Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-14-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

The council of Nicaea at first resulted in Arianism as the official Christianity.
Arianism did not include the Trinity.
The Trinity was a post-Nicaean development .
The Trinity became official as a result of Ambrose's efforts. Hence an important bit of what we now know as Catholicism (and much of Protestantism), the Trinity, became official not at Nicaea but 50 years later.
A question: did the idea of the Trinity only come into existence after Nicaea, or does it have earlier roots?

Any comments?

Three points:

1) The Arian controversy started with Arius, and the words of Arius.
Start with the words of Arius, What were they? They are the
words that were written into the Nicaean "Oath" as a disclaimer
clause "But for those who say ..."

The ecclesiatical histories refer to "the words of Arius", and some
of them actually report that Constantine "called the Council of
Nicaea on account of the words of Arius".

One needs to separate the words of Arius out first.

Of course, mainstream likes to think of "Arianism" as a theological
doctrine, and be consistent to some form of philosophy. If this
is the case, make sure that the philosophy reflects the words
of Arius, and not the other way round. (Because we can be
reasonably sure that the words of Arius have been preserved,
but his philosophy was calumnified).

In fact, in all likelihood, the "Porphyrian" Arius was a neopythagorean
philosopher, probably trained in logic and renown to be "clever
in disputation".

2) Check out what Sir Isaac Newton writes about the trinity
(does not appear until after Nicaea) and the character of
the "biship" Athanasius (the bishop staged in opposition to Arius).

3) If you want a good laugh, read the history of (I think)
Socrates who has the "Arian controversy" actually commencing
one fine sunny Sunday afternoon in downtown Alexandria,
while some bishop is attempting to explain the esoteric meaning
of the trinity. (If you cant find this let me know, I dont have
the ref handy right now)

gstafleu · 02-15-2007, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Nicea took an anti-Arian position, and became the rallying point for the anti-Arian branch of the church.

According to Jones this indeed "oficially" the case, although in fact the Arians seem to have gained the upper hand in that they baptized Constantine. Now Roger said regarding Arian-ness of Emperors: "The emperors are Constantine (no); Constantius II (yes); Julian (N/A); Valentinian (not really) and Valens (yes)." So of the 4 emperors after Constantine, two were Arian, Valentinian sort-of-maybe (I'm not quite sure what Roger means with "not really," and Julian wasn't even a Christian so he stands outside the whole equation. According to Jones Constantine was baptized by the Arians, which gives him at least some Arianness. All this would tend to indicate that Arianism came out stronger from Nicaea than your statement indicates.

Quote:

Other councils did take positions that were more pro-Arian, but since there was a mix of pro and anti councils I don't think it's fair to claim that Arianism was "official" at any time.

Perhaps it is fair to say that until, well roughly Theodosius I suppose, there was no unambiguous victor? Although the Emperor list above suggests an advantage for Arianism during the "interregnum."

Now you also said:

Quote:

This creed [the current "Nicene creed"] is actually the one approved at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. The creed of the Council of Nicea is different, and even less Trinitarian, but it is certainly not Arian.

Given Jones' statement about Catholicism's "official" victory, I wouldn't expect otherwise. My focus though was on the rise of Trinitarianism:

Quote:

I don't think it's right to say that Arians were non-Trinitarian. The question was the relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not their divinity. There was a group called the "spirit-fighters", led by Eustathius, who denied the the divinity of the Spirit, but they were within the anti-Arian segment of the church.

The problem here is the strange concept of the Trinity. To throw in some historical context, it was not unusual for gods to manifest themselves in various forms. Zeus for example took the form of a bull in the Europa myth. This did not lead the Romans to posit a Holy Duality for Zeus. Nor a Holy N-ality for that matter, as Zeus took lots of other shapes, as did the other gods. In the myth of the birth of Dionysus Zeus takes on human form to seduce Semele. Hera finds out and takes the form of an old crone in order to meddle. None of this prompted any N-alities. So why Christianity thought the Trinity necessary is not quite clear to me--maybe I should read that Tertullian reference Roger provided and see if that helps.

Given that the Trinity concept as usually presented is quite illogical, and given that gods taking on various forms was quite normal, I wonder if the only way to figure out if people were Trinitarian or not is to look and see if the used the actual word. Now I don't think Arians said "we believe in the Trinity" so in that sense they weren't Trinitarian. Plus they seemed to have thought Jesus was subordinate to God because he was begotten ("there was a time when he was not," as Pete is fond to quote). This leads me to believe that it is reasonable to describe the Arians as non-Trinitarian.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 02-15-2007, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

hmmm, like everything else it gets more complicated the more you dig.

Yup, but we should still keep trying to see the forest through the trees though

.

Quote:

Gerard, I wasn't criticising, honestly just asking if there was some kind of concensus.

No problem, I didn't take it adversarially.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 02-15-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If you want a good laugh, read the history of (I think)
Socrates who has the "Arian controversy" actually commencing
one fine sunny Sunday afternoon in downtown Alexandria,
while some bishop is attempting to explain the esoteric meaning
of the trinity.

I think I found it. The following is from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Cou...s/socrhe3.html. I edited it slightly in that I inserted paragraphs--the original was presented in a difficult to read stream-of-consciousness format.

Quote:

AS soon as Eusebius reached Alexandria, he in concert with Athanasius immediately convoked a Synod. The bishops assembled on this occasion out of various cities, took into consideration many subjects of the utmost importance. They asserted the divinity of the Holy Spirit and comprehended him in the consubstantial Trinity: they also declared that the Word in being made man, assumed not only flesh, but also a soul, in accordance with the views of the early ecclesiastics.

For they did not introduce any new doctrine of their own devising into the church, but contented themselves with recording their sanction of those points which ecclesiastical tradition has insisted on from the beginning, and wise Christians have demonstratively taught. Such sentiments the ancient fathers have uniformly maintained in all their controversial writings. Irenaeus, Clemens, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Serapion who presided over the church at Antioch, assure us in their several works, that it was the generally received opinion that Christ in his incarnation was endowed with a soul. Moreover, the Synod convened on account of Beryllus bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia, recognized the same doctrine in their letter to that prelate.

Origen also everywhere in his extant works accepts that the Incarnate God took on himself a human soul. But he more particularly explains this mystery in the ninth volume of his Comments upon Genesis, where he shows that Adam and Eve were types of Christ and the church. That holy man Pamphilus, and Eusebius who was surnamed after him, are trustworthy witnesses on this subject: both these witnesses in their joint life of Origen, and admirable defense of him in answer to such as were prejudiced against him, prove that he was not the first who made this declaration, but that in doing so he was the mere expositor of the mystical tradition of the church.

Those who assisted at the Alexandrian Council examined also with great minuteness the question concerning 'Essence' or 'Substance,' and 'Existence,' 'Subsistence,' or 'Personality.' For Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain, who has been before referred to as having been sent by the Emperor Constantine to allay the excitement which Arius had caused, originated the controversy about these terms in his earnestness to overthrow the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan. In the council of Nicaea, however, which was held soon after, this dispute was not agitated; but in consequence of the contention about it which subsequently arose, the matter was freely discussed at Alexandria.

It was there determined that such expressions as ousia and hypostasis ought not to be used in reference to God: for they argued that the word ousia is nowhere employed in the sacred Scriptures; and that the apostle has misapplied the term hypostasis owing to an inevitable necessity arising from the nature of the doctrine. They nevertheless decided that in refutation of the Sabellian error these terms were admissible, in default of more appropriate language, lest it should be supposed that one thing was indicated by a threefold designation; whereas we ought rather to believe that each of those named in the Trinity is God in his own proper person. Such were the decisions of this Synod.

If we may express our own judgment concerning substance and personality, it appears to us that the Greek philosophers have given us various definitions of ousia, but have not taken the slightest notice of hypostasis. Irenaenus the grammarian indeed, in his Alphabetical [Lexicon entitled] Atticistes, even declares it to be a barbarous term; for it is not to be found in any of the ancients, except occasionally in a sense quite different from that which is attached to it in the present day. Thus Sophocles, in his tragedy entitled Phoenix, uses it to signify 'treachery': in Menander it implies 'sauces'; as if one should call the 'sediment' at the bottom of a hogshead of wine hypostasis.

But although the ancient philosophical writers scarcely noticed this word, the more modern ones have frequently used it instead of ousia. This term, as we before observed, has been variously defined: but can that which is capable of being circumscribed by a definition be applicable to God who is incomprehensible? Evagrius in his Monachicus, cautions us against rash and inconsiderate language in reference to God; forbidding all attempt to define the divinity, inasmuch as it is wholly simple in its nature: 'for,' says he, 'definition belongs only to things which are compound.' The same author further adds, 'Every proposition has either a "genus" which is predicted, or a "species," or a "differentia," or a "proprium," or an "accidens," or that which is compounded of these: but none of these can be supposed to exist in the sacred Trinity. Let then what is inexplicable be adored in silence.' Such is the reasoning of Evagrius, of whom we shall again speak hereafter. We have indeed made a digression here, but such as will tend to illustrate the subject under consideration.

Right! First "ousia" and "hypostasis". As I understand from this Wikipedia aricle, "ousia" is the general idea of a thing (e.g. the idea of "a car") while hypostasis is an actual instance of it (e.g. "my car"). I'm sure this does not cover all the niceties, but in order to avoid joining the Angels' dancing party this may perhaps do. (BTW, it looks as if Wikipedia has flipped the meanings in their second paragraph).

Anyway, our noble purpose of not joining the dancing party probably fails immediately upon reading this little tidbit. I have bolded the bit where I think the Trinity is "defined." I suspect the idea is something like that God as ousia (which sort of goes back to the Platonic ideal) is only one entity. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost where hypostases of this one entity. This of course doesn't really help. If the bull in the Europa story was a hypostasis (instance) of the ousia (being) Zeus, that was simply seen as Zeus taking on that form, no Duality needed.

Note BTW the interesting bit of obfuscation going on in the last paragraph. It essentially says that you can't say anything about God, so you shouldn't try--Wittgenstein avant la lettre! Of course the whole Trinity debate then goes on to ignore this bit of advice, while making handy use of it in pointing out that if you can't say anything about God you cannot disprove my idea of him either, a nice (if not Nicaean) twist.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 02-15-2007, 09:15 AM

I have had a look at Tertullian's Adversus Praxian, as suggested by Roger. You can find its page here, and Evan's translation here. Roger has kindly provided a summary of the chapters, which I enthusiastically used to focus in on my target.

Chapter 3 deals with the Trinity, and there is no doubt that it is defined here, to the extent that it can be defined that is. Here is how he describes the Trinity, contrasting it to the view of the bad guys:

Quote:

They [the bad guys] claim that the plurality and ordinance of trinity is a division of unity - although a unity which derives from itself a trinity is not destroyed but administered by it.

I suspect that at the root of this is a mistake that persists to this day (Jake, are you reading this?): trying to use the concept of identity instead of relation.

Let me start with some remarks about another often seen confusion: the confusion between a class ot things and a particular instance of the class--I already mentioned this in my previous posting when talking about ousia and hypostasis. The two confusions are related.

As a programmer I have an advantage here, as the discipline of Object Oriented Programming makes this whole class-instance bit very explicit. If I for example write a program to keep track of books in a library, I define a class "Book" that has, say, a title and an author. If the librarian then wants to add a new book, I display a screen with a blank title and author box. The librarian fills in these fields ("Finnegan's Wake", "James Joyce"), clicks Save, and voila: a new instance of the class Book. The librarian can then repeat this ("Barbarians", "Terry Jones") and now we have two instances of Book. These share a similarity (they are both books) but are not identical (different titles and authors).

The librarian can even put in a second copy of Finnegan's wake. The two copies are still different instances (e.g. they have different shelf numbers), but are similar in that they have the same title and author and refer to the same "book", where "book" is not my class Book above, but "that thing that Joyce wrote." In some sense you can say the two copies are identical, in another sense they are different, it all depends how you define identity: is author and title enough, should we add the edition, or perhaps even shelf number--in which latter case we have indeed arrived at a unique physical entity.

For our purposes we should note another identity-difference issue here: although Finnegan's Wake is a "book" in the sense that it is an instance (hypostasis) of the general idea (ousia) of "book," there nevertheless is a difference between the instance and the general idea.

The Trinitarian position is probably slightly different from this, in that it claims the situation is more like these morphing toys you can buy for your kids: you start with a space ship, but after some pushing, twisting and hair-pulling-out you get a fighter robot. Both are two instances of the same toy, derived from it via the pulling and twisting. This is of course much like the Zeus-bull situation, and like Father-Sun-Holy Ghost. Now given my previous paragraph, I hope that it is clear that there is no unique way in which to determine if the two are "identical." In fact in this case it is pretty useless to do so. But we do know the exact relationship between the two instances/configurations/forms of the toy, so we do know exactly what happened. We should, in other words, not debate whether the space ship and the fighter robot are identical or not. Rather, we should be content by stating their relationship: both are derived from the same toy via pulling and twisting.

In Chapter 8 of Adversus Praxian we encounter a similar issue: the confusion between identity in the one hand and a parent-child relationship on the other hand. Tertullian mentions as examples:

Quote:

as a root brings forth the ground shoot, and a spring the river, and the sun its beam

To take the sunbeam, certainly the beam derives from the sun, and a particular beam would not exist without its sun--although if you wait long enough the beam can continue (if it hasn't hit anything) while the sun has died. That however does not mean that the beam is identical with the sun or, to put it another way that the beam is the sun. That is what Tertullian tries though:

Quote:

For who knows the things which be in God, except the Spirit who is in him? But the Word consists of spirit, and (so to speak) spirit is the body of the Word. Therefore the Word is always in the Father, as he says, I am in the Father: and always with God, as it is written, And the Word was with God: and never separate from the Father or other than the Father, because, I and the Father are one.

Again we see an attempt to force the concept of identity onto a situation that can only be described via a relation. And while Tertullian goes to the one extreme, he accuses Valentinus of going to the other extreme! You can see how this can result in endless discussions.

There is a point where Tertullian gets close to the correct view:

Quote:

Surely the scripture is not in such jeopardy that you have to come to its rescue by your quibbling to prevent it from appearing to be contrary to itself: it is correct both when it states that God is one only and when it reveals Father and Son as two, and it needs no help but its own.

Exactly: "it needs no help but its own." If only he had left it at this and had been content with describing the relation between God and Father/Son/Ghost, rather than try to impose identity on a situation where that doesn't work.

I think all this shows that it may not always be easy to figure out if someone subscribes to the Trinity or not. Hence my suggestion in the posting above that the only certain way to find out is to see if they use the actual word. The concept itself is inherently meaningless (in the sense of Russell's meaningless noise), and therefore it is rather difficult to determine if someone believes in it unless they use its actual name.

Gerard Stafleu

mountainman · 02-15-2007, 08:19 PM

Almost. Check this ...

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, BY SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS

Chapter V - The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.

After Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to.

He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery - the Unity of the Holy Trinity.

A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan,11 from love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he thought vigorously responded to what was said by the bishop.

`If,' said he, `the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance12 from nothing.'

etc ...

Chapter VI.

Division begins in the Church firm this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.

gstafleu · 02-16-2007, 08:50 AM

That is indeed a good laugh, thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Division begins in the Church firm this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.

I can see how that was Alexander's only recourse, logic and reasonable conviction at that point not being firmly at his side

.

Gerard Stafleu

mountainman · 02-17-2007, 11:54 PM

This is how I read the sequence of events.
Remember that Socrates is writing over 100 years
after the event of Nicaea. He was not even born
until c.380 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS

Chapter V - The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.

After Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to.

He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery - the Unity of the Holy Trinity.

This is a retrospective "romance" by Socrates, either made up and
fabricated by him, or hinted at by his editorial sponsors, at the time
he wrote, perhaps 439 CE, a century after the death of Constantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS

A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan,11 from love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he thought vigorously responded to what was said by the bishop.

`If,' said he, `the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance12 from nothing.'

It is intersting here to examine what Isaac Newton thought about
some of the issues relating to the "Arian controversy".

From here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEWTON

Newton on I John 5:7

Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament.

"When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed.

"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books.

"Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best." [1]

Newton on I Timothy 3:16

"In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy it never came into play....they that read "God manifested in the flesh" think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business."
"The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God." [1]

Newton also wrote a discussion on two other texts that Athanasius had attempted to corrupt. This work has not been preserved. He believed that not all the books of the Scriptures have the same authority.

Issac Newton was born in Lincolnshire in 1642 and educated at Cambridge. He was elected to the Royal Society in 1672, and was a member of the Gentleman's Club of Spalding. Newton became Warden of the Royal Mint in 1696, where he was instrumental in fixing the gold standard. Newton was elected President of the Royal Society in 1703. Sir Isaac Newton held unitarian views and was a follower of Arius.

Those who accept the mainstream postulate that the historiography
tendered between 312-324 CE, under the rising of Constantine to an
absolute military supremacy in the Roman empire, is integrous do so
at their own risk.

It is Eusebius who tenders Tertullion, and Lucian, and Origen, and
the entire "tribe of christian bishops". This is what Momigliano
writes about Tertullian:

My favourite quotation from Evans's notes on Tertullian
is about Adv. Marc. 2, 10, 3 :

‘That the animals of Gen.2: 18-20 were angels
is apparently a fancy of Tertullian's own’.

This is the sort of thing we need to know
in order to understand Tertullian.

If we suppose that the "Porphyrian" Arius was a neopythagorean
or neoplatonic "priest", the words of Arius make more sense.

Note the exclusion clause on the Nicean creed:

But those who say that
there was a time when he was not, and
before he was born he was not, and that
he was made out of nothing existing or who say that
God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance
or is subject to alteration or change,
the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

These are the words of Arius.

In his "Life of the Thrice Blessed Emperor" Eusebius
tells us further information, in real-time, as it were
rather than Socrates who writes a century after
the events.

Eusebius has Constantine stating the following in writing:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constantine

CHAPTER LXIX:
Origin of the Controversy between Alexander and Arius,
and that these Questions ought not to have been discussed.

"I UNDERSTAND, then, that the origin of the present controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, or rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on what ought never to have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound silence.

It's all a back-fill operation.

Constantine invented christianity 312-324 CE.
The words of Arius were directed against the
new god (of Constantine).

His words "there was a time when he was not" and
"he was made out of nothing existing" may be seen to
refer to "the fabrication of the Galilaeans".

However in 325, with absolute power over the empire,
Constantine implemented christianity by means of the
Nicaean Creed, carrying with it the disclaimer of Arius,
and 22 other sub-creeds involving the administrative
processes associated with the new and strange Roman
religious order.

Clivedurdle · 02-19-2007, 07:44 AM

May I strongly recommend everyone reads the arguments in Barbarian? If it is wrong here, all the related arguments about the goths et al are also wrong and the standard received view of history - goths destroy Rome etc - are correct.

Constantine as I understand it was Arian.

It is very easy to assume the "allied" view of history but it is not necessarily so.

It does look as if the formalisation of the Trinity is later under Ambrose. Barbarians does carefully reference this, and it was editorially checked by various professors of history.

mountainman · 02-19-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

May I strongly recommend everyone reads the arguments in Barbarian? If it is wrong here, all the related arguments about the goths et al are also wrong and the standard received view of history - goths destroy Rome etc - are correct.

Constantine as I understand it was Arian.

But what does it mean to be Arian?
What does it mean that the world groaned
to find itself Arian?

The words of Arius. Not some "philosophy"?
Was Constantine then a "porphyrian"?

Or - what does it actually mean "Constantine was Arian"?
WHat are we to understand by the term, "was Arian"?

Quote:

It is very easy to assume the "allied" view of history but it is not necessarily so.

What did Arius say? When? and WHy?

Quote:

It does look as if the formalisation of the Trinity is later under Ambrose. Barbarians does carefully reference this, and it was editorially checked by various professors of history.

That's right. It was a back-fill operation for doctrine pushed through
the nexus of Nicaea by means of absolute (military) power and the
proselyting will of the supreme imperial mafia thug, and eminent
christian theologian, Constantine.

Arius was the "Porphyrian" neo-pythagorean priest who had the
balls to face up to Constantine's new initiative, a new and strange
Roman religious order, by dogmatic assertion of a few words.

There was no philosophy or "ism" because IMO his simple words may
be interpreted to relate to the sudden appearance of "christianity"
in the dictatorship of Constantine:

There was a time when he was not (ie: before Constantine).
He was made out of nothing existent (ie: its a fabrication; fiction).

These are comments on the historicity of Jesus at the time
he was invented, published and politically implemented by
Constantine, the brutal murderer, brigand and irresponsible
ward.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-15-2007, 08:19 PM	#16
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Almost. Check this ... THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, BY SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS Chapter V - The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop. After Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to. He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery - the Unity of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan,11 from love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he thought vigorously responded to what was said by the bishop. `If,' said he, `the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance12 from nothing.' etc ... Chapter VI. Division begins in the Church firm this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.

02-19-2007, 07:44 AM	#19
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	May I strongly recommend everyone reads the arguments in Barbarian? If it is wrong here, all the related arguments about the goths et al are also wrong and the standard received view of history - goths destroy Rome etc - are correct. Constantine as I understand it was Arian. It is very easy to assume the "allied" view of history but it is not necessarily so. It does look as if the formalisation of the Trinity is later under Ambrose. Barbarians does carefully reference this, and it was editorially checked by various professors of history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.