Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 03:29 PM

No I just spent too much time trying to figure out what beautiful women were thinking. Now my old habit only lives on with this stuff

Chili · 02-02-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

This is getting to sound more and more like the writings of our friend Chili.

I take objection to that comment.

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 05:56 PM

Since interpreting symbolism isn't everyone's bag, I had better bring forward the heavy artillery:

Quote:

5. Now the commencement of Arius’s Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tune and nature, runs thus:— ‘According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones, Holy children, rightly dividing, God’s Holy Spirit receiving, Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom, accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things. Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions. I the very famous, the much suffering for God’s glory; and taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.’

And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these—‘God was not always a Father;’ but ‘once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.’ ‘The Son was not always;’ for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was ‘made out of nothing,’ and ‘once He was not,’ and ‘He was not before His origination,’ but He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ‘For God,’ he [Arius] says, ‘was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.’ Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. ‘For Wisdom,’ saith he, ‘by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.’ In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God’s own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar, is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the ‘great power.’ The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, ‘The Lord of hosts’ or ‘powers [Ps. xxiv. 10].’ And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For ‘therefore,’ saith he, ‘as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known, did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.’

6. Moreover he has dared to say, that ‘the Word is not the very God;’ ‘though He is called God, yet He is not very God,’ but ‘by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.’ And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is ‘the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father’s essence and propriety,’ but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil’s recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that ‘even to the Son the Father is invisible,’ and ‘the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father;’ but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees ‘in proportion to His own measure,’ as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension,[1] but ‘He knows not even His own essence;’—and that ‘the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien, and without participation of each other;’ and, in his own words, ‘utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.’ Thus as to ‘likeness of glory and essence,’ he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius’s fables as they occur in that jocose composition. [Athansius, Against the Arians 1.5 -6]

[1] Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6. κατάληψις was originally a Stoic word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of ἴδεαι, to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu. In this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture that none ‘knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him,’ if κατάληψις be an exact and complete knowledge of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine of the περιχώρησις, de Syn. 15, ἀνεπιμικτοί, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, ‘searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,’ so the Son, as being ‘in the bosom of the Father,’ alone ‘hath declared Him.’ vid. Clement. Strom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, ’If the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour.” Orat. iii. 44.

Now I need to dig up the original Greek to sort out the language, but I think everyone can begin to see (a) that Arianism was far more complex than is usually assumed and (b) that the Father's ousia/yesh (= Jesus) may well have been this other Word, separate from the Logos. I think it also gives a new spin on why one of the hypostases may have been called 'the stranger' (= alien from the Father)

Horatio Parker · 02-02-2012, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Since interpreting symbolism isn't everyone's bag, I had better bring forward the heavy artillery:

Quote:

5. Now the commencement of Arius’s Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tune and nature, runs thus:— ‘According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones, Holy children, rightly dividing, God’s Holy Spirit receiving, Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom, accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things. Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions. I the very famous, the much suffering for God’s glory; and taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.’

And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these—‘God was not always a Father;’ but ‘once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.’ ‘The Son was not always;’ for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was ‘made out of nothing,’ and ‘once He was not,’ and ‘He was not before His origination,’ but He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ‘For God,’ he [Arius] says, ‘was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.’ Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. ‘For Wisdom,’ saith he, ‘by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.’ In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God’s own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar, is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the ‘great power.’ The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, ‘The Lord of hosts’ or ‘powers [Ps. xxiv. 10].’ And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For ‘therefore,’ saith he, ‘as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known, did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.’

6. Moreover he has dared to say, that ‘the Word is not the very God;’ ‘though He is called God, yet He is not very God,’ but ‘by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.’ And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is ‘the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father’s essence and propriety,’ but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil’s recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that ‘even to the Son the Father is invisible,’ and ‘the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father;’ but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees ‘in proportion to His own measure,’ as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension,[1] but ‘He knows not even His own essence;’—and that ‘the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien, and without participation of each other;’ and, in his own words, ‘utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.’ Thus as to ‘likeness of glory and essence,’ he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius’s fables as they occur in that jocose composition. [Athansius, Against the Arians 1.5 -6]

[1] Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6. κατάληψις was originally a Stoic word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of ἴδεαι, to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu. In this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture that none ‘knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him,’ if κατάληψις be an exact and complete knowledge of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine of the περιχώρησις, de Syn. 15, ἀνεπιμικτοί, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, ‘searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,’ so the Son, as being ‘in the bosom of the Father,’ alone ‘hath declared Him.’ vid. Clement. Strom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, ’If the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour.” Orat. iii. 44.

Now I need to dig up the original Greek to sort out the language, but I think everyone can begin to see (a) that Arianism was far more complex than is usually assumed and (b) that the Father's ousia/yesh (= Jesus) may well have been this other Word, separate from the Logos. I think it also gives a new spin on why one of the hypostases may have been called 'the stranger' (= alien from the Father)

The Logos is also referred to the Thought in the Mind of God. Possibly Arius is referring to a time prior to Creation, before God thought of the Universe. No, thought, therefore no logos, no Son.

The stuff about Wisdom your guess is as good as mine. That's new to me.

About the Son not knowing the Father could have something to do with the nature of the One, that the One and the Son, being prior to Soul have no emotion, emotion being closer the realm of matter, and hence no self awareness. Plotinus, from the Three Primal Hypostases:

Quote:

By the power of the soul the manifold and diverse heavenly system is a unit: through soul this universe is a God: and the sun is a God because it is ensouled; so too the stars: and whatsoever we ourselves may be, it is all in virtue of soul; for “dead is viler than dung.”

Now if this is intended as self-knowledge or not is difficult to say. Soul moves; Mind and the One do not move. It's abstract stuff.

Anyway, your point A is no surprise, point B sure could be what do your sources say?

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 07:57 PM

The citation from Arius's Thalia is important because it is pretty much our only firsthand information about his tradition. The rest of the Orations are pretty much Athanasius's “spin”

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 08:11 PM

Here is a side by side English Greek reconstruction of the Thalia

http://www.fourthcentury.com/arius-thalia-greek/

Horatio Parker · 02-02-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Here is a side by side English Greek reconstruction of the Thalia

http://www.fourthcentury.com/arius-thalia-greek/

TArius gets more specific here:

Quote:

(2.) Our faith from our forefathers, which also we learned from you, Blessed Father, is this: We acknowledge One God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament; who begat an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages [Heb 1:2] and all that was made; who begot Him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature (ktisma) of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten; (3.) nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an emanation (probolē); nor as the Manicheans taught that the offspring was a one-in-essence-portion (meros homoousion) of the Father; nor as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-Father; nor as Hieracas speaks of one torch [lit] from another, or as a lamp divided into two; nor that he who existed before was later generated or created anew into a Son, as you yourself, O blessed father, have often condemned both in church services and in council meetings; but, as we say, he was created at the will of God, before time and before the ages, and came to life and being from the Father, and the glories which coexist in him are from the Father.

(4.) For when giving to him [the Son] the inheritance of all things [Heb 1:2], the Father did not deprive himself of what he has without beginning in himself; for he is the source of all things. Thus there are three subsisting realities (hypostaseis). And God, being the cause of all that happens, is absolutely alone without beginning; but the Son, begotten apart from time by the Father, and created (ktistheis) and founded before the ages, was not in existence before his generation, but was begotten apart from time before all things, and he alone came into existence (hypestē) from the Father. For he is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two unbegotten beginnings. But God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son, as we have learned also from your public preaching in the church.

Here he uses "hypostasis" for separate things. It's not Platonic, he's emphatic on the separateness and the priority of the Father.

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 09:13 PM

But you are citing Arius's enemy Alexander of Alexandria not Arius

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 11:56 PM

I find this line of the Thalia particularly useful for my argument:

Quote:

For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν),
For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father

I also find it particularly interesting that there is a triad WITHOUT referencing the concept of Holy Spirit - Father, Son and something else (= ousia?)

Quote:

So there is a Triad, not in equal glories.
Their beings are not mixed together among themselves.
As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other.
The Father in his essence is foreign to the Son (Ξένος τοῦ Υἱοῦ κατ’ οὐσίαν ὁ Πατήρ), because he exists without beginning.

And Athanasius provides us with some historical context for what the Arians meant by these words by his account of how the Nicene Creed was established:

Quote:

And they considered what is written in the Shepherd , 'Before all things believe that God is one, who created and set all things in order, and made them to exist out of nothing.' But the Bishops, beholding their craftiness, and the cunning of their impiety, expressed more plainly the sense of the words 'of God,' by writing that the Son is of the Essence of God, so that whereas the Creatures, since they do not exist of themselves without a cause, but have a beginning of their existence, are said to be 'of God,' the Son alone might be deemed proper to the Essence of the Father. For this is peculiar to one who is Only-begotten and true Word in relation to a Father, and this was the reason why the words 'of the essence' were adopted. Again , upon the bishops asking the dissembling minority if they agreed that the Son was not a Creature, but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, and the Eternal Image, in all respects exact, of the Father, and true God, Eusebius and his fellows were observed exchanging nods with one another, as much as to say 'this applies to us men also, for we too are called the image and glory of God 1 Corinthians 11:7, and of us it is said, For we which live are always , and there are many Powers, and all the power of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt, while the caterpillar and the locust are called His great power Joel 2:25 . And the Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our help. For we hold that we are proper to God, and not merely so, but insomuch that He has even called us brethren. Nor does it vex us, even if they call the Son Very God. For when made He exists in verity.' [Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 4]

The concept is reflected also in Alexander of Alexandria's Catholic Epistle:

Quote:

Since those about Arius speak these things and shamelessly maintain them, we, coming together with the Bishops of Egypt and the Libyas, nearly a hundred in number, have anathematized them, together with their followers. But those about Eusebius have received them, earnestly endeavouring to mix up falsehood with truth, impiety with piety. But they will not prevail; for the truth prevails, and there is no communion between light and darkness, no concord between Christ and Belial.2 Corinthians 6:14 For who ever heard such things? Or who, now hearing them, is not astonished, and does not stop his ears that the pollution of these words should not touch them? Who that hears John saying, In the beginning was the Word, John 1:1 does not condemn those who say there was a time when He was not? Who that hears these words of the Gospel, the only-begotten Son; John 1:18 and, by Him were all things made, John 1:3 will not hate those who declare He is one of the things made? For how can He be one of the things made by Him? Or how shall He be the only-begotten who, as they say, is reckoned with all the rest, if indeed He is a thing made and created? And how can He be made of things which are not, when the Father says, My heart belched forth a good Word; and, From the womb, before the morning have I begotten You? Or how is He unlike to the substance of the Father, who is the perfect image and brightness of the Father, and who says, He that has seen Me has seen the Father? John 14:9 And how, if the Son is the Word or Wisdom and Reason of God, was there a time when He was not? It is all one as if they said, that there was a time when God was without reason and wisdom. How, also, can He be changeable and mutable, who says indeed by Himself: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me, John 14:10 and, I and My Father are one; John 10:30 and by the prophet, I am the Lord, I change not? Malachi 3:6 For even though one saying may refer to the Father Himself, yet it would now be more aptly spoken of the Word, because when He became man, He changed not; but, as says the apostle, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and for ever. Hebrews 13:8 Who has induced them to say, that for our sakes He was made; although Paul says, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things? Hebrews 11:10 Now concerning their blasphemous assertion who say that the Son does not perfectly know the Father, we need not wonder: for having once purposed in their mind to wage war against Christ, they impugn also these words of His, As the Father knows Me, even so know I the Father. John 10:15 Wherefore, if the Father only in part knows the Son, then it is evident that the Son does not perfectly know the Father. But if it be wicked thus to speak, and if the Father perfectly knows the Son, it is plain that, even as the Father knows His own Word, so also the Word knows His own Father, of whom He is the Word.

Another clue for the Arian conception appears in the Creed of Athanasius:

Quote:

One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

tanya · 02-03-2012, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

... I am not sure if Jews were completely unfamiliar with the concept of ousia. What ousia is occupied a lot of Spinoza's time.

off topic: Nicea, early fourth century, is the focus of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Ousia and logos are separate. Fine. What does that mean? Or, what did that mean to anyone at Nicaea that might've influenced the trinity? IOW what is it's significance?

Well done. Keeping to the topic!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't understand what the confusion is.

patience, friend, patience. You soon will achieve enlightenment about the nature of the confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Now let's turn to some clues from Celsus especially where Origen writes:

Really? We shall learn about "mystical controversy" underlying the Nicean Creed, by reading Origen?

oops:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But we already know what was 'discovered' by Jacob at Peniel and which knowledge was passed to Jews and Christians:

Quote:
And he dreamed and behold a ladder stood on the ground whose top reached the heavens ... and behold YHVH stood above him and Jacob awakened from his sleep saying, “It is true that YeSh YHVH is in this place” (Genesis 28:12)

That's not what I encounter upon reading

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis 28:12

He dreamed. Behold, a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. Behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
28:13 Behold, Yahweh stood above it, and said, "I am Yahweh, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac. The land whereon you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed."
....
28:16 Jacob awakened out of his sleep, and he said, "Surely Yahweh is in this place, and I didn`t know it."

Very strange. I cannot find any reference to this "YeSh". Am I reading the wrong source?

Let's look more carefully at the Hebrew, for Genesis 28:16 transliterated:
YSh YHVH

Yes, there it is. Yesh Yahweh, without the vowels.

But, how is it translated? In Latin, it is written:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulgate

cumque evigilasset Iacob de somno ait vere Dominus est in loco isto et ego nesciebam

vere Dominus...

Then, is it not more accurate to write: The GENUINE God, or the TRUE god, rather than "Surely, god"?

More to the point: Does not this Latin version of the Hebrew text, dispel the claim that "yesh" corresponds to a secret encoding of Jesus? "Yesh" in Genesis 28:16 appears to me, to indicate "veracity" or "authenticity" or "legitimacy", not some sort of convoluted, secret, "mystical" message, addressing the rationale for the first convocation at Nicea in 325 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And now finally to the citation I really wanted to make with respect to the idea that the yesh on the cross might lead the Jews (and mankind generally) to be brought into acquaintance with the (previously hidden) ousia of the Father:

Quote:
And that you may learn that it was from our teachers— we mean the account given through the prophets— that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spoke thus: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so. So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses. Deuteronomy 32:22

That's not what I read at

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 32:22

For a fire is kindled in my anger, Burns to the lowest Sheol, Devours the earth with its increase, Sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.

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

02-02-2012, 03:29 PM	#91
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No I just spent too much time trying to figure out what beautiful women were thinking. Now my old habit only lives on with this stuff

02-02-2012, 07:57 PM	#95
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The citation from Arius's Thalia is important because it is pretty much our only firsthand information about his tradition. The rest of the Orations are pretty much Athanasius's “spin”

02-02-2012, 08:11 PM	#96
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here is a side by side English Greek reconstruction of the Thalia http://www.fourthcentury.com/arius-thalia-greek/

02-02-2012, 09:13 PM	#98
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But you are citing Arius's enemy Alexander of Alexandria not Arius

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.