Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-07-2009, 11:55 PM

Pete's digression on Arius split off here

mountainman · 01-29-2009, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Did Nicea inaugurate the notion of a singular, universal Church, Church as more than the traditional "community of spirit", Church as a defined administrative body with the power to exclude? Did it begin "you can call yourself Christian if you like but if you aren't in the Church then ...". Before it, I think, being "Christian" and being "in the Church" were synonymous and equally vague.

Related is Orthodox. When did Christians get to be that, rather than ... (fill in your own "heresy")? Does anyone know when that label was first used to distinguish true Christians from their errant brethren?

Dear gentleexit,

Both the orthodox and the heretical positions were first documented by Eusebius research into the documents he found which he says were written by Irenaeus. We all know that, at the time of Irenaeus the christian orthodoxy was an underground movement. Wink Wink. Here is the WIKI entry on "Christian heresy"....

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Heresy is an introduced change to some system of belief,
especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously
established canon of that belief.

The study of heresy is heresiology. The founder or leader
of a heretical movement is called a heresiarch. One who
espouses heresy is called a heretic.

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek ("choose"),
which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of believers.

It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses
(Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents
in the early Christian Church. He described his own position
as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "belief")
and his position eventually evolved into the position
of the early Christian Church.

Used in this way, the term "heresy" has no purely objective meaning:
the category exists only from the point of view of speakers
within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as "orthodox".
Any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as "heretical"
by others within that field who are convinced that their view is "orthodox";
in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.

Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical.
Heresy is a value judgment and the expression of a view
from within an established belief system.

For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy
while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the "Great Apostasy."

For a heresy to exist there must be an authoritative system of dogma
designated as orthodox, such as those proposed by Catholicism.

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 01-29-2009, 12:17 AM

At the time of Irenaeus, all of Christianity was "underground." But there was no state mechanism to counter heretics.

mountainman · 01-29-2009, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

At the time of Irenaeus, all of Christianity was "underground."

Dear Toto,

If we are to try and follow both Eusebius and the modern archaeologists, then this fact is self-evident.

Quote:

But there was no state mechanism to counter heretics.

Eusebius wrote in an epoch where the state mechanism of christian orthodoxy was being fashioned -- he could not have been unaware of this fact, or the fact that whatever orthodoxy was being established, it was going to be extremely authoritarian. The canon would define the orthodoxy, and anything that was written against the canon, in any way shape or form, was going to be heretical.

Best wishes,

Pete

gentleexit · 01-30-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

... The canon would define the orthodoxy, and anything that was written against the canon, in any way shape or form, was going to be heretical.

Exposed at Nicea was that the broadly accepted "inspired" texts (no Canon yet per se), were open to interpretation. The Arians were good grammarians and exposed that the texts themselves were ambiguous on the equality of Father and Son, on the divinity of Jesus. To enforce "Christ is God", the Alexandrians had to force a reading. Hence the creed and its novelties. Hence the need to curse, exile and end debate.

Of course, this reading had to be broadly acceptable. Nicea shows that most Christians thought Jesus to be fully God and that this was key to their faith. They were willing to accept (extra-biblical) rigor to save it.

So I'd say that the ambiguous "canon" forced the creed on a group with a deeply held but threatened belief. "Orthodoxy" needed more than "the canon".

mountainman · 01-30-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

At the time of Irenaeus, all of Christianity was "underground." But there was no state mechanism to counter heretics.

Dear Toto,

I have moved further comments on this to another thread.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 01-30-2009, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

... The canon would define the orthodoxy, and anything that was written against the canon, in any way shape or form, was going to be heretical.

Exposed at Nicea was that the broadly accepted "inspired" texts (no Canon yet per se), were open to interpretation.

Dear gentleexit,

Ancient histories describing events prior to this "council" suggest that in fact the opposite was the case due to actions reported to have been undertaken by Constantine. Exposed when these precedent actions are listed and examined is the fact that Constantine's behaviour was like that of an extreme and malevolent autocratic -- a dictator, with respect to the civilian Hellenistic culture and population of the eastern empire. We may start with his prohibition c.324 CE, that all temple services were to be considered closed forthwith. We know he set examples to enforce this. We know he subjected people of various classes to torture at Antioch, for example. His Oration was before Nicaea, for example. What does his Oration at Antioch reveal about "official interpretation"?

So I entirely disagree with statement that anything was "open for interpretation". The histories of the council of Nicaea adequately describes that Constantine requested written opinions from the attendees whom he had summoned to his presence, and then, without reading them, in the presence of the authors, publically burnt the "other interpretations".

The council was polarised by Constantine and Arius. One need only study the "Creed" or "Oath" purportedly signed at Nicaea to see that the attendees had two choices. Nothing was open for interpetation. Constantine closed the meeting with a vote. What were the results? 318 to 3? The three were Arius (plus 2 followers). The words of Arius are in the "creed" or "oath". This to me suggests that there were no "other interpretations" from the very beginning, and it was an EITHER/OR gate logic. Either follow Constantine, or follow Arius of Alexandria at your peril.

Quote:

The Arians were good grammarians and exposed that the texts themselves were ambiguous on the equality of Father and Son, on the divinity of Jesus.

Do you think the Arius was gnostic?

Quote:

Of course, this reading had to be broadly acceptable. Nicea shows that most Christians thought Jesus to be fully God and that this was key to their faith. They were willing to accept (extra-biblical) rigor to save it. So I'd say that the ambiguous "canon" forced the creed on a group with a deeply held but threatened belief. "Orthodoxy" needed more than "the canon".

IMO the canon did nothing of itself at Nicaea. It was the Constaninian authority, backed by a centralised state government, in contol with the military, which wished to enforce a Roman monotheistic religion on the (Hellenistic-Roman) empire, for the sake of his own political expediencies, which enforced the canon. He gave people two choices. Join up, or ship out.

Best wishes,

Pete

rlogan · 01-31-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

We know of the Councils of Nicea

"Councils of Nicea?" Was there more than one Council at/of Nicea?

Quote:

all through those critical years where they argued about whether Jesus was god, man, or spirit - so (haw!) they made him all three: The Trinity.

They did? At Nicea?

Could you show me where in the actual promulgations or decrees of Nicea that Jesus was there made to be man, let alone spirit, and that those attending the council of Nicea actually were intent to, and did, take up the question of the nature of the Trinity, let alone defined the Trinity in terms of Jesus being god, man, and spirit?

May I ask what it is besides what you heard in church that informs your claims about Nicea and what went on there? Is it direct acquaintance with the Council's decree? Anything from the scholarly literature on Nicea and the Ecumenical Councils?

Jeffrey

Hi Jeffrey

Golly, I missed this thread and didn't realize it existed but feel an obligation to read it carefully and respond with due diligence.

About to step outside and get the snow plowing done - takes most of the day here at the wilderness institute.

But for now my reference to Council(s) was meant to refer informally to the series of Ecumenical Councils through the 4th century and I used Nicea as a plural because it was a shorthand way of doing that.

But no, I heard nothing of Nicea from Church and it was only through this site that I even knew of Nicea and the other councils.

But in so researching the topic during my time here it became obvious to me that this was the most important period in history for defining the official state religion - which was at the same time an official history of Jesus - and that the Emperor Constantine used Eusebius as his official "secretary of forgery" (History of the Church, etc)

I'll be back... (Apologies to the Terminator)

mountainman · 01-31-2009, 07:42 PM

Farrar

Quote:

A comment of Farrar on the arguments of Arius on the non-identity of the Son with the Father in the Trinity.

Farrar says that Arius was forced by his doctrinal stand to "sever Jesus" (Greek: luei Iesoun) and reduce the whole work of redemption to an interior process. The Ebionites, says Farrar, had denied Jesus' full divinity; the Docetists had likewise denied his humanity.

But it was reserved for the Arians at once to affirm and nullify them both. They evidently accomplished this logical legerdemain by affirming his divinity as a spiritual principle, while denying his humanity as a person of history.

It all came from the incredible blunder of conceiving that the Logos or Word of God could be a man of flesh on earth. Arius saw clearly enough that he had to "sever Jesus" the man from the cosmic or creational Aeon, coequal with the Father, if only to save Christian doctrinism from committing itself to a preposterous imbecility of thought.

------ Shadow of the third century, a revaluation of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk).
------ By: Alvin Boyd Kuhn

rlogan · 02-01-2009, 01:22 AM

Jeffry - I have difficulty understanding what your objection is, other than that I informally referred to a series of councils - but nevertheless here is the 325 version of the Nicene Creed:

Quote:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

Got that from Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

You seem to be shocked that nicea did anything whatsoever with respect to the trinity. But right here is the very creed they adopted. It is plain as day that this is the trinity.

I do not understand your objection, and am curious why in particular it seems so strenuous.

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

01-07-2009, 11:55 PM	#41
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Pete's digression on Arius split off here

01-29-2009, 12:17 AM	#43
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	At the time of Irenaeus, all of Christianity was "underground." But there was no state mechanism to counter heretics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.