolaitans having antinomianism (a feature of SOME Gnosticism) it doesn't have much to do with the later doctrines of the 2nd century, and there may not have even been a chain of transmission from Nicolaitans to gnostics. 74.133.128.54 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: - I agree, there is no evidence that the Nicolaites were Gnostics - they were accused of licentiousness, but had no other Gnostic beliefs or practices - even the Catholic Encyclopedia does not say they were Gnostics - I think references to Gnosticism should be removed from the article except for a mention that they have sometimes been associated with Gnostics - Epinoia (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Irenaeus clearly states that they were gnostic in Against Heresies III xi. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gnostic?" 

message: This article used to be very clear and concise. Now it seems to be weighted down with long and redundant citations that serve only to obscure. Judicious editing seems needed to bring this back to order. Kramden (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive length 

message: Steiner was a clairvoyant guru. We have no use for his POV. I removed it as WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudolf Steiner 

message: The text states that they were influenced by Cerinthus. I think Irenaeus is saying it was the other way around:
: John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word [...] Against Heresies II xi
Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're right. I'll make the correction. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cerinthus