Michael Servetus

[spinningwheelgirl]

I am wondering how may of you know about the burning at the stake of the heritic Michael Servetus by the Geneva Council? Do you think that it was justified?

 

[2+2=5]

Servetus never fails to generate very lively discussion..

The main problem is there are so many accounts of the event that people take whichever one supports their position.

Most convoluted..

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

The reason he was burned at the stake was his denial of the Trinity. Questions on Jesus pre-existence, or was he God come in the flesh--his incarnation has caused problems since the Nicene Creed. The main argument: how can God become flesh or take on flesh. The working of these essences within the personality of Jesus.

Now I am reading Nestorius and Cyril back and forth debate plus the political and religious tensions during that time. Both these guys believed in Jesus, but their positions started at opposite ends: Cyril emphasizing Jesus divinity, and Nestorius emphasizing his humanity, more so the starting point was the second Adam. At this time, both men wouldn´t recognize the other´s point of view.

Years laters, when Nestorius was in exile for his beliefs, he wrote clarifying more of his beliefs and this book was discovered in the late 1890s and published. It interesting too that Cyril wrote more about Jesus human-side. In short, after this debate exploded and Nestorius was exiled and labeled as heretic, there was some reconcilation and even in 1994, Pope Paul when he visited the Eastern church, there was some mutual agreement on Nestorius.

Interesting how history goes!

Shalom, David.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I wrote an essay on the topic at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson15_essay.html

fundamentally, Servetus denied the 'glue' that held together the Corpus Christianum, in particular, the nature of Christ. Something that was settled in the Church by the late 300's and which had become a principle that bound together what we now call European society.

this is no different than the US executing the Rosenburgs (esp Mrs) for treason. They denied the basic glue that holds together the US and 'worshipped' a competing god-communism. Likewise the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti represents the elimination of those who deny the basic set of required beliefs for membership in the society. Same process, same demands for cultural assent to fundamental principles on the pain of death. People haven't changed, only the basic glue that binds societies together.

in the 16thC it was religion, today it is politics heavily influenced by economic theory. They executed heretics, we execute communists, anarchists and drug dealers. Same passion of debate guarding the same boundaries---society.

One big difference is that we have taken religion far less seriously then did Calvin and company, almost putting it into the catagory of adiaphoria, perhaps that is our greatest error, we just don't take religion seriously enough to believe that it is worth dying over.
....

 

[MrJim]

One big difference is that we have taken religion far less seriously then did Calvin and company, almost putting it into the catagory of adiaphoria, perhaps that is our greatest error, we just don't take religion seriously enough to believe that it is worth dying over.
....

Surely you are not suggesting executing Mormons and JWs???

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Surely you are not suggesting executing Mormons and JWs???

worth dying over

i think our only tools in the faith are persuasion.
force belongs to the political sphere.
to be prepared to defend something to the death is not the same thing as killing for ideology. however often in history people have aligned the two (dying for, killing for), they are distinctively different ideas.

to be prepared to die for a belief is the ultimate priority.


to answer your question---death penalty for heresy.
nay...banishment is sufficient *grin*

after all we do have Utah
maybe Mass. would like to be fully Arian????
....

 

[MrJim]

after all we do have Utah
maybe Mass. would like to be fully Arian????
....

LOL

You know I bet Mass. would go for it...

 

[IrishJohan]

From Finland.

The reason he was burned at the stake was his denial of the Trinity. Questions on Jesus pre-existence, or was he God come in the flesh--his incarnation has caused problems since the Nicene Creed. The main argument: how can God become flesh or take on flesh. The working of these essences within the personality of Jesus.

Now I am reading Nestorius and Cyril back and forth debate plus the political and religious tensions during that time. Both these guys believed in Jesus, but their positions started at opposite ends: Cyril emphasizing Jesus divinity, and Nestorius emphasizing his humanity, more so the starting point was the second Adam. At this time, both men wouldn´t recognize the other´s point of view.

Years laters, when Nestorius was in exile for his beliefs, he wrote clarifying more of his beliefs and this book was discovered in the late 1890s and published. It interesting too that Cyril wrote more about Jesus human-side. In short, after this debate exploded and Nestorius was exiled and labeled as heretic, there was some reconcilation and even in 1994, Pope Paul when he visited the Eastern church, there was some mutual agreement on Nestorius.

Interesting how history goes!

Indeed, David. You might be interested in reading the NonChalcedonian ("Nestorian") side of this in these two good articles from the Assyrian Church of the East:

[size=-1]Is the Theology of the Church of the East Nestorian?[/size]

[size=-1]Does Ephesus Unite or Divide? A Re-evaluation of the Council of Ephesus: An Assyrian Church of the East Perspective[/size][size=-1][/size]

Pax Christi,
John[size=-1]

[/size]

 

[Nehi]

Playing the Servetus Card ...

one more time

 

[Blackhawk]

From Finland.

The reason he was burned at the stake was his denial of the Trinity. Questions on Jesus pre-existence, or was he God come in the flesh--his incarnation has caused problems since the Nicene Creed. The main argument: how can God become flesh or take on flesh. The working of these essences within the personality of Jesus.

Now I am reading Nestorius and Cyril back and forth debate plus the political and religious tensions during that time. Both these guys believed in Jesus, but their positions started at opposite ends: Cyril emphasizing Jesus divinity, and Nestorius emphasizing his humanity, more so the starting point was the second Adam. At this time, both men wouldn´t recognize the other´s point of view.

Years laters, when Nestorius was in exile for his beliefs, he wrote clarifying more of his beliefs and this book was discovered in the late 1890s and published. It interesting too that Cyril wrote more about Jesus human-side. In short, after this debate exploded and Nestorius was exiled and labeled as heretic, there was some reconcilation and even in 1994, Pope Paul when he visited the Eastern church, there was some mutual agreement on Nestorius.

Interesting how history goes!

Shalom, David.

I do not think that Nestorius was a heretic like the Arians were heretics or like Pelagius was a heretic. However I think his main problem was that he was really confused about his beliefs. I tried to read the Bazaar and much of it just did not make sense. It went around and around and around. So he was more confused than just a heretic.

 

[billwald]

Anyone as stupid (stubborn?) as Sevetus earned his demise. All he had to do was stay out of Geneva.

 

[MrJim]

Anyone as stupid (stubborn?) as Sevetus earned his demise. All he had to do was stay out of Geneva.

And Jesus could have stayed out of Jerusalem and Paul could have stayed out of Rome. Must be something in the nature of man to defend his position against his adversaries.

 

[constance]

The complaint of Nicholas de la Fontaine against Servetus:

1. In the first place that about twenty-four years ago the defendant commenced to annoy the churches of Germany with his errors and heresies, and was condemned and took to flight in order to escape the punishment prepared for him.

2. that on or about this time he printed a wretched book, which has infected many peopl.

3. that since that time he has not ceased by all means in his power to scatter his poison, as much by his construction of biblical text, as by certain annotations which he has made upon Ptolemy.

4. that since that time he has printed in secrecy another book containing endless blasphemies.

5. that while detained in prison in the city of Vienne, when he saw that they were willing to pardon him on condition of his recanting, he found means to escape from prison.

6. Said Nicholas demands that said Servetus be examined on all these points.

7. And since he is able to evade the question by pretending that his blasphemies and heresies are nought else than good doctrine, said Nicholas proposes certain articles on which he demands said heretic be examined.

8. To wit, whether he has not written and falsely taught and published that to believe in a single essence of God there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is to create four phantoms, which cannot and ought not to be imagined.

9. that to put such distinctions into the essence of God is to cause God to be divided into three parts, and that this is a three-headed devil, like to Cerberus, whom the ancient poets have called the dog of hell, a monster, and things equally injurious.

10. whether he has not maintained such blasphemies most injuriously, as much as against the ancient doctors, such as St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, Chrysostom, Athanasius and the like as against all those who sought in our times to elevate Christianity, even calling to Melancthon a man without faith, son of the Devil, Belial, and Satan.

11. whether he does not say that our Lord Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, except in so much as he was conceived of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary.

12. that those who believe Jesus Christ to have been the word of God the Father, engendered through all eternity, have a scheme of redemption which is fanciful and of the nature of sorcery.

13. that Jesus Christ is God, insomuch as God has caused him to be such.

14. that the flesh of Jesus Christ came from heaven and from the substance of God.

15. that divinity was imparted to Jesus Christ only when he was made man, and afterwards spiritually communicated to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

16. that when it is said that Jesus Christ is of the same essence as his Father, it is the same as saying that in this man Jesus Christ there is the same Trinity, power and will as God, and not that the word of God dwells and subsists in his essence.

17. whether he does not condemn those who seek in the essence of God His holy spirit, saying that all those who believe in the Trinity are atheists.

18. that those who believe in any distinction of property in the essence of God dissipate His nature and reduce it to fragments.

19. that the word of God is no other thing than the flesh of Jesus Christ.

20. that the flesh of Jesus Christ was engendered, out of the substance of God by a word which he calls "seminal."

21. the essence of the flesh and of the soul of Jesus Christ is the divinity of this word and of the breath which God has breathed forth.

22. that if Jesus Christ were the Son of God otherwise than on account of his humanity, because that is engendered out of the substance of God, then he would not be really dead. For if he is dead he is no longer the Son of God.

23. that when St. John says that the word was in God, it is the same as saying that the man Jesus Christ was there.

24. that the substance of Jesus Christ is that which was in the skies, and that this is the same substance whence proceed the angels and our souls.

25. instead of conferring three persons in the essence of God, or three hypostases which have each His property, he says that God is a single entity, containing one hundred thousand essences, so that He is a portion of us, and that we are a portion of His spirit.

26. in consequence whereof not alone the models of all creatures are in God, but also the material forms, so that our souls are of the substantial seed of the word of God.

27. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God because he has the elements of the substance of the Father, to wit: fire, air and water.

28. that the soul of man is mortal, and that the only thing which is immortal is an elementary breath, which is the substance that Jesus Christ now possesses in heaven and which is also the elementary and divine and incorruptible substance of the Holy Ghost.

29. Item, that the Fathers under the Law have never received the spirit of regeneration.

30. Item, that by the sin of Adam the soul of man as well as the body was made mortal.

31. Item, that little children are sinless, and moreover are incapable of redemption until they come of age.

32. Item, that they do not commit mortal sin up to the age of twenty.

33. Item, that the baptism of little children is an invention of the Devil, an infernal falsehood tending to the destruction of all Christianity.

34. Item, that the word of God is no longer that which it was before the incarnation of Jesus Christ, because its substance was the clearness of the skies and is now made flesh.

35. Item, that however much he confesses that the philosophers have erred in saying that the word was God Himself, he says that Jesus Christ, insomuch as he is a man, was always in God and that from Him is the divinity of the world.

36. Item, that the air is the Spirit of God and that God is called Spirit, because He breathes life in all things by His spirit of air.

37. Item, the soul of man insomuch as it possesses many divine properties is full of an infinity of Gods.

38. Item, that in the person of Msr. Calvin, minister of the word of God in the Church of Geneva, he has defamed with printed book the doctrine which he preached, uttering all the injurious and blasphemous things which it is possible to invent.

39. And because he knows well that his said book could not be tolerated even among Papists, insomuch as it destroyed all the foundations of Christianity, therefore he hid himself at the house of William Guerou, at that time proof corrector, as said Guerou has testified.

And a few additional ones…

A. whether he has married, and if he answers that he has not, he shall be asked why, in consideration of his age, he could refrain so long from marriage.

B. whether he did not know that his doctrine was pernicious, considering that he favors Jews and Turks, by making excuses for them, and if he has not studied the Koran in order to disprove and controvert the doctrine and religion that the Christian churches hold, together with other profane books, from which people ought to abstain in matters of religion, according to the doctrine of St. Paul.

C. whether the said book Koran is not a bad book, full of blasphemies.

I'm guilty of more than one of these myself. Burn me too.

Constance