Asclepius & the appeal of Jesus to Gentiles

[BrotherMichaelSky]

You folks have much that i could learn from.
I certainly wish I had no gotten the news that i will not be able to access this site for a while...
I drag my feet as i leave - but i will be back to continue conversations as soon as I am able...

Shine Your Light, folks - these conversations shed light for us all to see by...

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Yet you were quite happy to leave me to make assumptions ... please deal with others as you would wish them to deal with you.

Rather than supply another's opinion, I will wait for it.

Not just the Romans. Most traditions have trees figuring in their iconography, for various reasons. The point is, in the period under discussion — the 2nd century, when the date was first put forward — there is nothing to support the notion of Christians appropriating pagan practice, and indeed everything points against it.

all i can say is, yes there is - if you are looking for it. But as with all things one must be looking objectively. WITHOUT trying to prove anything, and willing to notice trends.

Well that rather depends what Christians you mean. But when it comes to the Tradition, believe me, there's reasons for everything, and deeper than you can imagine!

If you step away from Catholicism - you are going further and further away from "Christianity" - Give me one example of another denomination which did not separate at some point from the Catholic Church, or one of it's derivatives....

Please don't assume everyone is 'mindless' because their reasoning escapes you.

I would call "mindless", any action taken by an individual for which that individual has no understanding of why they do it. Which describes a great many Christians i know... their ideas DO NOT come from the text - they come from Church Doctrine.... and ask them to explain it, and they point at the "preacher".... I go looking for reasoning - but when i fail to find it, I have no fear of pointing that out.

There are usually reasons for everything, especially in the Church, in which nothing has no reason. Whether these are theologically viable is a question open to debate.

Which gets to the bottom of the problem - somewhere along the way ( probably incrementally ) the idea surfaced that the CHURCH had all the answers, and as it is proven that they do not, they began creating DOCTRINE to cover the holes (or access TO the holes ).
Your idea that there is understanding to be had of EVERYTHING having to do with religion, is the very impulse that is the cause of all this....
You, and every die hard believer who simply cannot tolerate the idea that the Church is fallible, give rise to a blind spot - IMO.

Birthdays, in my opinion, are not. The Jews didn't keep them, the early Christians didn't keep them. Even pinpointing the date of the birth of Christ does not mean we should celebrate every birthday ... so the practice is alien to Revelation, but not contrary to it. As my director once asked: There's nothing about bicycles in Scripture, does that make riding a bike a heresy?

All Souls and all saints however, if an interesting point. I would argue that a day of remembrance of the dead is not alien to Christian thought, indeed it's a good thing. So why introduce a date, and a feast, when a date and a feast already exists? Simply utilise the popular date ... I'm pretty sure those dates were assumes from older traditions ... the history of Scripture reveals as much.

Where would your own philosophy be without it?


Well, how about the fact that as those festivals mark events on the cosmological calendar, and Christ is the Pantokrator, the Lord of Creation, a metacosmic being, then it was He who ordered the seasons, and the procession of the equinoxes ... so when He chose to disclose Himself in the flesh, it would not be too inconcievable to think that He would do so according the the rhythms of the Cosmos that He, as Logos, instituted in the first place.

So rather than the Christians taking what belongs to the pagans, the stronger argument is we make known at a metacosmic level what they can only hint at prophetically and vesitigially in their cosmological determinations.

My objection would be when the killing, burning, crucifying, and such takes place at the "appropriating" ceremony....
Leaving nothing but Doctrine behind.... can we say "Gangsters"

Ooh, how often has that been said in history, and how often have we looked back and laughed at its naivety. You're seriously deceiving yourself if you believe that.

The student of history cannot have opinions set in stone... period... because new facts are always surfacing..
"Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops"
sound familiar?

As the source of inspiration of philosophers and poets, mystics and musicians, artists and artisans?

Doctrine would have you thinking so - but the text says there is only ONE who inspires.... and did you feel that little shiver of truth as you read that? that means something....

Ah ...


Ah, the "Any history that agrees with me is history, any history that doesn't is a lie" school of history.

I will let your most holy self slide on that one... but I have a sniper's rifle too...

God bless,

Thomas

MMMhhmmmnn,
and God Bless is exactly what you meant there?
To thine own self be true , my friend..
Shine Your Light - it is needed.....
I'm not trying to dim it....

 

[Thomas]

all i can say is, yes there is

Then can you substantiate that claim with material evidence, please, as all the evidence I have seen points to the contrary. Because so far all I see is opinion and the lack of rigour in investigation.

Which describes a great many Christians I know... their ideas DO NOT come from the text - they come from Church Doctrine....

Ah ... "If I can't win the argument switch to attack those who support it." Are you a Theosophist? I only ask as that seems to be the favoured technique.

The doctrine explains the text. Every doctrine is referenced to the text.
In fact there was a doctrine before there was a text ... so it's chronologically correct to begin with doctrine by way of explanation.
(The assumption that the text is, or must be, self-evident in its entirety to everyone who reads it, is patently nonsense, as no two powers of comprehension are the same, so commentary is necessary, in Christianity as in all traditions.)

I go looking for reasoning - but when i fail to find it, I have no fear of pointing that out.

And I have no fear of suggesting you're looking in the wrong places.

Try Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma in which the doctrines are explained, their Scriptural basis and their theological reasoning.
For more precise details on the early development of doctrine, JND Kelly has produced 'Early Christian Doctrine" and "Early Christian Creeds".

Which gets to the bottom of the problem ...

So far the root of the problem seems to be your confusion about what is an opinion and what is a fact.

I see a lot of opinion, I see evidence of a very imprecise understanding of what you are critiquing, but no actual evidence to support your arguments, in the face of significant evidence to the contrary.

When people today say 'objectivity', its usually from within the prevailing Philosophy of Relativism, in which their own subjectivism becomes something of a benchmark for objectivity.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Then can you substantiate that claim with material evidence, please, as all the evidence I have seen points to the contrary. Because so far all I see is opinion and the lack of rigour in investigation.


Ah ... "If I can't win the argument switch to attack those who support it." Are you a Theosophist? I only ask as that seems to be the favoured technique.

The doctrine explains the text. Every doctrine is referenced to the text.
In fact there was a doctrine before there was a text ... so it's chronologically correct to begin with doctrine by way of explanation.
(The assumption that the text is, or must be, self-evident in its entirety to everyone who reads it, is patently nonsense, as no two powers of comprehension are the same, so commentary is necessary, in Christianity as in all traditions.)


And I have no fear of suggesting you're looking in the wrong places.

Try Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma in which the doctrines are explained, their Scriptural basis and their theological reasoning.
For more precise details on the early development of doctrine, JND Kelly has produced 'Early Christian Doctrine" and "Early Christian Creeds".


So far the root of the problem seems to be your confusion about what is an opinion and what is a fact.

I see a lot of opinion, I see evidence of a very imprecise understanding of what you are critiquing, but no actual evidence to support your arguments, in the face of significant evidence to the contrary.

When people today say 'objectivity', its usually from within the prevailing Philosophy of Relativism, in which their own subjectivism becomes something of a benchmark for objectivity.

God bless,

Thomas

You are of the opinion that all we have to go on is surviving texts.... I am not of the same opinion.
You are desperate to pin a label on me, are you not? Theosophist - LMAO

I am an awake and aware individual. I can spend thirty years doing this research - but i cannot give it to you in a single post... That requires you to do a little work which you might not find comfortable - your problem....

and Ludwig Ott may be one of your go-to guys... but i will follow my own path to understanding - lest i simply end up simply carrying another's understanding for them...
You may choose to allow someone to guide your understanding- keeping you within the bounds they set for you - I find much information in varying places to fill in important detail... and I have found too much evidence of deception to trust an institution which was created to control the populace...

There IS an alternate understanding hidden within the texts - but it requires one to look for it. If you entire thrust is to defend your present understanding - never can an enlightening thought enter...

Simply Put : I am familiar with your interpretation - it is full of holes and senseless concepts in my opinion. My intention is to share my own interpretation - not to educate you...
I have gotten what is available from you in this context- and I have given my own understanding.
You may argue with yourself.
If you could give me something besides "I don't believe you - show me", there could be more to talk about... i COULD show how I have arrived at my conclusions - but comparing what I have, against the same old tired arguments gives me no Joy or enjoyment.....

I am not a guru - i am a logical, determined person who has devoted 30 years to understanding these things.... and as such, I VALUE what i have found - i will keep my pearls in my pocket for now.... for you are attempting to tread upon them...

 

[Thomas]

You are of the opinion that all we have to go on is surviving texts.... I am not of the same opinion.

Actually that's not my opinion, it's just another of your suppositions.

There IS an alternate understanding hidden within the texts ...

Not really 'alternative', as that would create a contradiction. Rather the readings are are complementary. The classic four readings of Scripture: The Literal, Typological, Analogical and Anagogical, are as old as the texts themselves ... older, in fact, as they are part of the Hebrew Tradition.

Then we have the structure of the texts, a study in itself ...

That's why you need the Tradition, to provide the hermeneutic keys to unlock the text. In the absence of that, people make up meanings that suit themselves, which is obvious from the proliferation of interpretations knocking around today.

Whether those interpretations are credible is another matter.

My intention is to share my own interpretation - not to educate you...

OK. But your interpretation is nothing new, in fact it's quite a common misconception.

If your opinion is more important to you than the truth, then so be it.

I post here for the benefit of all.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Actually that's not my opinion, it's just another of your suppositions.

lol - because YOUR suppositions are backed by the suppositions of others?
My posts are based in personal experience - which i express to the best of my ability. I DO NOT have to rely on trust in other men for my edification...
I'll rely on my own work... and share what i find when i can...

Not really 'alternative', as that would create a contradiction. Rather the readings are are complementary. The classic four readings of Scripture: The Literal, Typological, Analogical and Anagogical, are as old as the texts themselves ... older, in fact, as they are part of the Hebrew Tradition.

and I suppose the Hebrew tradition just appeared out of nowhere?
The idea that these religious ideas just appeared full blown, is patently ridiculous.... you may choose to follow the concept or simply sit on top of Doctrine...

Then we have the structure of the texts, a study in itself ...

which may be used to "prove" anything one would like - because of the historical evidence of changes ...

That's why you need the Tradition, to provide the hermeneutic keys to unlock the text. In the absence of that, people make up meanings that suit themselves, which is obvious from the proliferation of interpretations knocking around today.

Inspiration unlocks the text - following the instructions to seek and find.... and refusing to be blinded by the Doctrine of a worldly institution.

Whether those interpretations are credible is another matter.


OK. But your interpretation is nothing new, in fact it's quite a common misconception.

If your opinion is more important to you than the truth, then so be it.

I post here for the benefit of all.

I disagree - based on what i see so far, you are posting to prove your point,
and you feel that the education you have received is faultless....
I feel the mote in your eye precludes you from seeing what I am trying to share with you.
For some reason, the personal experiences I have had concerning these ideas seem threatening to you.

What folks with such die hard beliefs frequently fail to see, is that ANYONE can simply follow the crowd - there are not a 100,000 folks repeating the same old rhetoric needed - it's tired, it's been found to be deceiving, and personal experience tells me that there are genuine errors which a slight word can remedy.
You feel you do this for the benefit of all - and a book tells you so.....
I feel i do this for the benefit of all - and Personal Experience tells me so....

Your book will never drag me kicking and screaming back to ignorance..... it's a book - not a revealed Truth - the Truth is hidden WITHIN the book.
Never was it my intention to argue the books - a pointless endeavor as far as I am concerned. As it seems you have little interest in discussing the most important factors surrounding the formation of the books you so idolize. You refuse to consider that it is NOT a free floating bit of history which appeared out of nowhere with commentaries...

My intention was to share an alternate understanding, and explain it if asked...
you may stand there and say "wrong" all you want - but you are arguing the benefit of 30 years of objective searching. Your voice is one I am very familiar with - I have heard the railing and whining, insisting that there is ONE understanding, all of my life. I find that to be a blind and childish sentiment, that only serves to confuse the very folks who so desire the Truth and Hope that was the VERY reason for the visit of Our Big Brother - Jesus.

God bless,

Thomas

You continue to throw our Father's name at me....
be assured I MEAN it when I say: God Bless YOU, my friend

That is not something to use as a Tag Line.....

 

[Thomas]

lol - because YOUR suppositions are backed by the suppositions of others?

No, because mine are based on evidence, and yours are not. In fact the evidence speaks against you.

My posts are based in personal experience

You have personal experience of the process of dating the birth of Christ?

I DO NOT have to rely on trust in other men for my edification... I'll rely on my own work... and share what i find when i can...

That rather assumes infallibility.

For some reason, the personal experiences I have had concerning these ideas seem threatening to you.

You seem to think highly of yourself, too.

What folks with such die hard beliefs frequently fail to see, is that ANYONE can simply follow the crowd -

But your claim is following the crowd. Every bar-room know-it-all will tell you the Christians took a pagan festival for Christmas day.

My intention was to share an alternate understanding, and explain it if asked... you may stand there and say "wrong" all you want - but you are arguing the benefit of 30 years of objective searching.

Actually, I've been at it longer than you.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

No, because mine are based on evidence, and yours are not. In fact the evidence speaks against you.

Your EVIDENCE is another man's evidence - you have just grabbed onto it to claim it for yourself. One DESERVES a stationary view for sitting in another's seat...

You have personal experience of the process of dating the birth of Christ?

When did we start discussing the dating of The Christ's Birthday? We were dating his celebrated birthday - were we not? which the point was - it was NOT simply his birthday - it was a day picked to "hijack" the festivals of others.....
try to follow along...

That rather assumes infallibility.

You seem to think highly of yourself, too.


But your claim is following the crowd. Every bar-room know-it-all will tell you the Christians took a pagan festival for Christmas day.

I think I begin to see where your problem with Religious history is coming from....
You may try receiving your information from somewhere else...
Why go looking in a bar for the answers to religious question....?

Actually, I've been at it longer than you.

God bless,

Thomas

and all you've got is another God Bless to throw at me....?

Really, Thomas - I am waiting for the information you are about to provide which shows how CLEARLY I am wrong.....

Not a simple growl in my direction - because I growl louder and with more style - but I am trying to have a conversation here.... you were going to show me the errors of my ways, were you not?

If you at least provide your line of thinking - if you have one - we can ACTUALLY discuss points..... There is entirely too much to cover for me to just lay all the facts at your feet - you would be swamped and unable to answer anything in the confusion....

So Thomas - I invite you to show me what you have there, buddy.....
cause all i see is your lips moving - i hear nothing that is of substance...

It's difficult to break through the Doctrine Barrier - but the results are worth it... the fear that arises in people when they first approach the barrier the Earthly Church has placed between them and The Father, is real, and difficult to cross... I am not making light of your belief - but I would be remiss to allow your fear to hold back what I have to share...

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

D'you think so? You're quite wrong, you know.

Indeed, the 'Arian Heresy' only came to light when the 'common people' complained to their bishop that their presbyter Arius was preaching false doctrine ...


God bless,

Thomas

So many false statements - and so many positions made up by the church to cover what they had been up to......

Outright Lie, here folks.....

The Royal Families of the Roman Empire were mostly Arian...

between 340-360 no less than 14 other versions of a Creed were sent to all corners of the Empire...

Gratian and Theodosius I were the end of the line for Arianism - they were accepting of the Nicean Creed, and allowed Gregory Nazianzus control of the churches of Constantinople - which caused massive rioting, because it was being FORCED onto them - the Nicean Creed, that is...
In February 380, he and Gratian had published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), or be handed over for punishment for not doing so.

Arianism was an original Christian concept ....
There is NO OTHER ACCURATE way of seeing those events in history...
the way you have been taught demands blinders be worn when reading about these occurrences...
and i see similar arguments all through your post....
Really, what are you sharing but another man's opinion ?
If you had done your own work to look into history - you would have read a different story.....

Arianism is what would have kept Christianity from fitting in a Pagan Mold....
but so much for that.....

 

[Thomas]

So many false statements - and so many positions made up by the church to cover what they had been up to......

Oh, really? And not one shred of evidence, nor even logic, to support your assertions, other than the normal drivel spouted by the spiritual poseur.

Outright Lie, here folks.....

Well let's see...

The Royal Families of the Roman Empire were mostly Arian...

Were they? And where did that creed come from, may I ask?

Was Constantine? No, as he sided against Arius at Nicea.

Arianism is the name given to the preaching of the presbyter Arius, who, influenced by Origen and Platonism, argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing" ... which led to the common refrain of the Arian party: "There was a time when he was not"

This was not Origen's position, by the way. Origen preached a more orthodox doctrine, of the Son being co-eternal with the Father, and indeed, being eternally-begotten.

Arius worked the docks, and the dockers and their families complained to their bishop that their presbyter was preaching a false Trinitarian doctrine. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria dithered, but eventually called a council, examined the evidenced, declared Arius' teaching as false, and sacked him.

Here it might have ended, but Arius had friends in high places. He contacted his friend and a like-minded philosopher, Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Eusebius was distantly related by blood to the Emperor Constantine, but his rise from a Levantine bishopric to an almost unassailable position in affairs signifies his influence at court. Indeed, it was during his time in the Imperial court that the Eastern (Greek) Court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathisers.

It can be logically surmised that Eusebius had a huge hand in the acceptance of Arianism in the Constantinian household.

Arianism was an original Christian concept ....

Yes it was, one among many, but the superior concept was eventually defined as doctrine.

There is NO OTHER ACCURATE way of seeing those events in history...

Than your way? Is this another claim to infallibility?

Arianism is what would have kept Christianity from fitting in a Pagan Mold....but so much for that.....

Good Grief, you don't even understand Arianism! It's origin is Platonism, it's the doctrine of the demiurge! it's entirely a pagan viewpoint!

Where do you get all this anti-Christian polemical drivel? You really need to sense-check your sources.

Still, this is all by-the-by ... Funny, but you and the theosophists here do the same thing, when their claims have been proved false, and when faced with an argument they can't refute, they change the subject ...

If not a theosophist in fact, you're a theosophist in spirit, old chum!

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Servetus]

Hi Thomas,

Arianism is the name given to the preaching of the presbyter Arius, who, influenced by Origen and Platonism, argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing" ... which led to the common refrain of the Arian party: "There was a time when he was not"

Arianism is what would have kept Christianity from fitting in a Pagan Mold....but so much for that.....

Good Grief, you don't even understand Arianism! It's origin is Platonism, it's the doctrine of the demiurge! it's entirely a pagan viewpoint!

Here, then, is an interesting point of convergence. If Arius's viewpoint was entirely pagan, to what extent can it be said that the viewpoint of his opponents, represented by Athanasius, was not? Was the dogma of the Trinity, as initially articulated by the Nicene Council (and, 900 years later, still being clarified by the Fourth Lateran), essentially, at least from a certain Catholic standpoint, the divine affirmation of a Platonic or neo-Platonic argument in Christology? To me, provided that one does not reduce the controversy exclusively to those terms, it seems conceivable to say so.

Best regards,


Serv

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Oh, really? And not one shred of evidence, nor even logic, to support your assertions, other than the normal drivel spouted by the spiritual poseur.


Well let's see...


Were they? And where did that creed come from, may I ask?

Was Constantine? No, as he sided against Arius at Nicea.

he was baptized Arian... and many of the Court were as well

Arianism is the name given to the preaching of the presbyter Arius, who, influenced by Origen and Platonism, argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing" ... which led to the common refrain of the Arian party: "There was a time when he was not"

Arianism is a term used to designate a wide array of belief systems which were declared "Anathema" for believing in the "Fabulous preexistence of Souls"

This was not Origen's position, by the way. Origen preached a more orthodox doctrine, of the Son being co-eternal with the Father, and indeed, being eternally-begotten.

I believe it is a very subtle difference between what we are understanding here.... and how it was explained by different ancient sources....

Arius worked the docks, and the dockers and their families complained to their bishop that their presbyter was preaching a false Trinitarian doctrine. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria dithered, but eventually called a council, examined the evidenced, declared Arius' teaching as false, and sacked him.

that sounds like the "official" version of the story to me... and conveniently lumps a wide array of groups of Christians into a manageable group...
The reason he s remembered at all, is because he held such a pernicious belief - which was widely shared...

Here it might have ended, but Arius had friends in high places. He contacted his friend and a like-minded philosopher, Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Eusebius was distantly related by blood to the Emperor Constantine, but his rise from a Levantine bishopric to an almost unassailable position in affairs signifies his influence at court. Indeed, it was during his time in the Imperial court that the Eastern (Greek) Court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathisers.

It can be logically surmised that Eusebius had a huge hand in the acceptance of Arianism in the Constantinian household.

If you choose to focus on one fellow in your research... but yes he did...

Yes it was, one among many, but the superior concept was eventually defined as doctrine.

ahhhhh, exactly HOW, during this period of Church history, was this done?
by declaring "Anathema" the beliefs which did not agree....
which meant the individuals could be treated HOWEVER one wanted - they had no legal recourse, and the church was asking whoever saw them to kill them...

Than your way? Is this another claim to infallibility?


Good Grief, you don't even understand Arianism! It's origin is Platonism, it's the doctrine of the demiurge! it's entirely a pagan viewpoint!

LMAO - i was thinking the very same thing.... but no - there is ANOTHER way of looking at it..... which, personally i feel, changes the whole understanding.... and is the ORIGINAL message of Our Guy Jesus...
which was completely unusable to the organized church....

Where do you get all this anti-Christian polemical drivel? You really need to sense-check your sources.

outside of religious institutions - they have the most peculiar way of bending facts... a little unnerving, actually....

Still, this is all by-the-by ... Funny, but you and the theosophists here do the same thing, when their claims have been proved false, and when faced with an argument they can't refute, they change the subject ...

If not a theosophist in fact, you're a theosophist in spirit, old chum!

God bless,

Thomas

You sure do like to lump folks in groups huh?
Bet there's not another here like me.....

All of this is beside the point of what i wanted to get to with you anyway....

You nailed it head on a moment ago - the very immediate difference i see in the arguments of the trinity, and how they relate to the reasons the Jews felt as they did about Jesus....

This was a thread i have done considerable reason concerning....

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Hi Thomas,







Here, then, is an interesting point of convergence. If Arius's viewpoint was entirely pagan, to what extent can it be said that the viewpoint of his opponents, represented by Athanasius, was not? Was the dogma of the Trinity, as initially articulated by the Nicene Council (and, 900 years later, still being clarified by the Fourth Lateran), essentially, at least from a certain Catholic standpoint, the divine affirmation of a Platonic or neo-Platonic argument in Christology? To me, provided that one does not reduce the controversy exclusively to those terms, it seems conceivable to say so.

Best regards,


Serv

One understanding distances the self from an immediate connection to the divine - and relies on clergy to stand between the individual and God.

The other assures the individual that God is within - in an Active fashion, and the relationship is dependent upon the individual....

Go figure why one version won out over the other.....
done with such sneakyness.....
realize the Aramaic translation of Son of Man = Human Being...... ?
It was not a saying which designated a specific individual...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Servetus —

Here, then, is an interesting point of convergence. If Arius's viewpoint was entirely pagan, to what extent can it be said that the viewpoint of his opponents, represented by Athanasius, was not?

Well certainly there were convergences — Arius was a Platonist, but then so were nearly all the orthodox Fathers, so it's not merely down to Platonism.

One could say it depends upon whether you're using Plato to interpret Christ, or Christ to interpret Plato. Arius did the former, so he was Hellenising an essentially Hebraic mode of realisation.

But I'm not saying that Arius was not a Christian, or at least, he saw himself as a Christian. He believed he was right, and no-one is infallible ... where one might criticise him is he tried to outmanoeuvre his opponents via politics, rather than theology or philosophy. Within a few years, as he laments in his own words, he was all but forgotten. Arianism was nothing to do with him, it had become 'a game of thrones' with the emperors attempting to take control of the church from the bishops.

They enjoyed more success in the East than in the West, for example.

The iconoclast debacle, in which Christian would persecute Christian, was a tragedy that took place entirely in the East. The emperors were trying to placate their Moslem neighbours, that was the root of the problem, not theology.

— perhaps it's where their philosophies diverge.

Was the dogma of the Trinity, as initially articulated by the Nicene Council (and, 900 years later, still being clarified by the Fourth Lateran, essentially, at least from a certain Catholic standpoint, the divine affirmation of a Platonic or neo-Platonic argument in Christology

I don't think so, although I'd be interested to hear how you might see it that way? The Trinity offended everyone, Hebrew and Hellene (and later, Moslem).

Certainly the Nicene expression was founded on, and argued from, Scripture. Platonism, in the 3/4th centuries, still presented too many problems — the pre-existence of souls, its view of the world as 'a necessary evil' stood in stark contrast to Genesis and the Johannine Logos in particular.

The Middle and Later Platonism of Iamblichus and Plotinus, for instance, draws closer. Iamblichus was a big influence on the 5th century Dionysius, whose influence on theology should not be under-estimated.

For me, the turning point is St Maximus' revision of the Platonic ternary of 'rest-movement-becoming' to a Scripturally-oriented 'becoming-movement-rest' really opens up the ground for what became called 'Christian Neoplatonism' ... tragically, by then, geopolitics was widening the gulf between East and West.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

One understanding distances the self from an immediate connection to the divine

That's Arianism. It renders Christ an intermediate being, neither God nor man.

Athanasius, on the other hand, made famous the Christian epithet:
"God became man, that man might become god" affirming the doctrine of Theosis, or divinisation.

- and relies on clergy to stand between the individual and God.

Apart from the inaccurate representation of the principle of the priesthood (and I am well aware of the ecclesial tendency to view oneself as the intermediary between God and man), both Orthodoxy and Arianism could be accused of that.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Arianism is a term used to designate a wide array of belief systems which were declared "Anathema" for believing in the "Fabulous preexistence of Souls"

Arianism argues for a demiurge in particular, that there is God, and there is man, and there is Christ in between, a sort of mangod, or godman ... neither one nor the other.

I believe it is a very subtle difference between what we are understanding here.... and how it was explained by different ancient sources....

Well if you want to discuss sources, cite them.

... that sounds like the "official" version of the story to me...

It's the reality of what happened. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary?

The reason he s remembered at all, is because he held such a pernicious belief - which was widely shared...

Yes it was.

ahhhhh, exactly HOW, during this period of Church history, was this done?

By Athanasius slowly bringing the majority of the bishops, who were uncertain either way, round to the view that the 'I and my Father are One' is a credal statement.

The title 'Athanasius contra mundum' (Athanasius against the world) shows how hard and often how bitter the struggle was. He was exiled five times, no less, in the to and fro of political shenanigans.

In the West, his contemporary, Hilary of Poitiers, was also defending what would become the accepted teaching.

outside of religious institutions - they have the most peculiar way of bending facts... a little unnerving, actually....

Oh, outside of religious institutions you have some of the most proficient fiction and fantasy factories around ...

As C.S. Lewis observed, outside of those institutions, Jesus very rapidly becomes 'the Christ of my own invention', there are more versions of Jesus around today than there ever were, from just an ordinary bloke, to an alien from a distant galaxy! Usually he's a projection of the individual's ego and aspirations.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

That's Arianism. It renders Christ an intermediate being, neither God nor man.

no, the way i understand it - it renders Him a COMPANION, and a trail breaker...

Athanasius, on the other hand, made famous the Christian epithet:
"God became man, that man might become god" affirming the doctrine of Theosis, or divinisation.

You have squarely struck my belief....
And the belief which so prominent that hundreds of years were devoted to erasing it as much as possible... but it couldn't be deleted...

Apart from the inaccurate representation of the principle of the priesthood (and I am well aware of the ecclesial tendency to view oneself as the intermediary between God and man), both Orthodoxy and Arianism could be accused of that.

When the Priesthood has a Living Connection to the Divine, there is Divine Guidance available at the Church.....
When the Priest is stuck in a fantasy, there are confusing opinions and Doctrine available at the Church...

The problem is that the rules concerning Purity go hand in hand with the "prophetic state"..... one without the other is pointless....
and attaining the "Prophetic State" is now "unacceptable" within the Church...

and like no other time - Divinity is very "close"...
It just doesn't "look" like what the church has been told to look for......
and they are blind to the fact....

God bless

Thomas

We could go back and forth for an endless time...
You seem to assume I am trying to convince you of something... not so...
I was trying to SHARE something.....
I get no prizes for you believing....

I could provide you with every scrap of information I have found in my years of answering these questions, and you would still see it exactly as you would like... that's as it should be... doesn't bother me in the least....

But this fact chasing goes round and round in circles... because one of us is quite comfortable using the words and ideas of shadowy figures in the past, in exchange for the personal experience which was the instruction of the most Prominent ancient Person, which figures in the religion in question....

The other of us is trying to find a way of expressing something from Personal Experience, which I have discovered there ARE historical connections to....

I must dig, and pore over books, and seek alternate understandings which are still recorded for posterity, to even begin to show some sort of VERIFICATION of the things I share....
I'm getting tired of this way of doing things.... I KNOW that this connection will be made without my input... there has been nothing new provided to me in this conversation.... the argument is getting counterproductive....

Most likely from here- I simply put forward my opinions and one may accept them or dismiss them.... I will still get what I am here for - for it is the reaction and comments of others I am here for....

and I am so familiar with the Doctrinal malarkey, pointless drivel that it is, that i tire of the thoughtless repetition i am subjected to....

You may get your basketball out, clean it all up, take it to the park - but there will always be one guy there who INSISTS on playing badminton....

Thomas, you win - your wisdom is astounding... you have your understanding right where you want it...
and I refuse to spend hours in Genuine research to counter the opinions you have presented to me... no headway can be made if the foundation must be inspected so closely and i must dispel your illusions as you present them...

The benefit of Personal Experience Thomas, is that the words of others are little more than a murmuring, until they expose a little light... Then irregardless of what else is going on, the darkness is dispelled for a moment...
Whether the Church agrees or not.....

I do not dislike you, I am not upset - i am simply tired, my friend... and I have been doing this for years.... I just don't have the same enthusiasm as I used to... I still want to hear the words of others - but they must make sense to me....
I can not lead folks to the understanding I have acquired - I know this...
But the desire to share what I have found will not leave me... That way lies wisdom, carried by others until I find them, then I will carry my share.......
We must agree to disagree....

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Athanasius did not even speak Hebrew..... his understanding was biased...

 

[Servetus]

One understanding distances the self from an immediate connection to the divine - and relies on clergy to stand between the individual and God.

The other assures the individual that God is within - in an Active fashion, and the relationship is dependent upon the individual....

Go figure why one version won out over the other.....
done with such sneakyness.....
realize the Aramaic translation of Son of Man = Human Being...... ?
It was not a saying which designated a specific individual...

I think the dichotomy in this case is too rigid. As far as I am concerned, and even though, as my name suggests, I am out of communion with the Catholic Church (and take issue with it on many points), any organization which states this as part of its credo gets my respect and attention:

Source

"The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature." For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God. "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

It's a bit concept-heavy, but that there is radical stuff!


Serv

 

[Thomas]

Athanasius did not even speak Hebrew..... his understanding was biased...

You're clutching at straws now, really ...