[af_vet_1981]

So what is this presumed Nicolaus doing at Ephesus, anyway?

False;
The scripture does not say Nicolas/Nicolaus/Nikolaus was at Ephesus. Rather there were "them them that hold the doctrine of Balaam" and "them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans" at Pergamum, which the Messiah held against the angel of the church of Pergamum. The angel of the church of Ephesus was commended for hating "the deeds of the Nicolaitans."

Nicolaism refers to one or more groups of doctrines, apparently held by a group or groups founded by a Nicolaus, Nicolas, or Nikolaos (depending on exactly how you Anglicize the Greek name). There are a couple of these mentioned in the very early church, but it's unclear what exactly the content of the heresy is. You refer to "the practice of ruling over the laity", apparently with regard to the etymology of Nikolaos—Greek nikē "victory" + laos "people"; though if the name of the sect was taken from the name of its founder, rather than from a description of its doctrines, then this association fails and the sect should not necessarily be associated with "ruling over the laity".

The sect appears to be mentioned in Revelation 2:6,15:

you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. (v. 6)

you also have some people who hold to the teaching of [the] Nicolaitans. (v. 15)
(New American Bible)

but there is no description of what the works or teaching of the Nicolaitans is, nor why they should be hated.

In his edition of Irenaeus' Libros quinque adversus haereses (Five Books Against Heresies), W. Wigan Harvey states:

The Nicolaitans taught the complete indifference of human actions in a moral point of view. ... Another hateful feature of this heresy was the assertion, that in times of persecution, principle might be ignored, and conformity rendered to mysteries however abominable, and rites however impure.
Harvey makes clear his opinion (which he bases on writings of Clement of Alexandria) that this sect gets its name from Nicolas (Nicholas) of Antioch, one of the seven deacons described in Acts 6:

"Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
(Acts 6:3–5; NABRE)

If this is indeed the case, as I mentioned above, the name "Nicolaitans" should be associated not with "ruling over the laity" but simply with the (birth-)name "Nicolas".

There is no evidence that this group evolved into the modern Catholic Church; in fact, Eusebius states in his History of the Church that the sect "lasted for a very short time".

[imardmd1]

That's very creative, but:

you also have some people who hold to the teaching of [the] Nicolaitans. (v. 15)(New American Bible)

"Also" means "over and above" or "in addition to" and does not associate this additional doctrine with that antinomian one of Balaam, who taught adversaries to get the Israelites to sin against God.

but there is no description of what the works or teaching of the Nicolaitans is, nor why they should be hated.

Of course there is. It is right there in the word classifying the practice of the group. It is not the name of an Apostle-selected man of Godly disposition and life, never mentioned as being otherwise! You are simply repeating the same creation by the original priest-makers of a tale that directs the attention of their gullible followers away from the kind of organizational activity that Jesus hates: the effort to create a clergy class to psychologically and economically dominate those who have to earn a living to feed themselves and their children--who would become the "lay" class not encouraged to become spiritually mature enough to make and teach more disciples from their daily acquaintances, and thus preserving Jesus' Way of Life apart from interference of a clergy.

Why is it that you do not see that in appointing these deacons, The Apostles were NOT creating a class of priests, but of servants, of ministers, of stewards of the collection and distribution of necessary goods to the needy of Jerusalem.

My goodness! Though the Apostles were especially selected to inaugurate churches of Christ throughout Judea, and Samaria, even to the ends of the Earth, they were NOT to act as priests. They were NOT to even contemplate the humanistic kind of power-grabbing structure of inserting themselves as conduits through which one must go to get God's attention! They themselves were not, and never claimed to be priests! They knew that their Master hated the priests who were determined to kill Him! Though he permitted priests to influence the government to pin him to the Cross, His death showed how dastardly that kind of pernicious parasites the priesthood of Jewry was.

Is it not clear to you that the RCC and its stepdaughters Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist all copy this hated domineering structure of two-class religions? And solidifying its hegemony by placing its center of power outside of, and untouchable by the members of its local churches?

Standing right in the middle of it, you tell me it doesn't exist? And you expect me or any thinking person to agree with you?

I'm flabbergasted by your boldness in maintaining an obviously untenable hypocritical thesis about "Nicolaitans".

Nicolaitans are those who form two-class religious societies, support them, and are officers of them, IMO.

The true priest is every member of a local, independent, autonomous assembly of believers, that baptizes professing born-anew professsors of faith in Christ, observes the Remembrance Supper regularly, preaches and teaches strong Bible doctrine, and keeps its practices clean by Scriptural church discipline. Its pro-tem offices are those appointed by concensus of the brethren.

That is who the real priests are. No nicolaitan priests need apply.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Nicolaitanism rules almost the entire Christian faith today.

Scant few churches are free of nicolaitanism.

Eusebius was himself a super-nicolaitan.
.