Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 03-17-2013, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

When did the theological dispute about is the son equal to the father actually start?

Did not someone here say this was not an issue at Nicea?

If this is a later dispute - I thought the lovely bath reference is 380's - it looks like later disputes have been read back into thinking and actions of earlier players.

I have read that Constantine and several other emperors were Arian. What else distinguished this theology, also shared by the vandals and many many others. What did it mean to be Arian?

Are we looking at a far more syncretic world that was still basically Pagan to much later? Are xian claims of running stuff actually untrue? The main symbol of paganism in Rome was not destroyed until the 400's.

Maybe Arius is a later invention to create some structure to the newly written xian history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civedurdle

When did the theological dispute about is the son equal to the father actually start?

Apparently it started very early as a subordination question.

Origin,-- Philip Schaff says in History of the Christian Church, Volume II:Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325. Pg 345 f, -- He wavered between the homo-ousian, or orthodox, and the homoi-ousian or subordination theories, which afterwards came into sharp conflict with each other in the Arian controversy.

Origen distinguishes the essence of the Son from that of the Father; speaks of a difference of substance; and makes the Son decidedly inferior to the Father. This subordination of the Son formed a stepping-stone to Arianism, and some disciples of Origen, particularly Dionysius of Alexandria, decidedly approached that heresy.

Tertullian cannot escape the charge of subordination. He bluntly calls the Father the whole divine substance, and the Son a part.

The theory of subordination was early in the history of Christianity and it was a long protracted affair that eventually became known by the name of Arianism

Clivedurdle · 03-18-2013, 12:21 AM

And where did this obsession with a form of words and a precision of belief come from? Why does it matter how one pronounces shibboleth or is the son equal to the father?

"On The Precision of Magical Incantations!"

What has this to do with the price of chips? (Some authorities have fish...)

Huon · 03-18-2013, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And where did this obsession with a form of words and a precision of belief come from? Why does it matter how one pronounces shibboleth or is the son equal to the father?

"On The Precision of Magical Incantations!"

What has this to do with the price of chips? (Some authorities have fish...)

with the price of chips, nothing.
With a good job of bishop of Alexandria, Nicomedia, or later, Constantinople, it has very much to do

Iskander · 03-18-2013, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And where did this obsession with a form of words and a precision of belief come from? Why does it matter how one pronounces shibboleth or is the son equal to the father?

"On The Precision of Magical Incantations!"

What has this to do with the price of chips? (Some authorities have fish...)

People care about things like, which political party is in power, legislation, religion, environment...

Religion played a dominant role in the political and cultural life of communities. In Islamic countries religion still is the master of all. Political liberty in Europe was the outcome of the Lutheran revolution and presumably this forum exists because religion is considered an important subject.

Is Jesus less than a god? people die in Islamic countries if someone dares to politely suggest that Mohamed is less than a Prophet and not only will the one daring ‘blasphemer’ die, but a murderous riot will unleash the mob into indiscriminate killing, arson etc of communities which are also found guilty by ethnic or religious association.

Is Jesus less than god? Some people died in some world now happily hidden from us by the mist of time.

andrewcriddle · 03-18-2013, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Thank you Andrew

I am not yet at the point where I can say Arius didn't exist of course. I am just asking questions. But am I correct in assuming that the only mention of Arius in Eusebius comes in a work which is generally disputed to have been written by Eusebius (either that Eusebius did not fully write the work, that it was published after his death or written altogether by someone else)?

Hi Stephan

I think you are correct that Arius is only mentioned by name in the surviving works of Eusebius of Caesarea in the Life of Constantine. The Life of Constantine is generally accepted as having been revised/completed after Eusebius's death. However Arius is mentioned in what purports to be a letter by Constantine to the Egyptian church quoted in the Life of Constantine. Unless the letter is a forgery by Eusebius or his successor it provides evidence for a historical Arius.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 03-18-2013, 08:17 AM

Is this the letter you mean?

Quote:

I am informed that your present controversy originated thus. When you, Alexander, inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain inexplicable passage of the written Word, rather on a subject improper for discussion; and you, Arius, rashly gave expression to a view of the matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence. This dispute having thus been excited among you, communion has been denied; and the most holy people being rent into two factions, have departed from the harmony of the common body. Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant. And what counsel does he offer? It was neither prudent at first to agitate such a question, nor to reply to such a question when proposed: for the claim of no law demands the investigation of such subjects, but the idle useless talk of leisure occasions them. And even if they should exist for the sake of exercising our natural faculties, yet we ought to confine them to our own consideration, and not incautiously bring them forth in public assemblies, nor thoughtlessly confide them to the ears of everybody. Indeed how few are capable either of adequately expounding, or even accurately understanding the import of matters so vast and profound!

And even if any one should be considered able to satisfactorily accomplish this, how large a portion of the people would he succeed in convincing? Or who can grapple with the subtilties of such investigations without danger of lapsing into error? It becomes us therefore on such topics to check loquacity, lest either on account of the weakness of our nature we should be incompetent to explain the subject proposed; or the dull understanding of the audience should make them unable to apprehend clearly what is attempted to be taught: and in the case of one or the other of these failures, the people must be necessarily involved either in blasphemy or schism. Wherefore let an unguarded question, and an inconsiderate answer, on the part of each of you, procure equal forgiveness from one another. No cause of difference has been started by you bearing on any important precept contained in the Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection with the worship of God; but ye both hold one and the same judgment on these points, which is the Creed.145 Moreover, while you thus pertinaciously contend with one another about matters of small or scarcely the least importance, it is unsuitable for you to have charge of so many people of God, because you are divided in opinion:146 and not only is it unbecoming, but it is also believed to be altogether unlawful.

In order to remind you of your duty by an example of an inferior kind, I may say: you are well aware that even the philosophers themselves are united under one sect. Yet they often differ from each other on some parts of their theories: but although they may differ on the very highest branches of science, in order to maintain the unity of their body, they still agree to coalesce. Now, if this is done amongst them, how much more equitable will it be for you, who have been constituted ministers of the Most High God, to become unanimous with one another in such a religious profession. But let us examine with closer consideration, and deeper attention, what has been already stated. Is it right on account of insignificant and vain contentions between you about words, that brethren should be set in opposition against brethren; and that the honorable communion should be distracted by unhallowed dissension, through our striving with one another respecting things so unimportant, and by no means essential? These quarrels are vulgar and rather consistent with puerile thoughtlessness, than suitable to the intelligence of priests and prudent men. We should spontaneously turn aside from the temptations of the devil. The great God and Saviour of us all has extended to all the common light. Under his providence, allow me, his servant, to bring this effort of mine to a successful issue; that by my exhortation, ministry, and earnest admonition, I may lead you, his people, back to unity of communion.147 For since, as I have said, there is but one faith among you, and one sentiment respecting religion,148 and since the precept of the law,149 in all its parts, combines all in one purpose of soul, let not this diversity of opinion, which has excited dissension among you, by any means cause discord and schism, inasmuch as it does not affect the force of the law as a whole. Now, I say these things, not as compelling you all to see exactly alike on this very insignificant subject of controversy, whatever it may be; since the dignity150 of the communion may be preserved unaffected, and the same fellowship with all be retained, even though there should exist among you some dissimilarity of sentiment on unimportant matters. For, of course, we do not all desire the same thing in every respect; nor is there one unvarying nature, or standard of judgment in us. Therefore, in regard to divine providence, let there be one faith, one sentiment, and one covenant of the Godhead:151 but those minute investigations which ye enter into among yourselves with so much nicety, even if ye should not concur in one judgment in regard to them, should remain within the sphere of your own reflection, kept in the secret recesses of the mind. Let then an ineffable and select bond of general friendship, with faith in the truth, reverence for God, and a devout observance of his law, remain unshaken among you. Resume mutual friendship and grace; restore to the whole people their accustomed familiar embraces; and do ye yourselves, on the strength of having purified your own souls, again recognize one another. For friendship often becomes sweeter after the removal of animosity. Thus restore to me tranquil days, and nights free from care; that to me also some pleasure in the pure light may be preserved, and a cheerful serenity during the rest of my life: otherwise, I must necessarily groan, and be wholly suffused with tears; neither will the remaining period of my earthly existence be peacefully sustained. For while the people of God (I speak of my fellow-servants) are severed from one another by so unworthy and injurious a contest, how is it possible for me to maintain my usual equanimity? But in order that you may have some idea of my excessive grief on account of this unhappy difference, listen to what I am about to state. On my recent arrival at the city of Nicomedia, it was my intention immediately after to proceed into the East: but while I was hastening toward you, and had advanced a considerable distance on my way, intelligence of this affair altogether reversed my purpose, lest I should be obliged to see with my own eyes a condition of things such as I could scarcely bear the report of. Open to me therefore by your reconciliation henceforth, the way into the East, which ye have obstructed by your contentions against one another: and permit me speedily to behold both you and all the rest of the people rejoicing together; and to express my due thanks to the Divine Being, because of the general harmony and liberty of all parties, accompanied by the cordial utterance of your praise.

The letter could just as well read as a corrected admonishment of Alexander:

Quote:

I am informed that your present controversy originated thus. When you, Alexander, inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain inexplicable passage of the written Word, rather on a subject improper for discussion; and you rashly gave expression to a view of the matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence. This dispute having thus been excited among you, communion has been denied; and the most holy people being rent into two factions, have departed from the harmony of the common body. Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant. And what counsel does he offer? It was neither prudent at first to agitate such a question, nor to reply to such a question when proposed: for the claim of no law demands the investigation of such subjects, but the idle useless talk of leisure occasions them. And even if they should exist for the sake of exercising our natural faculties, yet we ought to confine them to our own consideration, and not incautiously bring them forth in public assemblies, nor thoughtlessly confide them to the ears of everybody. Indeed how few are capable either of adequately expounding, or even accurately understanding the import of matters so vast and profound!

And even if any one should be considered able to satisfactorily accomplish this, how large a portion of the people would he succeed in convincing? Or who can grapple with the subtilties of such investigations without danger of lapsing into error? It becomes us therefore on such topics to check loquacity, lest either on account of the weakness of our nature we should be incompetent to explain the subject proposed; or the dull understanding of the audience should make them unable to apprehend clearly what is attempted to be taught: and in the case of one or the other of these failures, the people must be necessarily involved either in blasphemy or schism. Wherefore let an unguarded question, and an inconsiderate answer, on the part of each of you, procure equal forgiveness from one another. No cause of difference has been started by you bearing on any important precept contained in the Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection with the worship of God; but ye both hold one and the same judgment on these points, which is the Creed.145 Moreover, while you thus pertinaciously contend with one another about matters of small or scarcely the least importance, it is unsuitable for you to have charge of so many people of God, because you are divided in opinion:146 and not only is it unbecoming, but it is also believed to be altogether unlawful.

In order to remind you of your duty by an example of an inferior kind, I may say: you are well aware that even the philosophers themselves are united under one sect. Yet they often differ from each other on some parts of their theories: but although they may differ on the very highest branches of science, in order to maintain the unity of their body, they still agree to coalesce. Now, if this is done amongst them, how much more equitable will it be for you, who have been constituted ministers of the Most High God, to become unanimous with one another in such a religious profession. But let us examine with closer consideration, and deeper attention, what has been already stated. Is it right on account of insignificant and vain contentions between you about words, that brethren should be set in opposition against brethren; and that the honorable communion should be distracted by unhallowed dissension, through our striving with one another respecting things so unimportant, and by no means essential? These quarrels are vulgar and rather consistent with puerile thoughtlessness, than suitable to the intelligence of priests and prudent men. We should spontaneously turn aside from the temptations of the devil. The great God and Saviour of us all has extended to all the common light. Under his providence, allow me, his servant, to bring this effort of mine to a successful issue; that by my exhortation, ministry, and earnest admonition, I may lead you, his people, back to unity of communion.147 For since, as I have said, there is but one faith among you, and one sentiment respecting religion,148 and since the precept of the law,149 in all its parts, combines all in one purpose of soul, let not this diversity of opinion, which has excited dissension among you, by any means cause discord and schism, inasmuch as it does not affect the force of the law as a whole. Now, I say these things, not as compelling you all to see exactly alike on this very insignificant subject of controversy, whatever it may be; since the dignity150 of the communion may be preserved unaffected, and the same fellowship with all be retained, even though there should exist among you some dissimilarity of sentiment on unimportant matters. For, of course, we do not all desire the same thing in every respect; nor is there one unvarying nature, or standard of judgment in us. Therefore, in regard to divine providence, let there be one faith, one sentiment, and one covenant of the Godhead:151 but those minute investigations which ye enter into among yourselves with so much nicety, even if ye should not concur in one judgment in regard to them, should remain within the sphere of your own reflection, kept in the secret recesses of the mind. Let then an ineffable and select bond of general friendship, with faith in the truth, reverence for God, and a devout observance of his law, remain unshaken among you. Resume mutual friendship and grace; restore to the whole people their accustomed familiar embraces; and do ye yourselves, on the strength of having purified your own souls, again recognize one another. For friendship often becomes sweeter after the removal of animosity. Thus restore to me tranquil days, and nights free from care; that to me also some pleasure in the pure light may be preserved, and a cheerful serenity during the rest of my life: otherwise, I must necessarily groan, and be wholly suffused with tears; neither will the remaining period of my earthly existence be peacefully sustained. For while the people of God (I speak of my fellow-servants) are severed from one another by so unworthy and injurious a contest, how is it possible for me to maintain my usual equanimity? But in order that you may have some idea of my excessive grief on account of this unhappy difference, listen to what I am about to state. On my recent arrival at the city of Nicomedia, it was my intention immediately after to proceed into the East: but while I was hastening toward you, and had advanced a considerable distance on my way, intelligence of this affair altogether reversed my purpose, lest I should be obliged to see with my own eyes a condition of things such as I could scarcely bear the report of. Open to me therefore by your reconciliation henceforth, the way into the East, which ye have obstructed by your contentions against one another: and permit me speedily to behold both you and all the rest of the people rejoicing together; and to express my due thanks to the Divine Being, because of the general harmony and liberty of all parties, accompanied by the cordial utterance of your praise.

Clivedurdle · 03-18-2013, 08:25 AM

Does the word you show if it is singular or plural?

stephan huller · 03-18-2013, 08:26 AM

it would apply to Alexander now

Chili · 03-18-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And where did this obsession with a form of words and a precision of belief come from? Why does it matter how one pronounces shibboleth or is the son equal to the father?

"On The Precision of Magical Incantations!"

What has this to do with the price of chips? (Some authorities have fish...)

People care about things like, which political party is in power, legislation, religion, environment...

Religion played a dominant role in the political and cultural life of communities. In Islamic countries religion still is the master of all. Political liberty in Europe was the outcome of the Lutheran revolution and presumably this forum exists because religion is considered an important subject.

Is Jesus less than a god? people die in Islamic countries if someone dares to politely suggest that Mohamed is less than a Prophet and not only will the one daring ‘blasphemer’ die, but a murderous riot will unleash the mob into indiscriminate killing, arson etc of communities which are also found guilty by ethnic or religious association.

Is Jesus less than god? Some people died in some world now happily hidden from us by the mist of time.

I think it is known as the iota argument wherein the iota is added to the word homo-ousious to add the son as equal to the father from where the HS flows. It is also known as the smallest Greek letter used to make the biggest change in human history.

It is based on [post resurrection material] Jn. 20:22 where he breathed on them and said: "Receive the holy spirit."

The added in 23: "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them, if you hold them bound, they are held bound," = politics.

Now an ousia is a form, or insigth, or eidolon that validates 'kinetic vision' as true in what we see, and can act upon with good results, like a surgeon maybe, or a scientist who we love to praise.

This so means that the left brain does have something to say, that in modern politics has placed the Senate more like banner above the house of Commons without final authority over them, as they are equal now, and must convene (or will just appoint another Senator one who will agree with us).

But notice, and crucial here is that when Jesus spoke these word he showed his wounds and said "as the father has send me, so I am sending you." This means that only those with the stigmata upon them shall have the right to speak (evangelize, and thus not every Tom, Dick and Harry with a salvation recipe of his own).

This is made known as fact in the difference between Matthew and Mark's "great commision" to preach and preach in the absence of this stagmatic evidence to identify them now as gibbling idiots with their ass on fire for the Lord, we so can say.

So now to the question: Is the son equal to the father? Yes he is, but only if the human mind has been transformed to see, of which the stigmata is evidence that also his senses have been pierced and so now is motivated for the love of life itself and must necessarily resign from politics, and instead, be it's servant and like a Senator to them (the mustard plant that Moses failed to be).

Then if Rome proclaims "Christ among us" -- as it must to prove the story true-- it must also be willing and able to cope with hell on earth that came crashing down as its own opposite to heaven on earth so that it will not set the whole world on fire for the Lord, as we see by those 'self proclaimed' evangelists for whom Jesus died on their behalf and actually fire is what they like to see, and will continue to point at his wounds in Rev. 13-13 (= one day too late to show that the HS flew the coop again), and they actually will claim their effort as a credit to them in rightousness by adding yet 'another name' to their list in the sigth of their God, and will be rewarded for it too.

We call those heretics in religion, and in politics they are called civil servants, who as servant should have nothing more to say, and like Martha stand in bewilderment of what the Senator has to say and should do as she or he is told and say no more. But I digress, sorry, but at least the danger here is that popular opinion can change a democracy into a tyranny with the Bill of Rights in place, if only by degree, sure, but is a danger that is real. :constern01:

To hyperbole this let me add that in Canada 'servants' are a majority these days and with the right to vote will go on strike to force, while in essence they are like Martha without a dream to live and became the nations maid in the Universal here, from which follows that 'the maid' is running 'the show' these days without a national dream to live -- except maybe as peace keepers to all and share the wealth with them, (and religiously will hand them a sandwich wrapped in a salvation message that they must swallow first = selective reasoning, don't you know, wherein the I comes first even by the evangelist we celebrate).

Homo-ousia means omniscient as being knowledge that was prior to life itself as God (or Bramha), who thus needs and identity to set apart mankind and that is through the son (genus or Brahman), obvioulsy, who so is fully one with God as made known by Thomas when Jesus showed him his wounds and he exclaimed: "My Lord and my God." (Thomas here was twin with Peter as the opposite in faith and doubt = set free in knowldge with no faith left in him and so Peter was defrocked on their next fishing trip when he could not catch a thing all night to prove that true).

For the Greeks this transition goes from hyletic in oblivion (human, Cave dweller or junior), to eiditic in seeing ousia (kinetic as seer of the eidolon as sophomore), to seeing telic in parousia (as man no longer human who we call Christ[ian] or senior), to syn-ousia (as crucified Christ Jesus as Senator), to sy-zen (raised to be Jesus Christ among us as the Universal in charge of the mythology itself, representing the fullness of the father here on earth throughout the ages, and hence 'infallible').

So it is necessarily true that the Son is equal with the father who can be no greater than the Son makes manifest, with the only difference that the Father is the future to unfold as the infinite wherein the Son makes eternity know to us temporal humans down below.

Notice also that Jn. 22:23 makes it political as the 'Saint Peter' now in the final cause, or 6th, wherein the 5th is the chair in place (to demonstrate we actualize our condition neologically), and now rightfully celebrate the everlasting 7th day to make Easter known in Christendom (wherein evening never followed in the everlasting day of John as shown by his father synthesis that is almost mathematical for him).

To recapitulate, Junior is 1, Sophomere is 2, Senior is 3, Full meal deal is 4th wherein the onoma (name), logos (account), eidolon (imago), and episteme (knowledge) are presented by the scientist as seen through the eidos that we call soul now as it was meant to be, i.e. seeing the horseness of a horse, to be encountered in the 5the by the Son united with the pragma (matter) itself in syn-ousia (still insight here), now as the Son wherein we no longer are to make manifest by the 6th in sy-zen so that the 7th day can be. Note that sy-zen no longer makes reference to seeing (ousia), but is in being as in I AM.

The upshot here is that the Father can be no greater than the Son as he is made known by the Son, but is with room to grow in Him, and hence Jesus said that we shall do greater things and for this the pyramid must be in place.

stephan huller · 03-18-2013, 01:29 PM

Aside from Chili's typical nonsensical fluff, I have found this conversation quite interesting and stimulating. It is one of the reasons I treasure this forum. FWIW I do not find any convincing evidence that Arius was prominent before the death of Constantine. This doesn't mean that he didn't 'exist' but IMO it allows for the possibility that in the age of Constantius the blame for the dispute in the Church in the fourth century was conveniently shifted away from Eusebius of Nicomedia (the official residence of the family of Constantine) and put around the neck of either an invented person or a convenient stooge named 'Arius' whose significance was exaggerated. I don't find a single letter other than Alexander's third epistle which convincingly speaks to the existence of Arius. I don't know what to do with that letter. But the silence of Eusebius is unusual. Moreover the suggestion by many ancient witnesses that Eusebius's Church History originally included the period of Arius is quite important too. Here is the third epistle again:

Quote:

Alexander, to the priests and deacons, Alexandria and Mareotis, being present to them present, brethren beloved in the Lord, sends greeting:

Although you have been forward to subscribe the letters that I sent to those about Arius, urging them to abjure their impiety, and to obey the wholesome and Catholic faith; and in this manner have shown your orthodox purpose, and your agreement in the doctrines of the Catholic Church; yet because I have also sent letters to all our fellow-ministers in every place with respect to the things which concern Arius and his companions; I have thought it necessary to call together you the clergy of the city, and to summon you also of Mareotis; especially since of your number Chares and Pistus, the priests; Sarapion, Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenaeus, the deacons, have gone over to the party of Arius, and have preferred to be deposed with them; that you may know what is now written, and that you should declare your consent in these matters, and give your suffrage for the deposition of those about Arius and Pistus. For it is fight that you should know what I have written, and that you should each one, as if he had written it himself retain it in his heart.

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

03-18-2013, 12:21 AM	#72
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	And where did this obsession with a form of words and a precision of belief come from? Why does it matter how one pronounces shibboleth or is the son equal to the father? "On The Precision of Magical Incantations!" What has this to do with the price of chips? (Some authorities have fish...)

03-18-2013, 08:25 AM	#77
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Does the word you show if it is singular or plural?

03-18-2013, 08:26 AM	#78
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	it would apply to Alexander now

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.