Mr. Eason reviewed this book and said "It is astonishing to hear an Episcopal Bishop regard the 'pillars of Jerusalem,' as Paul called those who knew Jesus and continued to worship in the temple as they waited for him, heretics, judaisers! "

This is simply not the case. Paul argued, successfully, that the Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism first and then to Christianity. The Judaisers that Paul complained about disagreed with not only Paul but with the Elders who met in Jerusalem as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles 21:19-25. They only required that the Gentiles refrain from eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols, from drinking blood, from eating meat from a strangled animal, and from sexual immorality. Following this decision by the leaders, they, still honoring Jewish practice, participated in a ritual cleansing and Temple sacrifice without any qualms. (Acts 21:26) There was no expectation that the Jews who believed in Jesus should suddenly abandon their Jewishness. There was only a decision that the Gentiles did not need to adopt Jewish practices in order to become beneficiaries of the Messiah Jesus.

The Emperor Constantine is a different subject. He very well have recognized the political and monetary benefit of recognizing Christianity and exploited it. It was a bold risk if it was done without any belief on his part. It may be offensive to think that Constantine was an insincere convert, but the recognition and legalization of Christianity ended the horrible persecutions and martyring of thousands of believers.

It is a testimony to the power of the orthodox message, that Christianity had spread to so large a percentage of the people of the known world even during so many years of brutal persecution.

There is no need for an alternate explanation of Jesus. It would obviously be cruel to substitute a cheap counterfeit for the real Jesus.

Most of the heresies of the early era of the Church were concerned with the nature and person of Christ Jesus. This book delves into the contraversies that surrounded the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils and the key theologians that proposed both hetero and orthodoxy. I know of no other book that so strongly points out the practical consequesnces of theology. Far from dry theoretical speculation, the heart of life's meaning and experience was at stake. Sound over dramatic? Read it for yourself and find out!

Other books of interest may include: "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils" by Leo Davis; "Fathers and Heretics" by Prestige; the works of Georges Florovsky; "INcarnation:Myth or Fact?" by Skarsaune; "Christology" by O'Collins. Enjoy!

If you are a parent who has ever watched the painful consequences of wrong thinking in your children, you will immediately recognize the value of this book. While this concisely written book is historically accurate and highly beneficial as an introductory work on ancient heresies, it is profoundly valuable for its actual intended purposes: (1) to highlight the fact that heretical opinions are cruel to those who hold them, and (2) to alert and warn the reader that ancient heresies have a way of reappearing in modern forms. If a reader keeps in mind these dual purposes, this book is extremely valuable. It is cogently written in a readable style and its tone is pastoral. Moreover, it is highly practical. It increases the apologist's arsenal with the information that wrong thinking about theology hurts people. Not only are there serious theological implications to holding heretical views, but such views will hurt you, and the last thing a modern Christian wants is discomfort and pain. So, this book is a timely reminder that we should beware of thinking wrongly about God.