Arianism again ...

[muhammad_isa]

But is it? Are you telling me there is not bias in wiki posts?

No, of course not.
..but it employs the scientific method, and is not confined to essays written by one party.

Is it not edited by masses of biased humans?

Yes, so one would expect a bias towards a Catholic viewpoint, if anything,
because there are more of those than anybody else.

Do you know how wikipedia is organised?
..or are you just making accusations without knowledge?

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

What? That the opinion of Jesus' Divinity expressed in the prologue of the Gospel of John was NOT enforced on those that opposed it?
How so?

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
..
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..
- Gospel of John -

It's quite clear .. Jesus is God in John's Gospel, and Jesus is eternal.

 

[Thomas]

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

Is it? Oh, that's a shame, I was under the impression I was discussing a balanced view of the historical process.

I never intended this to be a critique of Islam, nor do I have any desire to engage in sectarian arguments.

I would say, if that's what you want, you proceed with caution – there are histories in both our traditions that are none too edifying.

I do not rock up on Islamic boards to air my views on your 'dirty washing' – that's not the spirit of IO.

So, in closing, I will echo your own words:
... I shall "bow out" of this discourse, because I see no point in a discussion based on sectarianism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is it? Oh, that's a shame, I was under the impression I was discussing a balanced view of the historical process.

If that is how you see it..

I never intended this to be a critique of Islam, nor do I have any desire to engage in sectarian arguments.

I have not seen our discussion as "a critique of Islam", as only you bring up this subject upon my criticism
of the enforcement of a creed by the Roman Empire.
Muhammad was not born until the 6th. century, whilst we are/were discussing the 4th. and 5th. centuries.

I would say, if that's what you want, you proceed with caution – there are histories in both our traditions that are none too edifying.

Again, if you want to discuss from the 7th. century onwards, we can do that, if you wish.

I do not rock up on Islamic boards to air my views on your 'dirty washing' – that's not the spirit of IO.

I agree. What we have in common is a lot more valuable than falling out over a discussion of what our ancestors got up to.
However, the subject of Divinity is important to both of us. We both believe that we will die and "meet our Lord",
and my discourse [and yours presumably], is not designed to mislead .. on the contrary.

So, in closing, I will echo your own words:
... I shall "bow out" of this discourse, because I see no point in a discussion based on sectarianism.

OK, but that is not really what I said..

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

In other words, I am trying to establish truth .. as I believe is the main purpose of wikipedia also.

 

[Thomas]

If that is how you see it..

Yes. Seems I was being naive.

I agree. What we have in common is a lot more valuable than falling out over a discussion of what our ancestors got up to.

Agreed, and Insh'allah (if I may).

However, the subject of Divinity is important to both of us. We both believe that we will die and "meet our Lord",
and my discourse [and yours presumably], is not designed to mislead .. on the contrary.

OK

OK, but that is not really what I said..

OK

In other words, I am trying to establish truth ..

And I reiterate, I don't go on Islamic Boards dragging up the darker aspects of Islam's history. I would view that as trolling.

... as I believe is the main purpose of wikipedia also.

Then I think you'll have to dig deeper than wikipedia.

According to their own declaration:
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to distinguished professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything and as a quick "ready reference", to get a sense of a concept or idea.

"However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable because Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Follow two simple rules:
Do your research properly and wisely. Remember that any encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending point.
Use your judgment. Remember that all sources have to be evaluated.

This is why I prefer primary (where available) and secondary sources.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't go on Islamic Boards dragging up the darker aspects of Islam's history. I would view that as trolling.

I wouldn't..
I think that it depends on the intention behind such an action.
..and when you say "Islam's history", are you referring to conquests or political interference of creeds?

Then I think you'll have to dig deeper than wikipedia.

According to their own declaration:
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research.

I realise it is only "a starting point".. but it provides refs.

This is why I prefer primary (where available) and secondary sources.

You are entitled to "follow the official line", and pick your sources..
..but I lose interest in such discussions .. they appear to me to be "walls of text"

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

Aren't you making things more complicated than they actually are?

Subordinationalism is a Trinitarian doctrine wherein the Son (and sometimes also the Holy Spirit) is subordinate to the Father. Not only in submission and role, but with actual ontological subordination to varying degrees. Subordinationism posits a hierarchical ranking of the persons of the Trinity, implying ontological subordination of the persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Subordinationism was condemned in the Second Council of Constantinople.
Subordinationism - Wikipedia

 

[Thomas]

I wouldn't..

OK. Well, as I said, I would.

You are entitled to "follow the official line", and pick your sources..

LOL. So I'm at fault for doing the research?

You think my sources are wrong? Then bring it on, but don't just sit there casting aspersions on stuff you don't like.

..but I lose interest in such discussions .. they appear to me to be "walls of text"

That's your problem not mine. The issue is complex – if it's too complex for you, maybe best you let it lie.

Broad stereotypical generalisations do the topic a disservice.

Aren't you making things more complicated than they actually are?

Lord no! LOL. I've been trying to keep it simple!

 

[Thomas]

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Arianism emerged as the orthodox line after Nicaea, or that some order of semi-Arian subordinationism triumphed under Constantinius and Valens – That one of the various semiArian creeds emerged as the official doctrine of the Christian Church.

So now we have (semi-)Arian Trinitarian Christianity, professing God in Three Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – in a vertical hierarchy.

And they or their successors, in pursuit of order in the empire, will purge society of any taint of the Athanasian heresy, all his papers will be burned, etc., etc.

So ... what?

 

[muhammad_isa]

LOL. So I'm at fault for doing the research?

No, you are not.

You think my sources are wrong? Then bring it on, but don't just sit there casting aspersions on stuff you don't like.

Right.

OK. Well, as I said, I would

Mmm .. perhaps we should drop the subject then.
As I say, we have too much in common to fall out due to schism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Arianism emerged as the orthodox line after Nicaea, or that some order of semi-Arian subordinationism triumphed under Constantinius and Valens – That one of the various semiArian creeds emerged as the official doctrine of the Christian Church.

OK

So now we have (semi-)Arian Trinitarian Christianity, professing God in Three Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – in a vertical hierarchy.

And they or their successors, in pursuit of order in the empire, will purge society of any taint of the Athanasian heresy, all his papers will be burned, etc., etc.

So ... what?

Well, that would then be the history .. that particular creed would have been enforced on the Empire.
..and I doubt very much whether the Gospel of John would have been included in the Bible, if that was the case.
..but as we know, it wasn't the case.

 

[Thomas]

Well, that would then be the history .. that particular creed would have been enforced on the Empire.
..and I doubt very much whether the Gospel of John would have been included in the Bible, if that was the case.

Well you'd be wrong, I'm afraid.

Here's a list of Creeds after Nicaea and citations from John's Gospel:
341 First Creed of Antioch.
341 Second Creed of Antioch – John 1:1, 1:18 and 6:38.
341 Third Creed of Antioch – John 15:26
341 Fourth Creed of Antioch
343 Creed of the Western Serdican Council – John 1:3, 10:30, 14:10, 17:21
343 Creed of the Eastern Serdican Council
345 Ekthesis Makrostichos or “The Long-lined Creed” – John 20:17
351 First Creed of Sirmium John 1:14, 14:16
357 Second Creed of Sirmium or “The Blasphemy of Sirmium” – John 10:29, 14:28, 20:17
Final paragraph:
And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers."
359 Fourth Creed of Sirmium or “The Dated Creed” – John 14:16, 17 & 26, 16:14
359 The Thracian-Nicaean Creed
359 Seleucia 9th Confession
360 The Homoian Creed – John 16:13
381 Constantinople – essentially an endorsement of Nicaea.

As you can see, John is regarded as authoritative and canonical throughout, really, including the Prologue, mentioned four times out of 19.

There is no 'Arian Creed' as such, just Arius' propositions we have in his letters.

First Antioch is anti-Nicene but not pro-Arian either – Arianism ended with Arius, really. The 'semi-Arian' creeds tried to arrive at a formula which all parties could agree to, but as there were schisms within 'semi-Arian' circles, in the end they could not arrive at a consensus.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well you'd be wrong, I'm afraid.

Here's a list of Creeds after Nicaea and citations from John's Gospel:
341 First Creed of Antioch.
341 Second Creed of Antioch – John 1:1, 1:18 and 6:38.
341 Third Creed of Antioch – John 15:26
341 Fourth Creed of Antioch
343 Creed of the Western Serdican Council – John 1:3, 10:30, 14:10, 17:21
343 Creed of the Eastern Serdican Council
345 Ekthesis Makrostichos or “The Long-lined Creed” – John 20:17
351 First Creed of Sirmium John 1:14, 14:16
357 Second Creed of Sirmium or “The Blasphemy of Sirmium” – John 10:29, 14:28, 20:17
Final paragraph:
And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers."
359 Fourth Creed of Sirmium or “The Dated Creed” – John 14:16, 17 & 26, 16:14
359 The Thracian-Nicaean Creed
359 Seleucia 9th Confession
360 The Homoian Creed – John 16:13
381 Constantinople – essentially an endorsement of Nicaea.

As you can see, John is regarded as authoritative and canonical throughout, really, including the Prologue, mentioned four times out of 19.

As I can see?
Well, as you seem to like essays so much, what about this one?

To think that John was heavily used by the proto-orthodox and yet remained uncommented upon
until the time of Irenaeus is not an easy idea to accept without question. Why, many have asked,
would the Gospel of John be used by Christians extensively, but fall by the wayside when we
have much in the way of clear references to the other canonical gospels from this early
2nd century period? When John, a clear favorite of much of Christianity from the time of Irenaeus
onwards, does not appear outside of heretical documents until the 170’s, we must in many ways
question Hill’s conclusions. This leaves us with the question of whether or not the Gospel of
John was first used by heretical Christians or proto-orthodox. - (page 63)
RECEPTION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL IN THE SECOND CENTURY

 

[Thomas]

As I can see?
Well, as you seem to like essays so much, what about this one?

What am I to make of this?

The first thing is that you've jumped forward some 200 years or so, in which case the question is irrelevant to the discussion of Arius.

So I assume you're shifting to a discussion of John – the Arian question is done and dusted?

If you want to discuss the reception of John as canonical, that's a whole other ballgame.

Above, you say:

You are entitled to "follow the official line", and pick your sources..
..but I lose interest in such discussions .. they appear to me to be "walls of text"

And here, I see, you've done some searching and 'picked your source'. You've plucked a text from p63 of a 108p thesis. That's 'quite a wall'

I don't know what to make of it, I haven't read it. The paragraph asks a question, d'you know the answer?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The first thing is that you've jumped forward some 200 years or so, in which case the question is irrelevant to the discussion of Arius.

So I assume you're shifting to a discussion of John – the Arian question is done and dusted?

Well, I see that you are talking about "trolling" so thought it better to drop it..

If you want to discuss the reception of John as canonical, that's a whole other ballgame.

Above, you say:

And here, I see, you've done some searching and 'picked your source'. You've plucked a text from p63 of a 108p thesis. That's 'quite a wall'

Yes, it is an essay.

I don't know what to make of it, I haven't read it. The paragraph asks a question, d'you know the answer?

I know what I think..
I think that the Roman Empire was very large, and Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyon, France,
and was the first to talk about 4 Gospels, and not all parts of the Empire used the same texts.
..so we end up arguing about "an official Bible canon" that originated in the West, and not the East.

 

[Thomas]

I know what I think.

No comment about the post above, then? Good job I didn't bother reading the essay.

I think that the Roman Empire was very large, and Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyon, France,

Yes. He was born in Smyrna, in Turkey, a student of its bishop, Polycarp (a disciple of John). The fact that he ended up Bishop of Lyon would suggest a network of Christian administration across the empire.

and was the first to talk about 4 Gospels ...

OK. But that doesn't mean the 4 Gospels were unknown.

and not all parts of the Empire used the same texts.

Are there significant differences though?

..so we end up arguing about "an official Bible canon" that originated in the West, and not the East.

Do we? We have a canon that's mentioned in the west. Nothing about what's in the east – no reason to assume it's not the same there. I don't see anything to argue about?

So far, I think you're trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No comment about the post above, then? Good job I didn't bother reading the essay.

I haven't read it all, but I found it very interesting.

Are there significant differences though?

Obviously .. the Arian "stronghold" was in the East.
..and schism continued shortly after the Arians were seen off.

Do we? We have a canon that's mentioned in the west. Nothing about what's in the east – no reason to assume it's not the same there. I don't see anything to argue about?

So far, I think you're trying to make something out of nothing.

Some things in history can be hidden or manipulated..
..but the schisms themselves [4th. & 5th. century], and the ensuing enmity, cannot.

OK, we know that the present day Bible canons don't vary much..
In other words, the main canon was likely established at the end of the fouth century, or earlier.
..not much earlier, though. A canon only became an issue around the same time as the state church was established.

 

[Thomas]

Obviously ..

Really? Can you point me at these significant differences?

OK, we know that the present day Bible canons don't vary much..
In other words, the main canon was likely established at the end of the fourth century, or earlier.

LOL. Irenaeus 180AD? Muratorian Fragment, 180AD – and that references Pius 1 of Rome (died 157) as 'recent', so could say 160AD?

The Muratorian list includes the Apocalypse of Peter with the caveat, “though some of us are not willing for the latter to be read in church.” It rejects the Shepherd of Hermas because it was written “quite recently, in our own times” so not backed by apostolic authority.

Both lists indicate the early church agreed on the core New Testament canon and had discussed the status of others books, Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Song of the Pearl, and had come to decisions by mid 2nd century at the latest.

BTW – the NT Canon was dogmatically declared at the Council of Trent, 1545AD

..not much earlier, though.

Sorry, chum, very much earlier.

A canon only became an issue around the same time as the state church was established.

Not an issue ... and the Church was established at Pentecost, in Jerusalem...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Really? Can you point me at these significant differences?

Hmm .. I really don't believe that the Arian/East schisms in the 4th. and 5th. centuries were based
on "insignificant differences".
If they were, then what was all the fuss about?

LOL. Irenaeus 180AD? Muratorian Fragment, 180AD – and that references Pius 1 of Rome (died 157) as 'recent', so could say 160AD?

It is more complex than that..
The fact that there were many different house churches, and the development happened
over time in a huge empire, mean that many texts were in circulation.
The hierarchy of authority, bishops and emperors etc. wanted a uniformity,
and we don't see "Constantine's Bible" until the 4th. century.

Both lists indicate the early church agreed on the core New Testament canon and had discussed the status of others books..

Sure .. "the church" being the general hierarchy.

BTW – the NT Canon was dogmatically declared at the Council of Trent, 1545AD

..but Bibles were in circulation before that.

 

[wil]

canon only became an issue around the same time as the state church was established.

I had read that there were over 300 books in circulation (books as we know books in the Bible) despite the fact that they were not books (with fancy bindings) nor cumbersome scrolls, but my understanding more like pamphlets that were being handed around and shared to read.

Bibles were in circulation before that.

were.there? With OT and NT? Can you tell us when and where and what books were in them? It seems to me churches and authors of books pretty proudly state things like dates and locations and groups that took the effort to have such things created

 

[muhammad_isa]

..were.there? With OT and NT? Can you tell us when and where and what books were in them? It seems to me churches and authors of books pretty proudly state things like dates and locations and groups that took the effort to have such things created

I don't mean "a book" as in modern day book from a printing press..

The list of books included in the Catholic Bible was established as canon by the Council of Rome in 382, followed by those of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. Between 385 and 405 CE, the early Christian church translated its canon into Vulgar Latin (the common Latin spoken by ordinary people), a translation known as the Vulgate..
Bible