Arianism again ...

[Thomas]

Not at all. Constantine wouldn't have been concerned about a few elites having a squabble.

That's the point. Arius 'went public'. It was no longer a few scholars disagreeing.

That's the official line, naturally, "Arius was the culprit"

LOL, I'm not going down that rabbit-hole again.

He was not the only one with a subordinate "Christology" .. on the contrary, it was a majority view.

And Arius agreed with him. But Origen argued the Son was co-eternal with the Father, and Arius said he was not, and that was the key to the whole dispute. 'There was a time when he was not' became the battlecry of the Arians.

..not just Alexandria .. it was an "east meets west" problem, that did NOT start with Arius, in reality.

No, it wasn't a problem in the west. It began in Alexandria, and spread, according to Eusebius's The Life of Constantine, from there into almost all the African regions.

But I honestly fail to see why you make so much of this.

From the Arian council documents you quote, Arians are Trinitarians, just with a stricter hierarchy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's the point. Arius 'went public'. It was no longer a few scholars disagreeing.

As I say .. that's the claim .. that it all started with Arius and some people started following him.
You can believe that if you want, but I don't.

And Arius agreed with him. But Origen argued the Son was co-eternal with the Father

This is where we left off in the other thread. I asked if you could show me what Origen "believed" from his original writings .. so far, you have not produced anything.

This is the relevant part of the Nicene creed:
...
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, consubstantial with the Father;
...

and Arius said he was not, and that was the key to the whole dispute.

No, not really. Many Christians, including Arius, believed that Jesus was subordinate to the One true God, the Father
This issue about eternity is just a distraction.

No, it wasn't a problem in the west..

No .. not where the Gospel of John originated.

 

[Thomas]

As I say .. that's the claim .. that it all started with Arius and some people started following him.
You can believe that if you want, but I don't.

OK.

This is where we left off in the other thread. I asked if you could show me what Origen "believed" from his original writings .. so far, you have not produced anything.

De Principiis. I know you'll say they're not original, but they are Origen's words. Scholarship has done a mountain of good work on this, and I know you'll dismiss the lot.

But then, by the same token, you can't show me Origen's original text on subordinationism, so you're hoist on your own petard.

This issue about eternity is just s distraction.

LOL, no, it's absolutely central.

I'm trying to be fair to all parties. You're being distinctly one-sided.

 

[muhammad_isa]

De Principiis. I know you'll say they're not original, but they are Origen's words. Scholarship has done a mountain of good work on this, and I know you'll dismiss the lot.

Too right .. the Latin "translation" is known to be unreliable.

The vast majority of the text has only survived in a heavily abridged Latin translation produced by Tyrannius Rufinus in 397. Rufinus was convinced that Origen's original treatise had been interpolated by heretics and that these interpolations were the source of the heterodox teachings found in it. He therefore heavily modified Origen's text, omitting and altering any parts which disagreed with contemporary Christian orthodoxy.
On_the_First_Principles - Wikipedia

But then, by the same token, you can't show me Origen's original text on subordinationism, so you're hoist on your own petard..

Not exactly..

Epiphanius attacked Origen in his anti-heretical treatises Ancoratus (375) and Panarion (376), compiling a list of teachings Origen had espoused that Epiphanius regarded as heretical.
...
Epiphanius particularly objected to Origen's Subordinationism, his "excessive" use of allegorical hermeneutic, and his habit of proposing ideas about the Bible "speculatively, as exercises" rather than "dogmatically".
Origenist_crises - Wikipedia

LOL, no, it's absolutely central.

I'm trying to be fair to all parties. You're being distinctly one-sided.

What do you think?
If somebody comes along and tells you that Jesus is God and created the universe, and you believe that the Father was solely responsible, there is going to be an argument.

Claiming that Jesus is God, because he is "eternal" i.e. the only Son begotten "before all worlds", is an opinion that was
forced on others. An opinion in the prologue of Gospel of John. That is an historical fact.

 

[Thomas]

Part 1 of 3:

Too right .. the Latin "translation" is known to be unreliable.

Scholarship has shown the complete distrust of Rufinus's text to be excessive. Extensive comparisons of Rufinus's text and their Greek corollaries that survive in the Philocalia show that, although Rufinus at times paraphrases, condenses, and elaborates, he never deliberately does violence to Origen's meaning. This portion of Rufinus’s translation is not free from error, but such cases are attributable to Rufinus's misunderstanding of technical or philosophical terminology. Rufinus remains in the main true to Origen's sense.

It should also be recognised that if Rufinus was concerned to purge from Origen's text his most offensive doctrines as extensively as formerly believed, Rufinus inexplicably failed. Rufinus did not free the text of the De Principiis of those doctrines for which Origen was most severely criticised, namely the doctrines of apokatastasis and the pre-existence and fall of souls.
"A Note on the Status of Origen's "De Principiis" in English" Ronnie J. Rombs, Vigiliae Christianae Vol. 61, No. 1 (Feb., 2007), pp. 21-29 (9 pages)

 

[Thomas]

Epiphanius attacked Origen in his anti-heretical treatises Ancoratus (375) and Panarion (376), compiling a list of teachings Origen had espoused that Epiphanius regarded as heretical.
...
Epiphanius particularly objected to Origen's Subordinationism, his "excessive" use of allegorical hermeneutic, and his habit of proposing ideas about the Bible "speculatively, as exercises" rather than "dogmatically".
Origenist_crises - Wikipedia

St. Epiphanius did not wish to attack the person of Origen, but rather the teachings of Origen that threatened to corrupt the monastic communities dearest to him:
"Origen has not lived in my day, nor has he robbed me. I have not conceived a dislike to him nor quarrelled with him because of an inheritance or of any worldly matter; but – to speak plainly – I grieve, and grieve bitterly, to see numbers of my brothers... deceived by his persuasive arguments... "
In a letter to John (AD 394), St. Epiphanius identifies the following heresies in Peri Archon:

• The Son cannot see the Father, and the Holy Spirit cannot see the Son.
• The souls of men were once angels in heaven, and having sinned in the upper world, they have been cast down into this, confined in bodies to pay the penalty for their former sins.
• Disciples are urged not to pray to ascend to heaven, lest, sinning worse in heaven than they had on earth, they should be hurled down to the world again.
• The devil will return to his former dignity and rise again to the kingdom of heaven.
• The coats of skins with which God clothed Adam and Eve after the Fall were actually their human bodies.
• Adam lost the image of God when he sinned.
• The waters above the firmament are heroic angels, and those below the firmament are demons.

(From Origen and Origenism)

Scholars today generally question whether Origen himself believed in or actually preached these errors, the point being there were many Palestinian monks who did profess a profound Platonic version of Christianity which they attributed to Origen – the errors of their interpretations have been well-attested.

Subsequently Origen was never personally condemned, but the ideas were, and it seems the councils understood these did not originate with the man himself.

Potentially the only subordinationist idea I can see is perhaps the first? But the point is contextual.

If you can find what exactly was supposed to be subordinationist, I can address it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

St. Epiphanius did not wish to attack the person of Origen, but rather the teachings of Origen that threatened to corrupt the monastic communities dearest to him:
...
(From Origen and Origenism)

Do you think that we can stick to wikipedia and its references, please?

Quoting from websites that are clearly biased in favour of one party is not a good idea.
From your ref.

• The original essays on this site are intended to be consistent with Holy Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, as expressed by the decrees of the Magisterium past and present.
• The external resources linked to this site are thoroughly examined and found to be consistent with Catholic orthodoxy and obedience to the Holy See.

 

[wil]

Do you think that we can stick to wikipedia and its references, please?

Why would we? Surely if you have a counter that proves him wrong from another site you should use it.

You can discount the statement but heck, limiting discussion to Wikipedia is, well, limiting

 

[Thomas]

I have extensively argued elsewhere that in Gregory of Nyssa's In lllud: Tunc et lpse Filius the anti-'Arian' polemic against the subordination of the Son to the Father is closely related to the doctrine of apokatastasis, and that Gregory's arguments entirely derive from Origen, probably also passing through Marcellus of Ancyra and Eusebius, both of whom Gregory knew well and were admirers and followers of Origen.

Only, Marcellus could not perfectly grasp his thought, as Eusebius also shows. A participant in the Nicene council, Marcellus was supported by Athanasius till 345, and opposed 'Arian' subordinationism, just as Origen had done ante litteram and Gregory also did.

Here, as I have thoroughly demonstrated, Gregory draws upon Origen extremely closely, even with several verbal echoes. The core issue for Gregory in this short work is to interpret 1 Corinthians 15:28 in such a way as to refute its 'Arian' subordinationistic interpretation, based on the Son's eventual submission to the Father.

The very same explanation of 1 Corinthians 15:28 was offered by Origen in De Principiis 3.5,6-7, and it is highly remarkable that his interpretation. like that of Gregory afterwards, already attacked a subordinationistic reading of the text.

It is manifest that Origen's passage already contains all of Gregory's argument. Origen's passage also makes it clear that already in his day, before the development of 'Arianism' proper, the tendency to conceive the Son as subordinated to the Father was alive. Origen did not endorse this tendency, but definitely contrasted it.

It is true that we have lost the Greek original of this passage and we only have Rufinus' Latin translation, but the very same thesis is expressed in at least two other passages of Origen, Hom. in Lev. 7,2 and Comm. in Rom. 7,3,60-68 and, above all, Gregory of Nyssa, who read Origen in the Greek original texts and did not need to rely on translations, followed his arguments and even his words very closely, confirming that the Greek was not different from what we now can read in the Latin version, and that Rufinus did not distort Origen's thought and wording.

Excerpt (edited) from "Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line", Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, Vigiliae Christianae Vol. 65, No. 1 (2011), pp. 21-49

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would we? Surely if you have a counter that proves him wrong from another site you should use it.

You can discount the statement but heck, limiting discussion to Wikipedia is, well, limiting

..then I shall "bow out" of such discourse, because I see no point in a discussion based on
sectarian websites of any particular denomination.

Strange that I should be reasonably happy with wikipedia, but others aren't.
As far as I'm aware, wikipedia is not limited to certain sectarian viewpoints. It attempts to cover all bases.

 

[wil]

..then I shall "bow out" of such discourse, because I see no point in a discussion based on
sectarian websites of any particular denomination.

Strange that I should be reasonably happy with wikipedia, but others aren't.
As far as I'm aware, wikipedia is not limited to certain sectarian viewpoints. It attempts to cover all bases.

Nobody says they are, but they surely don't have a corner on information!

Wiki is one of a plethora of resources and not the be all end all on ANY topic that I am aware of.

It is shocking to you on an interfaith site that there exist differences of opinion on belief and truth?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nobody says they are, but they surely don't have a corner on information!

If a person prefers to get all their information from a sectarian website, then that is their own business.
..but I don't see that as a "valuable tool" to determine truth.

 

[wil]

If a person prefers to get all their information from a sectarian website, then that is their own business.
..but I don't see that as a "valuable tool" to determine truth.

ALL??

When it comes to the vagaries Christian thinking, discounting the Catholic churches resources is like studying vagaries of evolution without the galapagos, Australia and madagascar

 

[muhammad_isa]

But I honestly fail to see why you make so much of this..

It's not hard to guess.
I'm not impressed by the way that Roman Emperors harnessed Christians,
and enforced a certain creed.
The lagacy has gone on to the present day.

You claim that the Roman Empire eventually ended up with "the right creed".
What a coincidence. They just happened to persecute "evil heretics" and not Christians.

 

[Thomas]

Do you think that we can stick to wikipedia and its references, please?

No. Wiki is a general and itself not an entirely reliable source.

Nor is the site you dislike biased. It may well be Catholic, but that's no reason to suppose it's distorting the evidence. I quoted a document, not an opinion.

For the sake of brevity and accuracy, I posted a précis of the letter of Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem, written 394AD and recorded by Jerome – so it may well be a Catholic site, but there's no bias in the letter itself.

Letter LI. From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem.
This is the translation available on the Christian Classic Ethereal Libray. No bias.

Epiphanius, Letter to John of Jerusalem Another translation by Andrew S Jacobs, Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School.

The subsequent quotes from Ilaria Ramelli are from JSTOR – a scholarly resource without denominational bias.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not impressed by the way that Roman Emperors harnessed Christians,

Nor am I.

Nor am I particularly impressed by the way waves of invaders harnessed local populations and enforced Islam, but that's the historical process, we cannot really judge in hindsight. Both our tradtions have histories that are none too pleasant to behold.

I'm not defending emperors, nor even history, other than to try and argue for balance rather than present it as 'one side good, other side bad'. That's too simplistic, in my view.

But I will defend doctrine when some claim it was made up by or dictated to the Councils by Emperors, that's not true at all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Wiki is a general and itself not an entirely reliable source.

I don't disagree with that, but it is "neutral ground", and substantial.

For the sake of brevity and accuracy, I posted a précis of the letter of Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem, written 394AD and recorded by Jerome – so it may well be a Catholic site, but there's no bias in the letter itself.

OK

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nor am I.

Nor am I particularly impressed by the way waves of invaders harnessed local populations and enforced Islam, but that's the historical process, we cannot really judge in hindsight. Both our tradtions have histories that are none too pleasant to behold..

..but I am not judging individuals here .. I am judging the elite, by their actions.

Clearly, the main rift between Islam and Christianity is the very issue we are discussing.
You can "dress it up" however you like, but it all comes back to the enforcement of a particular
belief in Jesus' Divinity .. that in the prologue of Gospel of John.

The question is, is that philosophy correct or not?
Naturally, those who oppose the Qur'an will say that it is, and defend "the history".

I am satisfied that it cannot be proved that the prologue in John is correct, and that that particular view was
enforced on Christians that took a different view.
It is no surprise that an "official Bible canon" only became a major issue in the 4th. and 5th. centuries.
That is when major schism began .. Arian, 'Church of the East' and Oriental etc.

 

[wil]

I don't disagree with that, but it is "neutral ground", and substantial.

But is it? Are you telling me there is not bias in wiki posts? Is it not edited by masses of biased humans?

 

[Thomas]

Clearly, the main rift between Islam and Christianity is the very issue we are discussing.

Are we? Islam never figured in my posts – Surely Islam refutes Arius as much as it refutes Nicaea?

You can "dress it up" however you like, but it all comes back to the enforcement of a particular
belief in Jesus' Divinity .. that in the prologue of Gospel of John.

The belief's founded on a lot more than the Prologue.

But I do understand why you deem it necessary to try and undermine John.

The question is, is that philosophy correct or not?
Naturally, those who oppose the Qur'an will say that it is, and defend "the history".

Well plenty who see it as a luminous spiritual text, and they're not Christian, and they're not opposed to the Qur'an!

I am satisfied that it cannot be proved that the prologue in John is correct, and that that particular view was
enforced on Christians that took a different view.

I know. I am satisfied your opinions are ill-founded.