Chapter 5.
Confronting Gnostic
Heresies
"Turn away from godless philosophical discussions and
the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge[GNOSIS],
which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the
faith." (1 Tim. 6:20, NIV and NJB)
When the Apostle John spoke of those who do not "abide in
the doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9), what false teaching was he
refuting? We believe he was confronting a particular false teaching
being advocated in his time and place. As mentioned earlier, the
Trinity doctrine was not yet formulated, and John was not
confronting it. It was not troubling the Church at that time. In
Acts 15 the early Church did have a heated conference of elders and
Apostles, but it addressed the issue of Gentiles coming into the
Church and being pressured to keep the Jewish Law Covenant. The
council ended with a very clearly-worded message: "For it
seemed good to the Holy Ghost [Spirit], and to us, to lay upon you
no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from
meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled,
and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do
well" (Acts 15:28, 29).
Now, you would think if the Trinity was even faintly mentioned in
Church teachings, it would need some clarification. Certainly, those
of the Priesthood (Acts 6:7) who had become believers and who were
trying to bring Gentiles under the Law would have raised eyebrows at
any teaching beclouding the one-God concept of the Jewish Law. The
leadership of the Church were all mainly Jews carried over from the
Law arrangement. Yet not one word emerged about a tripersonal deity.
How could the Trinity not have been mentioned in this conference, or
in the Bible itself, if it was an essential doctrine for Jews and
Gentiles alike to believe?
John’s Gospel, as well as his epistles, are believed to have
been written toward the close of the first century. McClintock &
Strong on "John," says:
"Ephesus and Patmos are the two places mentioned by early
writers, and the weight of evidence seems to preponderate in favor
of Ephesus. Irenaeus . . . states that John published his Gospel
whilst he dwelt in Ephesus of Asia. Jerome . . . relates that John
was in Asia . . . Theodore of Mopsuestia . . . relates that John
was living at Ephesus when he was moved by his disciples to write
his Gospel.
"The evidence in favor of Patmos comes from two anonymous
writers. The author of the Synopsis of Scripture, printed in the
works of Athanasius, states that the Gospel was dictated by John
in Patmos, and published afterwards in Ephesus. . . . [Another]
author . . . states that John was banished by Domitian to Patmos,
where he wrote his Gospel."(1)
Quoting McClintock and Strong, on "John, First
Epistle," we read:
"It has been conjectured by many interpreters, ancient and
modern, that it was written at the same place as the Gospel. The
more ancient tradition places the writing of the Gospel at
Ephesus, and a less authentic report refers it to the island of
Patmos . . . it was probably posterior to the Gospel, which seems
to be referred to in 1 John 1:4. Some are of the opinion that the
Epistle was an envelope or accompaniment to the Gospel, and that
they were consequently written nearly simultaneously."(2)
These comments suggest John’s writings were the writings of his
old age. Having outlived the other Apostles, John could see the
essential fabric of Christianity beginning to be subjected to
intellectual Hellenistic philosophy and gnosticism. John was the
last Apostolic outpost defending the "faith which was once
delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). He was dearly loved by the
brethren of that time, but not by all. "Diotrephes, who loveth
to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not" (3 John
9). It is hard to believe anyone would not receive John in the
Christian community. However, ambition and power-lust were running
high, and hence even the beloved Apostle found himself put upon.
This should make us wary of accepting beliefs not originating in
Apostolic times.
Confessing Jesus Christ Is Come
in the Flesh
John, in his epistles, as well as in his gospel writings, was
dealing with certain gnostic heresies that had started to trouble
the early Church. In 1 John 4:3, we read: "And every spirit
that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of
God: and this is that spirit of antichrist." What was John
addressing here? For an answer we quote McClintock & Strong:
"Irenaeus says, ‘Cerinthus taught that the world was not
made by the supreme God, but by a certain power (Demiurge)
separate from Him, and below Him, and ignorant of Him. Jesus he
supposed not to be born of a virgin, but to be the son of Joseph
and Mary, born altogether as other men are; but he excelled all
men in virtue, knowledge, and wisdom. At His baptism, the Christ
came down upon Him, from God who is over all, in the shape of a
dove; and then He declared to the world the unknown Father, and
wrought miracles. At the end, the Christ left Jesus, and Jesus
suffered and rose again, but the Christ being spiritual, was
impassible.’"(3)
This view presents Jesus as a mere man fathered by Joseph, who
later became possessed by Christ at Jordan and deserted by Christ
before Jesus was crucified. Hence, Christ did not come in the flesh,
nor did he suffer in the flesh, but simply took possession of a man
named Jesus from Jordan and left him before he was crucified. Under
this teaching, Christ neither suffered nor died. It was Jesus the
man who suffered and died and was resurrected. This concept may have
arisen from the practice of demons entering fleshly bodies to
possess them, such as evidently was fairly commonplace in Jesus’
day.
We refer again to McClintock & Strong on Cerinthus:
"The account of Irenaeus is that he [Cerinthus] appeared
about the year 88, and was known to St. John, who wrote his Gospel
in refutation of his errors. Irenaeus, on the authority of
Polycarp, narrates that the Apostle John, when at Ephesus, going
on a certain day to the bath, and finding Cerinthus within, fled
from the building, saying ‘Let us even be gone, lest the bath
should fall to pieces, Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, being
within.’"(4)
This scrap of history would confirm John’s unwillingness to
have any interchange or contact with one who was introducing such
mind-beguiling errors into the Churches. Yet, the point to be noted
is that, even while the Apostle John still lived, various forms of
gnostic errors affecting the nature of Christ were indeed infecting
Christianity. What would happen when all the Apostles fell asleep?
Surely, no one would logically expect truth to triumph.
Jesus taught—"While men slept, his enemy came and sowed
tares among the wheat, and went his way" (Matt. 13:24-30). What
were the "tares" the enemy sowed? Errors or false
teachings which would subvert true Christianity. Yes. Even before
the Apostles fell asleep, the Devil was busy trying to infuse
gnostic beliefs among the people of God. Paul confirms this, saying,
"The mystery of iniquity doth already work" (2 Thess.
2:7). We must always remember, these false teachings were kept out
of the Bible, but not out of the Church. What was to be a
"wheat field" turned into a field of "tares,"
the planting of the Wicked One. The Parable of the Wheat and Tares
(Matt. 13:24-30) was given by the Master to foretell what would
follow the death of the Apostles. For anyone to go to the fourth and
fifth centuries to seek the truth is to ignore this clear warning of
Jesus.
Docetae—Docetism
Docetism appeared in the latter half of the second century. It
was, in fact, only another form of gnosticism. McClintock &
Strong, commenting on Docetae, say:
"In order to remove the author of all good from all
contact with matter, which they conceived to be the same as evil,
they called in the aid of Oriental philosophy in order to people
the space between God and matter with a vast succession of
superhuman beings as mediators between God and the world. These,
emanating from the Deity, were called aeons; among these the
highest rank was assigned to Christ. Here, however, they seem to
have split. ‘Many imagined that Jesus was a mere man, and
maintained that the aeon Christ descended upon the man Jesus at
his baptism, and left him immediately before his crucifixion, so
that Christ was not, in fact, subjected to pain and death; while
others held that the body, with which Christ appeared to be
invested, was not really human and passable, but unsubstantial or
etherial, or, at least immaterial: these last were called Docetae.’
(Waddington’s Hisory of the Church, p. 74, 75). They denied the
whole humanity of Christ, regarding it only as a deceptive show, a
mere vision.
"Docetism was a most subtle element, which wrought
variously before it had any discernible concentration in any
leading men or sects, and it infused its unreal and fantastic
leaven into various Gnostic sects, and other later ones which grew
out of Gnosticism. It was a deep, natural, rationalistic,
pseudo-spiritualistic, anti-incarnation element."(5)
The errors introduced by Cerinthus did not disappear, but
infected the Church heavily in the second century. It was these
errors that were leavening the lump, and to offset them, both truth
and additional errors were used to put down these gnostic teachings.
The hardest thing is to defend the truth without exaggerating
matters. The Devil does not care which ditch one gets into, as long
as one leaves the strait and narrow path of truth.
Gnosticism in the Church
The early Christians did seek knowledge of spiritual things. Paul
says some were given the "word of knowledge (gnosis) by the
same Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:8). There was a proper knowledge that
came to saints of that day, and then there were supposed superior
knowledge and insights that were nothing more than heretical
gnosticism. The Church was put upon by these claimants of superior
knowledge. McClintock & Strong, on Gnosticism, say:
"The name Gnosticism has been applied to a variety of
schools which had sometimes little in common except the assumption
of a knowledge higher than that of ordinary believers. . . . They
seldom pretended to demonstrate the principles on which their
systems were founded by historical evidence or logical reasonings,
since they rather boasted that these were discovered by the
intuitional powers of more highly endowed minds, and that the
materials thus obtained, whether through faith or divine
revelation, were then worked up into ascientific form according to
each one’s natural power and culture. Their aim was to construct
not merely a theory of redemption, but of the universe—a
cosmogony. No subject was beyond their investigations. Whatever
God could reveal to the finite intellect, they looked upon as
within their range. What to others seemed only speculative ideas,
were by them hypostatized or personified into real beings or
historical facts. It was in this way that they constructed systems
of speculation on subjects entirely beyond the range of human
knowledge, which startle us by their boldness and their apparent
consciouness of reality."(6)
Most of the controversies of the early Church were Judaistic in
nature, but evidence is found early on of heretical influences that
affected the brotherhood. Quoting again from McClintock & Strong
on Gnosticism:
"The heretical gnosis did not make its appearance with an
uncovered head until after the death of the apostles, but . . .
that it previously worked in secret. . . . While most of the
heresies of that period were Judaistic, there was an obvious
difference between those reproved in the Galatian churches and
those noticed in the epistles to the Colossians and Timothy. The
latter are treated much more mildly, and we readily perceive that
they must have been much less developed and less subversive of the
Christian system. They are expressly called (1 Tim. 6:20) a false
gnosis,
and were characterized by empty sounds without sense and subtle
oppositions to the truth, a depreciation of the body, and a
worship of angels (Col. 2:18, 23), and interminable genealogies
and myths (1 Tim. 1:4). These seem more akin to Jewish than to
heathen speculations, and imply not the completed Gnosticism of
the second century, but the manifest germs of Docetic emanations
and Gnostic dualism."(7)
It is easy to see how such forces at work within the early Church
were like leaven that needed an incubation period before it
"leavened the whole." While the leaven was rising, it
induced a power struggle among the bishops, some for truth and some
for error and, more often than not, a struggle for preeminence and
power. To secure these, one needed some platform that played well
and would seduce the largest numbers. Later, the seduction was
directed toward the Emperor Constantine, for the imperial power
would make or break the bishops. Those who contended for the faith
"once delivered unto the saints" became merely voices
crying in the wilderness (Jude 3).
To believe that most Church leaders were the great preservers of
the "faith once delivered to the saints" is to believe the
unbelievable. The Great Wall of China was built to keep out invading
enemy forces. However, the wall was breached three times within the
first century of its construction—in each instance from within.
Once we leave the Apostolic Era and the Word of God, it becomes
stormy and treacherous.
What John Was Confronting
The Apostle John, in his Gospel, was filling in details left out
in other Gospel accounts as well as lightly addressing some subtle
errors of that era. In John 1:1-18, we find John refuting gnostic
heresies. He shows that Jesus was a spirit who was "with
God" and who subsequently became flesh. He says,
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth" (vs. 14). This is a plain statement of
fact. Jesus was "made flesh." He did not possess another’s
body or form, but he was, in fact, "flesh." Neither was he
a mixture of natures—spirit and flesh. He was "flesh."
Peter confirms this truth, saying, "Being put to death indeed
in flesh, but made alive in spirit" (1 Pet. 3:18, Rotherham).
The gnostic teaching that Christ was a composite of spirit and flesh
did finally emerge. But the Bible is quite clear that Jesus was made
"flesh." It does not say he assumed a fleshly body and
then left it. He died on the cross and was raised from the dead by
God on the third day (Matt. 28:7; Acts 2:31, 32).
John 1:18 reads, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten son [some authorities read God], which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared him." Men did see Jesus. No man
has ever seen God, nor can they and live. Jesus, then, is the
revealer of God, the one through whom we may know the Father.
What did John mean when he said: "Whosoever transgresseth,
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that
abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the
Son" (2 John 9)? Why didn’t he add: "hath the Father and
the Son and the holy Spirit"? Obviously, John was not dealing
with any part of the Trinity when he wrote these words. He was
meeting the errors of Cerinthus and gnosticism, which were beginning
to surface in that very early era when the Apostles still lived. He
was endeavoring to prevent Cerinthus and his deceived followers from
bewitching the Church with their Satan-inspired, beguiling errors.
The battle did not cease after the Apostles fell asleep. The
Church of God became infested with philosophy, gnostic dualisms,
docetic emanations, etc. The stage was being set for the dualism of
God and Christ to be fused into one substance, composed of spirit
and flesh simultaneously. Because these earliest errors had to do
with the nature of Jesus Christ in human flesh and his relationship
to God, it became increasingly difficult to separate fact from
fancy. A thick cloud of confusion settled upon Christians. As a
result, theologians left the simplicity of the unitarian God of the
first century and fused Jesus and God into one Being in the fourth
century.
At last in the fifth century, the Trinity was born even while the
Christian Church began its descent toward the Dark Ages. If at least
we could see the Church moving toward more brotherly love and
kindness after the Trinity concept took root, we could sense that
something good had emerged. But such was not the case. The picture
that emerges is of a Church steeped in worldliness, pomp and
ceremony, leaving the purity and simplicity of its early faith far
behind. Even worse are centuries filled with bloodletting and
ruthlessness that followed, with the Church bent on world conquest.
All contrary religious thought was stifled as the Church grasped for
total world-control.
Hellenistic Influences in the
Church
Hans Kung writes:
"If we take the New Testament as a criterion, we cannot
deny that the Council of Nicaea certainly maintained the New
Testament message and did not Hellenize it totally. But it is
equally beyond dispute that the council remained utterly
imprisoned in Hellenistic concepts, notions and thought-models
which would have been completely alien to the Jew Jesus of
Nazareth and the earliest community. Here in particular the shift
from the Jewish Christian apocalyptic paradigm [beliefs, values,
techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community]
to the early church Hellenistic paradigm had a massive
effect."(8)
There is little doubt that after the Hellenization of the Church,
it would have been unrecognizable to early Jewish Christians.
When the Church became Hellenized, it became a tool for
Constantine. Hans Kung says:
"He not only convened the ecumenical council but directed
it through a bishop whom he had commissioned, with the assistance
of imperial commissioners; he adjourned it and concluded it; by
his decision the resolutions of the council became imperial laws.
Constantine used this first council not least to adapt the church
organization to the state organization. . . . It was now clear to
Constantine, the political strategist, that the imperial church
needed more than just the more or less varied confessions of faith
of the individual local or provincial churches. It needed a
uniform ‘ecumenical creed,’ and this was to be the church law
and imperial law for all the churches. He believed that only in
this way could he ensure the unity of the empire under the slogan
‘one God—one emperor—one kingdom—one church—one faith.’"(9)
While Constantine was using the Church for his own political
agenda, it must be remembered that, although confessing to be a
Christian, he was actually a ruthless opportunist. He still presided
at all pagan festivities, commissioned many of the new Churches to
be adorned with pagan artwork, and was responsible for murdering
members of his own family. In 326 A.D., long after his
"conversion," he had his wife, Fausta, and his eldest son,
Crispus, put to death. When convinced that his own death was near,
he received baptism from Eusebius of Nicomedia, in 337 A.D. He had
delayed baptism to the end, since he felt he could not avoid
committing "mortal" sin during his lifetime, and such sin
after baptism was considered to be unforgivable.10 This was the man
who forced his will upon the Nicene Council, dictated the wording of
its creed, and thereby directed the doctrinal course of the Church
for centuries to come. But is this the kind of man to whom we should
be entrusting our most sacred beliefs?
Hans Kung makes another observation:
"Nor did Paul want to replace Jewish belief in one God
with a Christian belief in two Gods. Rather, he always regarded
the Jesus who had been exalted by God’s spirit to God as
subordinate to this one God and Father: as the Messiah, Christ,
image, Son, of the one God. So his christocentricity remains
grounded in and culminates in a theocentricity: ‘from God
through Jesus Christ’—‘through Jesus Christ to God.’ To
this degree Paul’s christology is directly compatible with
Jewish monotheism."(11)
We realize, too, that Paul was not opposed by his Judaizing
Jewish brethren because of his presentations of God. It was his
opposition to bringing Gentile Christians under bondage to the Law
arrangement that incurred their ire.
We quote again from Hans Kung:
"We should note that whereas the Council of Nicaea in 325
spoke of a single substance or hypostasis in God, the starting
point in the 381 Council of Constantinople was three hypostases:
Father, Son and Spirit. There has been much discussion in the
history of dogma as to whether the transition from a
one-hypostasis theology to a three-hypostasis theology is only a
terminological change or—more probably (as the temporary schism
in Antioch between old and new orthodox shows)—also involved an
actual change in the conceptual model. At all events it is certain
that we can speak of a dogma of the Trinity only after the Second
Ecumenical Council in Constantinople."(12)
There is little doubt when Trinity became a Church dogma. For
those willing to accept the Council of Constantinople as the basis
of their faith, we wish them well, but our conviction is that
Christians should be free to believe only what was taught by the
Apostles.
Trinity a Recognized Stumbling
Block
When the Church united with the Roman powers, it seemed certain
that the conquest of the world lay before it. Rome was the leading
power of the world, and the Church was able to march under two
banners—Christ and Rome. It was seemingly invincible. Why did it
fail? Hans Kung says:
"A main cause of the failure of Christianity seems to have
lain in the inadequate foundation of the dogmas of christology and
the Trinity. The Catholic theologian Hermann Stieglecker, who
gives an admirable account of the theological controversies
between Christians and Muslims in his book on The Doctrines of
Islam, rightly regards this lack as one of the most serious causes
of the collapse of Christianity, particularly in its homelands, in
the Near East and North Africa. It was in fact simpler to believe
in the One God and Muhammad, the Prophet after Jesus. In addition,
however, there were also the lamentable internal divisions within
Christianity."(13)
Christianity was born in the Middle East, and for the churches to
have lost that whole area is most painful to them. While a few
churches are now tolerated there, what hope is there in regaining
what the Muslims have taken? The Trinity, which seemed a popular
route to take in conquest of the world, has turned out instead to be
a great impediment. That is why Hans Kung and a host of men like him
are trying to break out from this "incomprehensible"
Trinity concept. No matter how it is explained, no matter how it is
qualified, no matter how it is propped up, its inherent weakness
remains—it is unreasonable and consequently incomprehensible.
An Overview of the
Controversies
Concerning Christ
Let no one come away thinking that only two views of Christ have
existed. The controversies were many. We quote from Christian
History:(14)
Those Believing Jesus Was
Either Divine or
Human
"Docetists, e.g., Gnostics: The divine Christ would
never stoop to touch flesh, which is evil. Jesus only seemed (dokeo,
in Greek) human and only appeared to die, for God cannot die. Or,
in other versions, "Christ" left "Jesus"
before the Crucifixion.
"Apollinarians: Jesus is not equally human and
divine but one person with one nature. In Jesus’ human flesh
resided a divine mind and will (he didn’t have a human mind or
spirit), and his divinity controlled or sanctified his humanity.
"Modalists, a.k.a. Sabellians: God’s names
(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) change with his roles or ‘modes of
being’ (like a chameleon). When God is the Son, he is not the
Father. There is no pemanent distinction between the three ‘persons’
of the Trinity, otherwise you have three gods."
Those Believing Christ May Be Special,
But Not
Divine
"Ebionites: For these conservative Jewish
Christians, God is one, and Jesus must be understood in Old
Testament categories. Jesus was merely a specially blessed
prophet.
"Adoptionists, a.k.a., dynamic monarchianists: No
denying Jesus was special, but what happened is this: at birth
(not conception) or baptism, God ‘adopted’ the human Jesus as
his special son and gave him an extra measure of divine power (dynamis,
in Greek)."
Arians: The Son as Word, Logos, was created by God
before time. He is not eternal or perfect like God, though he was
God’s agent in creating everything else."
Every inquirer for truth should know how widespread, divisive and
confusing these controversies were before the Trinitarians were able
to crush the opposition, taking over schools of learning much as
evolutionists have done in our day. The law at work here might be
likened to that of the Wild West, where the man with the fastest
draw became the established authority. History records that the
Church "was racked by feuding, recriminations, and downright
treachery. . . . Bishops turned against one another, often mounting
intricate intrigues to promote their theological viewpoints. To win
the day, or just to survive, churchmen needed both a theologian’s
wisdom and a politician’s savvy."(15)
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and called a saint by his
followers, is an outstanding example of a Trinitarian leader noted
for his strong stand against Arianism. But consider the kind of man
he was—ruthlessly and tenaciously opposing Arius, the kindly,
intelligent and popular presbyter in Alexandria, who courageously
defended the early Church view of Jesus as the only begotten Son of
God. Athanasius, in contrast, staunchly upheld the Nicene Creed,
"was incapable of compromise, and believed that anyone who
disagreed with him was not only wrong but also evil." He was
harsh and acrimonious in manner and was known for being
"autocratic in his dealings with dissenters in his
church." He was variously accused of employing black magic,
attempting to levy improper taxes for priestly vestures, and even of
rape and murder. Called before a full ecclesiastical council at Tyre
in 335, just ten years after Nicea, he was deposed as bishop and
thereafter was exiled no less than five times. Yet, despite all
this, he is considered one of the Fathers of the Church—solely
because of upholding the "faith of Nicea."(16)
It is also common knowledge that the victor in the kind of strife
that occurred here is the one who controls the history of the
period. The evidence for the opposing view is methodically squelched
or distorted. In this instance, an effort was made to give the
impression that Trinity was the accepted Christian belief from the
very beginning of the Church, rather than the labored product of
centuries of theological squabble and fusion with pagan beliefs.
In retrospect, it seems odd that the one view which seems least
understandable, and the least logical, would be the one that claims
orthodoxy today. And yet we must not allow ourselves to be
overwhelmed by what the Apostle Paul termed "the godless
chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge
[Greek, GNOSIS], for by professing it, some have missed the mark as
regards the faith" (1 Tim. 6:20, 21, RSV). What a hollow
victory for Trinity to have carried the day with such an
incomprehensible and mysterious teaching.
Finally, when we turn to artwork, we find that artists created
other heresies when they tried to illustrate the doctrine of the
Trinity. Medieval art depicted God with three faces and one body,
which really is modalism, which denies differences between the
Father, Son and holy Spirit. Another medieval Hungarian portrait
showed God on a throne with the holy Spirit as a dove resting upon
Jesus, who is portrayed as a man. This shows God as three separate
beings. Alas, nothing seems able to describe this mystery
adequately, even in artwork! Yet Jesus confidently taught us,
"Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of
God" (Mark 4:11). And the Apostle Paul said, "We speak the
wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God
ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes
of this world knew . . . but God hath revealed . . . unto us by his
Spirit" (1 Cor. 2:7-10).
Endnotes
Chapter V
1. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and
Ecclesiastical Literature, McClintock and Strong, Vol. IV,
"John," p. 949.
2. Ibid., "John, First Epistle," Vol. IV, pp. 951-2.
3. Ibid., "Cerinthus," Vol. II, p. 191.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., "Docetae," Vol. II, p. 844-5.
6. Ibid., "Gnosticism," Vol. III, p. 891.
7. Ibid., p. 893.
8. Christianity: Essence, History and Future, Hans Kung, p.
182.
9. Ibid., pp. 180-1.
10. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, pp. 231, 233,
236.
11. Christianity: Essence, History and Future, p. 113.
12. Ibid., p. 187.
13. Ibid., p. 343.
14. Christian History, Robert Payne, "A Hammer Struck at
Heresy," Issue 51 (Vol. XV, No. 3),1996, pp. 20-21.
15. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, p. 225.
16. Ibid., pp. 225-6.
