posted
How come no other ancient source ever confirmed any of the stories told in the bible, or any of these miracles that Jesus supposedly performed?
As for Christianity's audacious claim that its hero introduced something new into ethics and morality, that assertion is wholly fallacious. Long before any mythical Nazarene had epithets of wisdom put into his mouth, other – real, yet mortal – philosophers taught a morality of brotherly love and human compassion. Christianity merely sequestered and then ignored those ideals.
For Instance these Events that were happening in the time of Jesus, were never mentioned by Jesus or the Bible! The "witnesses" who saw and heard nothing
As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).
Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.
Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18).
One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the "apostate" Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).
Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.
Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.
With Philo's close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa "vexing certain of the church" or killing "James brother of John" with the sword (Acts 12.1,2).
Strange, but only if we believe Jesus and his merry men existed and that they established the church. If we recognize that the Christian fable was still at an early stage of development when Philo was pondering the relationship of god and man, there is nothing strange here at all.
What is very significant, however, is that Philo's theological speculations helped the Christians fabricate their own notions of a godman. Where did they get their ideas from?
Mocking Jesus – or Agrippa? The mocking of a real Jewish king
The death of the Herod the Great's son, Philip, in 34 AD, left the tetrarchy of Panias and Batanaea without a local king. In 39, Caligula sent Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, into exile. Caligula now turned to Herod the Great's grandson, Herod Agrippa, for a client king and Agrippa was made ruler of all the Jewish lands apart from Judaea.
On the voyage home from Rome, this new King of the Jews, stopped over in Alexandria where his presence in the city provoked anti-Jewish riots. Agrippa became the target of ridicule and lampoon.
Philo described the course of events in his work named for the anti-Jewish governor of Egypt, Flaccus. His work was familiar to the early Christians when decades after his death they composed the gospels. One passage of Flaccus contains a curious pre-figuring of several famous verses found in the Gospels.
But then the Lord moves in curious ways.
The Works of Philo Judaeus – Flaccus, VI.
(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;
(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;
(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign; Matthew
27:26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
27:27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
Philo: author of Christianity?
"Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made."
– Philo, "The Special Laws", I (81)
Philo was an eclectic philosopher who borrowed freely from the Platonists, Stoics and Cynics. Yet he remained tenaciously loyal to his Jewish faith, and regarded Mosaic scripture as a source not only of religious revelation, but also of the philosophic truths propounded by the Greeks.
According to Philo, the Greek philosophers had "borrowed from Moses" and had received their insights from the God of the Jews. To substantiate this dubious claim Philo found subtle and obscure nuances in the biblical sagas. Simply put, the wisdom of the Greeks was to be found entire within the books of Moses – all that one had to discern was the "hidden meaning" of words that, to the uninitiated, patently had no bearing on Greek philosophy. Philo was thus able to preserve the arrogant superiority of the Jews who in reality had been subsumed into the Greek world.
How did a transcendent God communicate with the world? Here, a term from the Stoics proved most useful. According to Philo, "Logos" – Greek for "word" or "reason"– equated to divine reason. The Logos or Word emanated from the ineffable God and communicated with his creations. Thus it was the Logos that spoke to Moses from the burning bush, and it was the Logos that infused the righteous High Priest. When one experienced religious ecstasy it was because the Logos had entered one's own soul.
Philo defined the curious nature of God's intermediary thus:
"And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator.
And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race.
And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, 'And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You; neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities ... For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace.' "
– Philo, Who is the Heir of Divine Things? 42.205-6.
The "Word" made "Flesh"
When the works of Philo were studied by early Christian theorists (the Alexandrian school of Clement, Origen, etc.) not just the construct of the Logos but the "allegorical method" proved a godsend: the Old Testament presaged not merely Greek wisdom but the Christian godman himself! Thus the scripture of the Jews could be scoured for subtle clues supposedly prophesying a saviour in human form.
Again, Philo pointed the way:
"And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel."
– Philo, "On the Confusion of Tongues," (146)
Philo was himself undoubtedly influenced by ancient notions of Hermes Trismegistos ('thrice greatest' Hermes), a Hellenized version of the Egyptian god Thoth – a god of wisdom and a guide to the afterlife.
Philo knew nothing of Jesus but when, a century after Philo's death, the Christians were historicizing their godman from preconceived notions of what the Saviour should be, they borrowed freely from Philo's work. Thus the Christian apologist Justin Martyr multiplexed "divine reason" into the myriad forms that populate the landscape of Christian theology:
"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos."
– Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, LXI – ("Wisdom is begotten of the father, as fire from fire.")
About the same time that Justin was finessing "God's Wisdom" into human form, the author of John's Gospel combined the opening phrase of Genesis with the speculations of Philo's logos to produce the famous opening verse of his gospel.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." – John, 1.1.
Bringing Philo on Message
In the 4th century so impressed was Church propagandist Eusebius by Philo's descriptions of the Therapeutae (Hellenized Jewish Buddhists of Alexandria) that the church historian decided the Therapeutae were in fact early Christian monks. As for Philo himself, Eusebius cheerfully disregarded chronology and credibility and had the grand old Jewish philosopher reading the (as yet, unwritten) gospels and epistles – and conversing with Peter in Rome!
"It seems likely [Philo] wrote this after listening to their expositions of the Holy Scriptures, and it is very probable that what he calls short works by their early writers were the gospels, the apostolic writings, and in all probability passages interpreting the old prophets, such as one contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews and several others of Paul's epistles.
It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."
– Eusebius, The History of the Church, p50,52.
Philo played a major role in the Hellenization of Hebrew scripture, unwittingly preparing the ground for an upstart heresy to supplant and marginalize the ancestral religion he set out to defend.
The fate of Philo's co-religionist Josephus was to become a bogus witness to Christ – but Philo himself was rendered a closet Christian!
World events that Jesus never noticed
Whilst we should not expect a rural rabbi to comment on day-to-day politics, it is a telling silence that the man that nobody notices himself doesn't notice any of the major events of his age.
But then, JC never actually trod the earth and JC never heard the news from Rome.
• Salvation
Early in the 1st century the Romans suffered their most humiliating defeat. Germania, like Judaea, had been annexed by the empire in 6 AD and it, too, was being taxed and organised as a province. But in 9 AD, an alliance of German tribes ambushed and annihilated three legions in the Teutoburg Forest. The disaster permanently curtailed Roman designs in northern Europe.
The ill-fated commander in Germany had been none other than Publius Quinctilius Varus – the former governor of Syria. A few years earlier, Varus had crushed revolts in Judaea and Samaria and crucified 2000 rebels.
9 AD - Rome's catastrophe in Germany.
Not worth a comment from JC on 'resisting evil' or the 'folly of earthly ambition'?
• A Man made God
In 14 AD, Emperor Augustus, master of the civilized world for nearly half a century, died. Eulogies from Tiberius and Drusus were followed by a pyre on Campus Martius and deification. "An ex-praetor actually swore that he had seen Augustus's spirit soaring up to heaven through the flames." – Suetonius.
Even in life, images of Augustus had been erected in temples throughout the empire: "Augustus seemed to have superceded the worship of the gods when he wanted to have himself venerated in temples, with god-like images, by priests and ministers." – Tacitus (Annals, 1)
The imperial cult, which began with Julius Caesar, gained much greater impetus following the deification of Augustus. Here was an officially sponsored challenge to Jesus' own cult and surely merited a word of censure?
14 AD. Princeps, Augustus, Imperator, Pater Patriae – and finally God. This cameo of "divus Augustus" depicts a crown with rays of the sun god, just like the nimbus of Jesus.
Would not a "real" god Jesus have had something to say about the "imitation" god Augustus?
• Good and Evil
18-19 AD. The popular Roman prince Germanicus, a grandson of Augustus and restorer of the Rhine frontier, was sent east by Tiberius as imperium maius (imperial magistrate). He died suddenly in Antioch amid speculation that the governor of Syria, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, had poisoned him on orders from the emperor. Tiberius compelled Piso to commit suicide but became increasingly paranoid as his unpopularity grew.
Germanicus – a noble Roman
Plenty of stuff here, surely, for wise words about nobility and baseness. From Jesus – nothing.
• The Wickedness of Men
22-31 AD. Emperor Tiberius – honoured by Herod Antipas with the new capital city of Tiberias – withdrew to debauchery on the island of Capri.
The emperor's isolation allowed the guard commander and consul Aelius Sejanus to establish himself as virtual regent in Rome, terrifying the city with spies, treason trials and executions.
Even the emperor's son Drusus was murdered, with Sejanus planning to marry his widow and thus link himself to the imperial family. Eventually alarmed, Tiberius had Sejanus arrested and killed, and returned to Rome.
Tiberius's playboy mansion, Capri.
Not a word about the evil designs of men from the "perfect" Jesus?
Christians Borrowed Beleifs from Pagan Worshippers
We already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the seasonal timing of the two holidays is Pagan too. Even the Bible tells us these are Pagan Beleifs
In ancient times the winter solstice was celebrated in Babylon as the birth day of Tammuz, the god of vegetation. According to the pagans, the god Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. This festival became known as the Saturnalia, and friends and family would exchange gifts. The Bible Forbids this, but this is what Christians do. Jeremiah 10 2-4 Mildly interesting. No Christian ever reads this passage I assume. something else you'll discover is that ancient cultures around the Mediterranean shared standard ideas about Gods and their powers and place in the universe—and that Christianity simply adopted those ideas and applied them to Jesus. Ancient people knew godmen did miracles. The first Christians thought Jesus was a godman, so they told stories about Jesus doing miracles. They even had Him doing the same miracles as the other godmen.
The core of Christianity—the worship of a miracle working, walking, talking godman who brings salvation—was also the core of other ancient religions that began at least a thousand years before Jesus.
Heaven, hell, prophecy, daemon possession, sacrifice, initiation by baptism, communion with God through a holy meal, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, immortality of the soul, and many other "Christian" ideas all belonged to earlier, older Pagan faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture. Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more.
And they had them generations—centuries— before Jesus was a twinkle in Saint Paul's eye.
More Pagan Beleifs of the Christians Borrowed from their Pagan Brethren
The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:
Identical Life Experiences
(1) Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).
(2) He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.
(3) Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.
(4) The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."
(5) Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."
(6) Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).
(7) Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).
(8) In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.
(9) He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
(10) McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").
(11) Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
(12) The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).
"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying
"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)
From a distance of 2000 years Jesus Christ appears in glorious technicolor, a veritable rainbow of the power and the glory. Every child "knows" his story, every individual "recognizes" his slender frame, his flowing chestnut hair, his kindly blue eyes. But up close and personal our superhero evaporates into the ether, a phantom that leaves no trace upon the paper, no imprint in the historical record. Not only does no one notice Jesus during his supposed lifetime; Jesus notices nothing of the wider world into which he makes his spectral appearance.
If not for the dominance of Rome Christianity as we see it today would not even exist. Men formed the foundation of Christianity, Allah formed the foundations of Islam from its Holy Prophet down the Holy Quran that we read.
More than what can be said of so-called Christians.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arius and His Teaching Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because "Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students.
Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy (Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058)."With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created all of creation
The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering." (Ward 1955, 41)
This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities (Ward 1955, 43)." The Person of Christ "belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was neither God nor man." (Ward 1955, 42)
Arius Versus the Alexandrian Bishop Arius' views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.
Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop used the term "homoousios" to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance. Alexander "used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy (Ward 1955, 43, 44)."
With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation.
The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.
Constantine and Ossius With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither were involved in heresy.
The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in Nicaea.
Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.
Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic Church of Rome)It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia.
That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in Hellenistic thought he "was given by God supreme power in things material and spiritual (Davis 1987, 56).'"
The Council of Nicaea The General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.
If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that "daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Tinity Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius." (LeClercq 1913, 45).
"Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted." (LeClercq 1967, 792)
But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position. "Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement . . . The finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451." (Davis 1987, 59)
When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were were burned at the stake. The Creed and an AnalysisSome parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth . . . Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes." (LeClercq 1913, 45)
"The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only.
The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father" (Davis 1987, 61).
This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation.In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was not."
The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are not." The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable."
Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance." With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished.Terminology Problem With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or substance."
The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West.
This instance of confusion "points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's position." (Davis 1987, 63)."
A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings.
"First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.
Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being.
Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay." (Davis 1987, 61)."
The Council intended the first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father.
If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council's intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy.
The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.
Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies.
The word was originally used by the Gnostics[1]. The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.
Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used in Sacred Scripture.The Council's defeat by ArianismIt is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be called into question.
Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians.
With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.
Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios."
Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression . . . The term `like in substance,' homoiousion . . . had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula (Barry 1913, 709)."
Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.
With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.
Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula. "This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and anomoios (Ward 1955, 57).
It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed.The Final BattleThe seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.
First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.
Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters alike "it brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups (DeClercq 1967, 793)."
Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance.
The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians. The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance also. By using the term homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers "had never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons (Ward 1955, 58)." Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms what they meant to say was the same.
The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).
At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding of each others theological terminology.
At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.
Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor.In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.
In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states that "the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established (Davis 1987, 126)."
In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church (DeClercq 1967, 793)."
Conclusion The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.
The Arian doctrines condemned were the following:
- The Son was created by the Father out of nothing. - Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and in name only. - The Father and Son did not share the same substance. - The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.
Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.
The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).
It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the Emperor.
The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic