Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 04-19-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

The Unitarians - those who did not believe that Jesus was God opposed the Trinitarians, those who believed that Jesus was God.

Sabellianism, also known as modalism, is a heresy which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, rather than three distinct persons. The heresy is attributed to Sabellius, who taught a form of this doctrine in Rome in the third century (201-300). Sabellius was excommunicated as a heretic by Pope Calixtus I in 220 CE.

I suppose (but I could be mistaken) that those what the quote calls Unitarians could be Sabellianists (modalists). Even in 220, and still less at the time of Nicaea-325, the discussion was never "Jesus is God" vs "Jesus is a man". "Jesus was a prophet" is the opinion of the Muslims.

This quote is misleading.

fatpie42 · 04-19-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Note also that the "official" church had time enough to screen the writings of Arius and suppress them.

Well, we have the text where Arius says that Jesus was begotten before the creation of the world. Doesn't sound terribly pagan to me. In fact, in seems quite close the the description in the first chapter of the gospel of John.

Thanks for the link

My main issue had been the opinion of Constantine. Did he support Arius or dismiss him? If he supported him and yet made horrific accusations against him, doesn't that suggest that his accusations were influenced by a political angle?

Doug Shaver · 04-19-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

For all X, if X is a statement about history and X is not disputed among professional historians, then X is not interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Always verify our theories with concrete examples.

E.g. X = collapse of bank in which all my money was.

Well, one can verify with examples or falsify with a counterexample. I believe you have done the latter. It would appear that I overstated my thesis.

andrewcriddle · 04-19-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

The Unitarians - those who did not believe that Jesus was God opposed the Trinitarians, those who believed that Jesus was God.

Sabellianism, also known as modalism, is a heresy which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, rather than three distinct persons. The heresy is attributed to Sabellius, who taught a form of this doctrine in Rome in the third century (201-300). Sabellius was excommunicated as a heretic by Pope Calixtus I in 220 CE.

I suppose (but I could be mistaken) that those what the quote calls Unitarians could be Sabellianists (modalists). Even in 220, and still less at the time of Nicaea-325, the discussion was never "Jesus is God" vs "Jesus is a man". "Jesus was a prophet" is the opinion of the Muslims.

This quote is misleading.

By Unitarians the quote means those (the Arians) who believed that Jesus was super-human and even super-angelic but not really genuinely God. Nicea sought to condemn this position.

There were bishops such as Marcellus of Ancyra whose views were (at least according to their opponents) Sabellian but they were strong supporters of the creed of the Council of Nicea.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 04-19-2009, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

My main issue had been the opinion of Constantine. Did he support Arius or dismiss him? If he supported him and yet made horrific accusations against him, doesn't that suggest that his accusations were influenced by a political angle?

Constantine IMO cared more about unity and harmony in the Christian Church than about precise doctrines.

His attitude to Arius seems to have wavered depending on whether he blamed Arius for putting forward unconventional ideas or blamed Arius' opponents for overreacting.

I'm afraid that saying things about your opponent that would not be allowed on this forum are standard in ancient debate. Constantine's denunciations of Arius show Constantine was, at the time, really annoyed with Arius but not necessarily much more.

Andrew Criddle

Von Bek · 04-19-2009, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Bek

I read the notes. In your own examples though, you do not assert that Ardashir fabricated Zoroastrianism out of whole cloth. He may have centralized the religion but it predated him, as your own notes say.

That is correct. We have archaeological corroboration
for the pre-existence of an earlier Zorastrian religion that
flourished in Parthian Persia. The same cannot be said with
the same degree of certaintly with respect to "christianity".

Ok, I seem to have misunderstood what exactly you were saying about Ardashir and Constantine. I thought you were accusing Ardashir of having invented Zoroastrianism, which is most certainly not the case.

Von Bek · 04-19-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It was too late. The temples had been largely destroyed.
The new architecture (basilicas) were well established.
Also Julian did not have the time: his rule was cut short.
Have you read "Julian" by Gore Vidal?

I have not read Julian by Vidal. I probably should as I enjoy reading him, even when I disagree with him. He is a great writer who is a master of the English language, but I digress. Thanks for the recommendation.

Huon · 04-19-2009, 10:31 AM

The death of Constantine :
http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm

Quote:

Shortly after Easter (3 April) 337 Constantine began to feel ill. He traveled to Drepanum, now named Helenopolis in honor of his mother, where he prayed at the tomb of his mother's favorite saint, the martyr Lucian. From there he proceeded to the suburbs of Nicomedia, and there he was baptized, as both Eusebius and Jerome report; but only Jerome adds another significant fact: the baptism was performed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia.

A few weeks later, on the day of Pentecost, 22 May, Constantine died at Nicomedia, still wearing the white robes of a Christian neophyte.

Who was the martyr Lucian ?

Lucian of Antioch :
Quote from Catholic Encyclopedia :

Quote:

A priest of the Church of Antioch who suffered martyrdom (7 January, 312), during the reign of Maximinus Daïa.
In the field of theology, in the minds of practically all writers (the most notable modern exception being Gwatkin, in his "Studies of Arianism", London, 1900), he has the unenviable reputation of being the real author of the opinions which afterwards found expression in the heresy of Arius. In his Christological system — a compromise between Modalism and Subordinationism — the Word, though Himself the Creator of all subsequent beings was a creature, though superior to all other created things by the wide gulf between Creator and creature. The great leaders in the Arian movement (Arius himself, Eusebius, the court bishop of Nicomedia, Maris, and Theognis) received their training under him and always venerated him as their master and the founder of their system.
Despite his heterodoxy, Lucian was a man of the most unexceptionable virtue (Eusebius, Church History VIII.13.2); at the height of the Arian controversy his fame for sanctity was not less than his reputation as a scholar. During the persecution of Maximinus Daïa he was arrested at Antioch and sent to Nicomedia, where he endured many tortures and, after delivering a long oration in defence of his faith, was finally put to death.

Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria :

Quote from Catholic Encyclopedia :

Quote:

An additional merit of this great man is that during his priesthood he passed through the bloody persecutions of Galerius, Maximinus, and others. It was while his predecessor Peter was in prison, waiting for martyrdom, that he and Achillas succeeded in reaching the pontiff, and interceded for the reinstatement of Arius, which Peter absolutely refused declaring that Arius was doomed to perdition. The refusal evidently had little effect, for when Achillas succeeded Peter in 303, Arius was made a priest; and when in turn Alexander came to the see (also 303), the heretic was still tolerated.

The reader can appreciate the respective merits of Lucian, dead for his faith, but founder of the Arian heresy, and Alexander of Alexandria, dead in his bed, partisan of Arius during some years, then changing his orientation...

mountainman · 04-19-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The death of Constantine :

Some early pagan reports suggest Constantine was poisoned
by his brothers on account of the savage death of Crispus.

Quote:

Lucian of Antioch :
Quote from Catholic Encyclopedia :

Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that the Suidas most likely conflated the history of Lucian with that of his famous namesake, Lucian of Samosata, the pagan satirist of the second century.

Quote:

Among the eighty-two pieces that have come down to us under the name of Lucian, there are not a few of which his authorship has been disputed. Certainly spurious are Halcyon, Nero, Philopatris, and Astrology; and to these, it seems to me, the Consonants at Law should be added. Furthermore. Deinostitenes, Gharidemus, Cynic, Love, Octogenarians, Hippias, Ungrammatical Man, Swiftfoot, amid the epigrams are generally considered spurious, and there are several others (Disowned and My Country in particular) which, to say the least, are of doubtful authenticity.

mountainman · 04-19-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

My main issue had been the opinion of Constantine. Did he support Arius or dismiss him? If he supported him and yet made horrific accusations against him, doesn't that suggest that his accusations were influenced by a political angle?

IMO Constantine wanted Arius dead.
He called him a "Gallows rogue".
Arius was "somewhere in Syria".
He had the support of the populace.
But Constantine finally got to him.
Arius was poisoned in the City of Constantine.

WHY?

Political reasons.
Arius resisted the state church.
He authored writings which pained Constantine's new church.
These writings were very popular.
But from Constantine's perspective they were seditious.
Nobody was supposed to write additional stories about the canon.
But someone was. (See the Letter: "Arius where are you Arius")
And it was embarrassing the Boss.
He was in control of the new testament canon.
But there were these "Other Books" appearing.
Oh My God! What audacity did Arius have?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.