The Nicolaitan Apostasy.
under construction....
according to the notes of the Scofield bible, by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, the origin of the word Nicolaitan quote:
" Nicolaitanes:
From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Mt 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Rev 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Rev 2:15.
Margin Nicolaitanes
Rev 2:15, contra, 1 Pet 5:2,3 Mt 24:49." unquote.
Thus this heresy involves contradicting the spirit of the directive of Christ in Matthew 23:8 "and ye are all brethren" by the false formation of a sect of bogus priests versus laity, a priesthood entirely alien to the true Christian faith, in which Christ is offered "once for all" for instance.
The study of the heresy of the heresy of the "Nicolaitans" raises an interesting question:
1) Repeating of spurious tales and speculations:
"Did early writers commit the same sin that the Venerable Bede did?" Making much of their writings of no particular consequence, and bringing us yet again back to the necessity to put the bible first. That is - the Venerable Bede hypothesized that the word Easter comes from the name of a goddess "Ēostre", however there has been no supporting historical evidence to say such a false goddess ever even existed.
2) Mistranslation:
When "quoting" early writers the text is translated usually from another language (the original one) and an archaic form of that language. Under such circumstances what you read is written through the "filter" of the person or persons doing the translation. When translating Justin Martyr about the breaking of bread, Catholics and Orthodox like to "quote" that he used the word "transmutation"...... but is that really true, or has it been deliberately warped to invent a way to back-up the blasphemy of the Orthodox and Catholic mass? Whether this example was mistranslated or not, when the original ms. is lost, and copies only remain, and the religious body in possession of the manuscript copies have a reason to change it, and a proven history of such forgery, why trust anything other than the Word of God?
3) Translation from translation:
4) Corrupted - thus lost forever:
5) Out of context with the thread:
6) Misinterpretation:
7) Where early writers even scholastic or theologically competent?
see wiki article: