Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [gothic-l] Re: Arain Christian influence on Islam

Expand Messages
  • Michael Erwin
    I think social factors, not purely theological ones, influenced the rise of Islam in Egypt and in Spain too. Basically, suppose we have two religions (in
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 31, 2007
      I think social factors, not purely theological ones, influenced the
      rise of Islam in Egypt and in Spain too.

      Basically, suppose we have two religions (in Egypt) and the first
      (Chalcedonian Christianity) is the state religion and the second
      (Monothelite Christianity) faces active persecution. A new power
      overthrows the old one, and a new state religion (Islam) which
      doesn't conduct as much persecution. Theologically, the different
      Christian traditions are closer to each other than to Islam.
      Socially, they inherit mutual hostility to each other but not to Islam.

      Thus, in Egypt, Monothelite Christians, and Jews, who would never
      consider converting to Chalcedonian Christianity might consider
      converting to Islam.

      Similarly, in Spain, for Wulfilan Christians, and Jews.

      Similarly, in Gaul and Italy, the Gothic successor-kingdoms may have
      seen conversion of 'outsider' Christians as well as Jews. I doubt the
      Roman 'Arians' (not as numerous in the west as in the east) and
      Gothic 'Arians' would have picked fights with each other in the fifth-
      sixth centuries.

      The motivations for theologically-inclined individuals might work
      very differently than for the general population, with issues of
      church doctrine and church practice playing much larger roles. Paul
      of course converted from the school of Gamaliel to proto-
      Christianity, and Tertullian converted from the 'main' church to
      Montanism.
    • Wolfgang Franz
      Hi Ingemar! Ingemar, with all respect, but you intermingle the trinitarian dogma with the christological. The way in which the two natures of Christ combine,
      Message 2 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
        Hi Ingemar!

        Ingemar, with all respect, but you intermingle the trinitarian dogma with the
        christological. The way in which the two natures of Christ combine, the human
        and the divine, is the christological. This was solved when arianism had been
        vanished already in the empire.

        The council of Nikaia was not a "dubious meeting" but is the first ecumenical
        council fundamental to the faith of all christian churches.

        It's a pity for me that I have a compendium of Arius' views in German only,
        written by Prof. Ziegenaus. But this example from wikipedia can possibly show
        it as well:

        "Arius formulated the following doctrines about Jesus:
        that the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
        That the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
        that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed
        before them and before all time, there was a "time" [although Arius refused
        to use words meaning time, such as chronos or aion] when He did not exist."

        "There was [a time] when God was alone, and was not yet Father, and afterward
        he became Father. The Son was not always. For, all things coming into being
        from not being, and all things created and made having begun to be, this
        logos or God also came into being from things not existing; and there was [a
        time] when he was not, and he was not before he was begotten, but he also had
        a beginning of being created."

        These are ideas which leaves doubt about the relevance of the question
        discussed. The west and the goths possibly did not participate in the
        struggle because it was much too theoretical for them. But without doubt
        these are not the words of a man regarding the Christ as purely human and
        adopted by god only because of his virtues. There is also no semblance to the
        muslim view of Christ as prophet only.

        You wrote: "He was born human and raised to divinity through a righteous life,
        like a boddisathva or deva being given a divine status." Where did you find
        that?

        "The Father was in command of the Son and the Son was created." This is not
        the content of the nikaian creed which is anyway only delivered to us via the
        council of Constantinople 381.
        The nicene creed specifically included the word homoousios (consubstantial).

        That arianism had the upper hand afterwards had a lot to do with the emperor's
        political necessities. As Arius stated that the father could create more sons
        than one Christ could be seen as an imperial god contrary to an universal. In
        fact the persians then could also have their own son. But it had nothing to
        do with the church as a whole.

        You miss the point of the christological debate also. In this the nestorians
        (antiochene) emphasized the separation of His two natures while the
        alexandrine emphasized their mix. The alexandrine didn't regard Christ as
        solely divine.

        "the Goths also send missionaries converting all the other Germanic
        continental tribes of major importance to Arianism except the Franks". Which
        tribes except the east germanic vandalians and burgundians? The suebians were
        pagan when they entered the empire as were the alemanni and the saxons.

        The egyptians welcomed the islamic invaders because as monophysites they were
        suppressed by the roman authorities. Their conversion to islam was a event
        which lasted for centuries and had, as in all islamic countries, more to do
        with pressure than with faith.

        When it goes to the question of the conversion to islam of the visigoths in
        Spain the question must be asked if this was really the case. Didn't go a lot
        of the goths to catalunia which was called "gothica" by the franks in the
        time of Charlemagne where they set up successfull resistance to the muslims?
        And for the visigoths staying in muslim Andalusia: Could it been more
        important for them that as a warrior aristocracy they could remain warriors
        only if converting to islam? Did the ordinary gothic nobleman really care so
        much for the trinitarian and christological dogmas?


        Best regards,

        Wolfgang


        Am Sonntag, 1. April 2007 02:33 schrieb Ingemar Nordgren:
        > Hi Ualarauans!
        >
        > It seems as a lot of people mistake the late Arianism in the time of
        > Wulfila with the original Arianism. Wulfila is after the Nicean
        > compromise and Wulfila just rejects the Teodosian interdict but is
        > influencved by the agreement in Constantinople 381-82. I have earlier
        > written an article in this matter from which I give you a slightly
        > revised excerpt:
        >
        > '215 AD in Rome Sabellius declared as his opinion that the Father, the
        > Son and the Holy Ghost were only different manifestations of God. He
        > was part of the modalistic school. Immideately he was classified as
        > heretic. Hundred years later the presbyterian Arius in Alexandria
        > launched what later was called Arianism. The modern definition of this
        > faith says shortly that the Son, the pre-existent Christ, is not of
        > the same divine character as the Father but the first created entity.
        > This is however a rude simplification of the complete story. Arius
        > himself claimed the Son had both a human and a divine nature. He was
        > born human and raised to divinity through a righteous life, like a
        > boddisathva or deva being given a divine status. This implies that
        > even other humans could have the chance being devinated in this way.
        > Regarding the above mentioned Sabellianism you could even interpret
        > Arius saying Jesus was a human but the reincarnated Christ was an
        > incarnation of God, but in the visual shape of Jesus. In this way both
        > Sabellius and Arius succeed to give a picture of a monoteistic God in
        > opposition to the later in Nicea created trinity God, which was
        > understood as three different Gods by the Arians. A great majority of
        > the Eastern bishops sympatized with Arius and the leading were the two
        > Eusebius’s in Caesarea and Nicomedia-the Eastern residential city of
        > the emperor. They had however a formidable opposer in Alexander,
        > pontiff of Alexandria and later this position was taken by his deacon
        > Athanasius, one of the most ruthless clergymen ever known in history
        > and fully comparable with e.g. Al Capone using the same criminal
        > methods to control the Alexandrian economy and the church. He was
        > several times abolished by the joint bishops, both Nicaenan and Arian,
        > because of his methods. Nota bene that all bishops used rough methods
        > but this was too much to take even for them. Athanasius and his,
        > mostly Western, followers claimed that the Father and the Son were of
        > the same nature, and hence they were regarded as polyteistic from
        > Arian wiew. The traditional Eastern wiew includes a god who is an
        > abstract entity and a single God. This goes as well for the Mosaic
        > religion.
        > In 325 the dubious meeting in Nicea was held. Emperor Constantine had
        > engaged the old bishop Hosius of Spain who sided with Athanasius and
        > the Westerners but because of the strong opposition there was a
        > compromise. The Arian bishops agreed that Father and Son were of the
        > same nature but interpreted it as being of a similar nature, not same.
        > The Father was in command of the Son and the Son was created. This
        > compromise resulted in almost total victory for the Arians for a
        > considerable time. In spite of the compromise they fundamentally
        > claimed there was but one real God. Arianism dominates until the death
        > of emperor Valens and the Visigoths accept the Arian faith in his
        > time, and the Goths also send missionaries converting all the other
        > Germanic continental tribes of major importance to Arianism except the
        > Franks......
        > Theodosius then calls a meeting in Constantinople in 381 forcing the
        > assembly to accept a dictate saying that the Father, the Son and the
        > Holy Ghost are of the same essence and that the Son existed together
        > with the Father before all ages. To get the Arian bishops to sign that
        > decision an amandment was issued, saying that the Father worked
        > through the Son and the Spirit and so stressing the unicum of the
        > Father. As soon as the Western delegates had returned home they
        > rejected this amandment. Soon after this Teodosius issued an edict
        > banning Arianism by law, and so it ceased in the empire but flourished
        > in the Germanic states. The united church was still in reality divided
        > and now the divison focused on the amandment which finally resulted in
        > the split 1054 because of the Filiocque-question.
        > Within the Eastern half of the pro-forma united church the old Arian
        > fight continued but now disguised as the Theotokos-debate. There were
        > two centrals, Antioc arguing the Arian wiew and Alexandria the
        > Nicaenan. The question was wether God could be born by a human woman.
        > The Antiocenes meant Jesus was both human and divine and hence could
        > be borne by a woman, but this was rejected by the Alexandrians
        > claiming Jesus Christ was wholly divine. In the long run this gives
        > Mary a similar position of type Boddisathva as Arius had given Jesus
        > and she is, as the first ever, made a saint. Her saintly background is
        > of course also closely connected with Isis and Harpokrates in the Late
        > Antique cult of Serapion and further back to the different
        > Mother-goddesses. Here we touch also a connection to the Tree of Life.
        > The council of Efesos in 431 aknowledged the position of Mary as
        > Theotokos. Jean Damascène writes in the 7th c. that Mary was the
        > tabernacle in which logos was incarnated into Jesus, finally making
        > him Christ. Also in James’s protevangelium 4:1 and in Photius is
        > stressed, that Marys mother, Anna, had a vision that her daughter
        > should be the instrument delivering human blood to Christ, to be let
        > out for the salvation of the world. There is accordingly no doubt that
        > Jesus is described as born with human blood. After death Theotokos
        > raised to heaven, now residing with the Father and the Son. This is
        > illustrated in the grave-chapel of Chora church, where Mary wears the
        > imperial purple mantle.
        > Here we are, accordingly, the old Orientalic trinity with father,
        > mother and son. Adding also the Gnostics we have a unification of
        > male and female-spirit and matter - both leading to the single
        > allmighty God, the result of both the forces like O and H becames OH2.
        > The female power is connected to the Earth and the growing things and
        > the male is the spiritual force. Hence, also in Christian context Mary
        > is connected with plants and fertility. Very early the Tree of Life is
        > connected with her and so is the heart-palmette. The Tree of Life, in
        > combination with the hearts,on the Byzantine,Armenian and Vestgautic
        > Tree of Life Slabs indicates indeed Mary and her son, the Tree,
        > growing out of the soil but on a divine foundation of a zikkurate, and
        > thereby stressing that Jesus is born human, by a human mother, and is
        > indeed the Son, not the Father.'
        >
        > According to the above it is quite possible also that Islam could be
        > influenced by early Arianism. The reason Egypt later turned into
        > Islam is just the monoteistic question and Arius worked in Alexandria
        > and had a tremendous support of the local population. That is one of
        > the reasons the opposition as well centered in Alexandria and used any
        > force to fight Arius and his followers.
        >
        > Best regards
        > Ingemar
        >
        > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans@...> wrote:
        > > Hailai,
        > >
        > > How would you explain the fragment Skeir. 7:7
        > >
        > > akei nauh us þamma filu mais siponjans fullafahida jah anþarans
        > > gamaudida gaumjan, þatei is was sa sama, saei in auþidai •m• jere
        > > attans ize fodida...
        > >
        > > "but much more from this (five loaves and two fishes) he (Jesus) had
        > > satisfied the disciples and reminded the others to see that he was
        > > THE SAME WHO FED THEIR FATHERS IN THE DESERT FOUR HUNDRED YEARS".
        > >
        > > As you see Jesus is literally identified with God Father. Is this
        > > view really Arian? If not, how did it get here?
        > >
        > > Ualarauans
        >
        > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email
        > to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>. Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Ingemar Nordgren
        Hi Wolfgang! Arius teacher belonged to the school of Origenes. Arius went further still. When he had newly started his lectures he is reported by Alexander to
        Message 3 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
          Hi Wolfgang!

          Arius teacher belonged to the school of Origenes. Arius went further
          still. When he had newly started his lectures he is reported by
          Alexander to have said that Jesus divinity was questionable. 'The son
          was not eternal like the father'. He had stated that 'the father knows
          his son but the son does not know the father'.(Athanasius, Thalia) He
          claimed that: ‘Before Christ, God was not yet a father.’ ‘There was
          when he was not’.(Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine of God 5-8)
          Rather than asserting that Jesus was divine by nature, Arius
          emphasized that he had earned his adoption as son and his promotion
          to divine status through moral growth and obedience to God.(Gregg R.E.
          and Groh, D.E., Early arianism- A wiew of salvation, Philadelphia
          1981). Arius still verbally accepted the pre-existence of Christ, but
          nota bene not of Jesus, and beleived that God had conceived him
          (Christ)before time began. He also wrote: At Gods will the son is what
          and whatsoever he(God) is.This, to me, points rather towards different
          incarnations of God of which Christ, not Jesus, is one.Accordingly
          Arius advanced the view that Jesus was a creature intermediary between
          man and God. All Christians beleived that Jesus sacrifice redeemed
          humanity. Alexander asked himself what would happen if people
          understood what Arius was preaching and ask themselves what God did
          for the son by resurrecting him and granting him immortality.Reaction:
          But if Jesus was not God by nature – if he earned his deification by
          growing in wisdom and virtue – why, so can we all.(Rubinstein 1999)

          This is indeed in my opinion a quite correct conclusion of Arius
          teaching. He tried to keep both the ideas of Origenes and deny them.
          He agrees that Christ is a lesser God and the first created entity but
          this does not include Jesus, who is adopted from human flesh. Again
          this is rather the initial idea of Sabellius with three incarnations
          or aspects of the single God.

          You make a formal difference between Christology and Trinitarism and
          of course you are technically correct. Still those questions are not
          able to exist independent of each other. You claim there was no
          Arianism in the empire when the logos question and Theotokos was
          discussed. Of course not since it was legally forbidden. This however
          did not change the belief of the former Arians. They stuck to what was
          left of possibilities to declare Jesus human by birth. The
          Alexandrians okej agreed he was human and divine from birth but in
          Antiocia he was just human and later became divine in Christ – the
          resurrected entity (and not the dead one human in Arian sense, but
          this they could of course not express officially).

          You also claim that Nicea is the foundation of all Christians and very
          important. Unhappily it is for most Christian churches but this does
          not make it better in any way. Still there are Christian beliefs that
          are not Nicean and Arianism is not dead except of to the name and may
          all Non-Nicean creeds flower. Is there indeed any sensible person who
          beleives the human Jesus created the world and the universe??!!
          Possibly some clergymen but probably not many.

          Wulfila of course is later and was, as I wrote, influenced by the
          Nicean compromise.He appears on a consilium in Constantinople in 360
          when the Arian bishops confirm the earlier decision of the
          Rimini-consilium, namely to change the basic concept that ’the father
          is not of the same nature as the son’, which shall be changed to say
          that ’the son is similar with the father’ – this means that the son is
          homoios (similar to) the father – not of the same essence, which was
          claimed in Nicea. The word essence (ousia) should not be used since it
          caused trouble for the people to understand. In a similar way the word
          substance (hypostasis) was forbidden.This means a partly acceptance of
          the demands of the Niceanean bishops, but still a clear Arian
          borderline is marked.
          Before he dies Wulfila issues a creed in 381 clearly distancing
          himself from Nicea. It is found in a letter from his disciple bishop
          Auxentius:
          He beleives in the not created and invisible God, in his only created
          Son, who created all, and in the Holy Spirit, who is neither god or
          lord, but the fidel servant of Christ, not equal with him, but
          subordinated and obedient to the Son in all things,like also the Son
          is subordinated and obedient to his Father in all things.

          This accordingly refutes the agreement in Constantinople 381-2
          dictated by Theodosius. Note as well he writes Christ and not Jesus.


          If you have good literature in German I would be happy to learn of
          that, since it is problems to find good literature in English in these
          questions.

          Die besten Grüße!
          Ingemar
        • ualarauans
          Hails Iggwimer, Thank you very much for the extended comment. I m thinking over some of its very interesting points, and in the meantime I d like to beg pardon
          Message 4 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
            Hails Iggwimer,

            Thank you very much for the extended comment. I'm thinking over some
            of its very interesting points, and in the meantime I'd like to beg
            pardon for having translated .m. jere as "four hundred years". Of
            course it's "forty years".

            Ualarauans
          • Michael Erwin
            Arius actually condemns adoptionism: (from his letter to Alexander, via Athanasius): ... nor that He was was before, was afterwards generated or new- created
            Message 5 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
              Arius actually condemns adoptionism:

              (from his letter to Alexander, via Athanasius):

              ... nor that He was was before, was afterwards generated or new-
              created into a Son, as thou too thyself, Blessed Pope, in the midst
              of the Church and in session has often condemned ...

              I'm not sure where the translation comes from.
            • Ingemar Nordgren
              ... The question then is what He means? Is it Christ or Jesus- that is essential! Nicea mix them allways. Best Ingemar
              Message 6 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
                --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Michael Erwin <merwin@...> wrote:
                >
                > Arius actually condemns adoptionism:
                >
                > (from his letter to Alexander, via Athanasius):
                >
                > ... nor that He was was before, was afterwards generated or new-
                > created into a Son, as thou too thyself, Blessed Pope, in the midst
                > of the Church and in session has often condemned ...
                >
                > I'm not sure where the translation comes from.
                >

                The question then is what 'He' means? Is it Christ or Jesus- that is
                essential! Nicea mix them allways.

                Best
                Ingemar
              • Wolfgang Franz
                Hi Ingemar. I think you make the mistake in separating the preexistent Christ from Jesus. Of course nobody believes that the human Jesus created everything.
                Message 7 of 22 , Apr 2, 2007
                  Hi Ingemar.

                  I think you make the mistake in separating the preexistent Christ from Jesus.
                  Of course nobody believes that the human Jesus created everything. Jehoschua
                  ben Joseph, as was his real name, was the incarnation of the preexistent
                  Logos. After the incarnation he had both natures, unmixed and unseperated. In
                  the catholic church we talk about christmas as of the festivity of the
                  incarnation. The christological question is in fact: "Who died at the cross?
                  A man, a god, or what?" Chalkedon said: "Both."

                  Good literature in German, although very complicated:

                  Scheffczyk, Ziegenaus: Katholische Dogmatik, Bd.2, Der Gott der Offenbarung

                  Scheffczyk, Ziegenaus: Katholische Dogmatik, Bd.4, Jesus Christus. Die Fülle
                  des Heils.

                  These books look at the trinity and the christology, so the arian question is
                  only part of them. But they look at the question from a very neutral point of
                  view.

                  Please don't misunderstand me: I don't want to blame Arius, in fact I want to
                  defend him. He had a point, especially his christology is much smoother and
                  easier than the one of Chalcedon (although this doesn't mean I think it's
                  true).


                  Viele Grüße,

                  Wolfgang



                  Am Montag, 2. April 2007 01:32 schrieb Ingemar Nordgren:
                  > Hi Wolfgang!
                  >
                  > Arius teacher belonged to the school of Origenes. Arius went further
                  > still. When he had newly started his lectures he is reported by
                  > Alexander to have said that Jesus divinity was questionable. 'The son
                  > was not eternal like the father'. He had stated that 'the father knows
                  > his son but the son does not know the father'.(Athanasius, Thalia) He
                  > claimed that: ‘Before Christ, God was not yet a father.’
                  > ‘There was when he was not’.(Hanson, Search for the Christian
                  > Doctrine of God 5-8) Rather than asserting that Jesus was divine by nature,
                  > Arius
                  > emphasized that he had earned his adoption as son and his promotion
                  > to divine status through moral growth and obedience to God.(Gregg R.E.
                  > and Groh, D.E., Early arianism- A wiew of salvation, Philadelphia
                  > 1981). Arius still verbally accepted the pre-existence of Christ, but
                  > nota bene not of Jesus, and beleived that God had conceived him
                  > (Christ)before time began. He also wrote: At Gods will the son is what
                  > and whatsoever he(God) is.This, to me, points rather towards different
                  > incarnations of God of which Christ, not Jesus, is one.Accordingly
                  > Arius advanced the view that Jesus was a creature intermediary between
                  > man and God. All Christians beleived that Jesus sacrifice redeemed
                  > humanity. Alexander asked himself what would happen if people
                  > understood what Arius was preaching and ask themselves what God did
                  > for the son by resurrecting him and granting him immortality.Reaction:
                  > But if Jesus was not God by nature – if he earned his deification by
                  > growing in wisdom and virtue – why, so can we all.(Rubinstein 1999)
                  >
                  > This is indeed in my opinion a quite correct conclusion of Arius
                  > teaching. He tried to keep both the ideas of Origenes and deny them.
                  > He agrees that Christ is a lesser God and the first created entity but
                  > this does not include Jesus, who is adopted from human flesh. Again
                  > this is rather the initial idea of Sabellius with three incarnations
                  > or aspects of the single God.
                  >
                  > You make a formal difference between Christology and Trinitarism and
                  > of course you are technically correct. Still those questions are not
                  > able to exist independent of each other. You claim there was no
                  > Arianism in the empire when the logos question and Theotokos was
                  > discussed. Of course not since it was legally forbidden. This however
                  > did not change the belief of the former Arians. They stuck to what was
                  > left of possibilities to declare Jesus human by birth. The
                  > Alexandrians okej agreed he was human and divine from birth but in
                  > Antiocia he was just human and later became divine in Christ – the
                  > resurrected entity (and not the dead one human in Arian sense, but
                  > this they could of course not express officially).
                  >
                  > You also claim that Nicea is the foundation of all Christians and very
                  > important. Unhappily it is for most Christian churches but this does
                  > not make it better in any way. Still there are Christian beliefs that
                  > are not Nicean and Arianism is not dead except of to the name and may
                  > all Non-Nicean creeds flower. Is there indeed any sensible person who
                  > beleives the human Jesus created the world and the universe??!!
                  > Possibly some clergymen but probably not many.
                  >
                  > Wulfila of course is later and was, as I wrote, influenced by the
                  > Nicean compromise.He appears on a consilium in Constantinople in 360
                  > when the Arian bishops confirm the earlier decision of the
                  > Rimini-consilium, namely to change the basic concept that ’the father
                  > is not of the same nature as the son’, which shall be changed to say
                  > that ’the son is similar with the father’ – this means
                  > that the son is homoios (similar to) the father – not of the same
                  > essence, which was claimed in Nicea. The word essence (ousia) should not be
                  > used since it caused trouble for the people to understand. In a similar way
                  > the word substance (hypostasis) was forbidden.This means a partly
                  > acceptance of the demands of the Niceanean bishops, but still a clear Arian
                  > borderline is marked.
                  > Before he dies Wulfila issues a creed in 381 clearly distancing
                  > himself from Nicea. It is found in a letter from his disciple bishop
                  > Auxentius:
                  > He beleives in the not created and invisible God, in his only created
                  > Son, who created all, and in the Holy Spirit, who is neither god or
                  > lord, but the fidel servant of Christ, not equal with him, but
                  > subordinated and obedient to the Son in all things,like also the Son
                  > is subordinated and obedient to his Father in all things.
                  >
                  > This accordingly refutes the agreement in Constantinople 381-2
                  > dictated by Theodosius. Note as well he writes Christ and not Jesus.
                  >
                  >
                  > If you have good literature in German I would be happy to learn of
                  > that, since it is problems to find good literature in English in these
                  > questions.
                  >
                  > Die besten Grüße!
                  > Ingemar
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email
                  > to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>. Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Ingemar Nordgren
                  Hallo Wolfgang! Vielen Dank für die Hinweise von Literatur! I can well understand that the Roman Catholic church defines Jesus as an incarnation - they have
                  Message 8 of 22 , Apr 2, 2007
                    Hallo Wolfgang!

                    Vielen Dank für die Hinweise von Literatur!

                    I can well understand that the Roman Catholic church defines Jesus as
                    an incarnation - they have to to be beleivable in their position.
                    To me however it seems much more convincing to see the incarnation in
                    connection with the resurrected entity-Christ - and so I think Arius
                    as well did. Maybe I am biased since I do not beleive in a virgin
                    giving birth with a normal pregnancy after copulating with a god! It
                    should have been som kind of miracolous instaneous appearance in that
                    incarnation.This however happens when the resurrected entity appears
                    and is hence more convincing.What more is - the delivery in a stable
                    in Betlehem seems directly taken from the birth of Mitras child in a
                    cave, inclusive the visit of the mages following the then 8-pointed
                    star. It all smells syncretism. Accordingly I think both Arius and I
                    would answer - a man died but a divine reincarnation took place
                    afterwards. That's why I separate the two entities. Maybe I am wrong
                    but all quotations from Arius I have seen till now seem to confirm
                    that possibility but you can, if you want, also read them contrary. It
                    all depends on whom is referred to with the little word 'He'! Maybe
                    this is fully intentional from Arius side to keep his back free!? I am
                    evidently not alone in that reading. Also remember that the Egyptian
                    conversion of the majority was not due to military conquest but
                    voluntary- they preferred one single god before three - and they were
                    since long influenced by Arius and his followers.

                    Die besten Grüße und danke für eine stimulierende Diskussion!

                    Ingemar

                    --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Wolfgang Franz <wolfgang.franz@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Ingemar.
                    >
                    > I think you make the mistake in separating the preexistent Christ
                    from Jesus.
                    > Of course nobody believes that the human Jesus created everything.
                    Jehoschua
                    > ben Joseph, as was his real name, was the incarnation of the
                    preexistent
                    > Logos. After the incarnation he had both natures, unmixed and
                    unseperated. In
                    > the catholic church we talk about christmas as of the festivity of the
                    > incarnation. The christological question is in fact: "Who died at
                    the cross?
                    > A man, a god, or what?" Chalkedon said: "Both."
                    >
                    > Good literature in German, although very complicated:
                    >
                    > Scheffczyk, Ziegenaus: Katholische Dogmatik, Bd.2, Der Gott der
                    Offenbarung
                    >
                    > Scheffczyk, Ziegenaus: Katholische Dogmatik, Bd.4, Jesus Christus.
                    Die Fülle
                    > des Heils.
                    >
                    > These books look at the trinity and the christology, so the arian
                    question is
                    > only part of them. But they look at the question from a very neutral
                    point of
                    > view.
                    >
                    > Please don't misunderstand me: I don't want to blame Arius, in fact
                    I want to
                    > defend him. He had a point, especially his christology is much
                    smoother and
                    > easier than the one of Chalcedon (although this doesn't mean I think
                    it's
                    > true).
                    >
                    >
                    > Viele Grüße,
                    >
                    > Wolfgang
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Am Montag, 2. April 2007 01:32 schrieb Ingemar Nordgren:
                    > > Hi Wolfgang!
                    > >
                    > > Arius teacher belonged to the school of Origenes. Arius went further
                    > > still. When he had newly started his lectures he is reported by
                    > > Alexander to have said that Jesus divinity was questionable. 'The son
                    > > was not eternal like the father'. He had stated that 'the father knows
                    > > his son but the son does not know the father'.(Athanasius, Thalia) He
                    > > claimed that: ‘Before Christ, God was not yet a father.’
                    > > ‘There was when he was not’.(Hanson, Search for the
                    Christian
                    > > Doctrine of God 5-8) Rather than asserting that Jesus was divine
                    by nature,
                    > > Arius
                    > > emphasized that he had earned his adoption as son and his promotion
                    > > to divine status through moral growth and obedience to God.(Gregg R.E.
                    > > and Groh, D.E., Early arianism- A wiew of salvation, Philadelphia
                    > > 1981). Arius still verbally accepted the pre-existence of Christ, but
                    > > nota bene not of Jesus, and beleived that God had conceived him
                    > > (Christ)before time began. He also wrote: At Gods will the son is what
                    > > and whatsoever he(God) is.This, to me, points rather towards different
                    > > incarnations of God of which Christ, not Jesus, is one.Accordingly
                    > > Arius advanced the view that Jesus was a creature intermediary between
                    > > man and God. All Christians beleived that Jesus sacrifice redeemed
                    > > humanity. Alexander asked himself what would happen if people
                    > > understood what Arius was preaching and ask themselves what God did
                    > > for the son by resurrecting him and granting him immortality.Reaction:
                    > > But if Jesus was not God by nature – if he earned his
                    deification by
                    > > growing in wisdom and virtue – why, so can we
                    all.(Rubinstein 1999)
                    > >
                    > > This is indeed in my opinion a quite correct conclusion of Arius
                    > > teaching. He tried to keep both the ideas of Origenes and deny them.
                    > > He agrees that Christ is a lesser God and the first created entity but
                    > > this does not include Jesus, who is adopted from human flesh. Again
                    > > this is rather the initial idea of Sabellius with three incarnations
                    > > or aspects of the single God.
                    > >
                    > > You make a formal difference between Christology and Trinitarism and
                    > > of course you are technically correct. Still those questions are not
                    > > able to exist independent of each other. You claim there was no
                    > > Arianism in the empire when the logos question and Theotokos was
                    > > discussed. Of course not since it was legally forbidden. This however
                    > > did not change the belief of the former Arians. They stuck to what was
                    > > left of possibilities to declare Jesus human by birth. The
                    > > Alexandrians okej agreed he was human and divine from birth but in
                    > > Antiocia he was just human and later became divine in Christ
                    – the
                    > > resurrected entity (and not the dead one human in Arian sense, but
                    > > this they could of course not express officially).
                    > >
                    > > You also claim that Nicea is the foundation of all Christians and very
                    > > important. Unhappily it is for most Christian churches but this does
                    > > not make it better in any way. Still there are Christian beliefs that
                    > > are not Nicean and Arianism is not dead except of to the name and may
                    > > all Non-Nicean creeds flower. Is there indeed any sensible person who
                    > > beleives the human Jesus created the world and the universe??!!
                    > > Possibly some clergymen but probably not many.
                    > >
                    > > Wulfila of course is later and was, as I wrote, influenced by the
                    > > Nicean compromise.He appears on a consilium in Constantinople in 360
                    > > when the Arian bishops confirm the earlier decision of the
                    > > Rimini-consilium, namely to change the basic concept that
                    ’the father
                    > > is not of the same nature as the son’, which shall be
                    changed to say
                    > > that ’the son is similar with the father’ – this
                    means
                    > > that the son is homoios (similar to) the father – not of the
                    same
                    > > essence, which was claimed in Nicea. The word essence (ousia)
                    should not be
                    > > used since it caused trouble for the people to understand. In a
                    similar way
                    > > the word substance (hypostasis) was forbidden.This means a partly
                    > > acceptance of the demands of the Niceanean bishops, but still a
                    clear Arian
                    > > borderline is marked.
                    > > Before he dies Wulfila issues a creed in 381 clearly distancing
                    > > himself from Nicea. It is found in a letter from his disciple bishop
                    > > Auxentius:
                    > > He beleives in the not created and invisible God, in his only created
                    > > Son, who created all, and in the Holy Spirit, who is neither god or
                    > > lord, but the fidel servant of Christ, not equal with him, but
                    > > subordinated and obedient to the Son in all things,like also the Son
                    > > is subordinated and obedient to his Father in all things.
                    > >
                    > > This accordingly refutes the agreement in Constantinople 381-2
                    > > dictated by Theodosius. Note as well he writes Christ and not Jesus.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > If you have good literature in German I would be happy to learn of
                    > > that, since it is problems to find good literature in English in these
                    > > questions.
                    > >
                    > > Die besten Grüße!
                    > > Ingemar
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a
                    blank email
                    > > to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>. Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Michal Cigan
                    Hi, im interested in etymology of the name of the hero of Dietrich/Thidrek cycle: Dietlieb/Thetleif - is there gothic etymology (?thiud?), or only common
                    Message 9 of 22 , Apr 9, 2007
                      Hi,
                      im interested in etymology of the name of the hero
                      of Dietrich/Thidrek cycle: Dietlieb/Thetleif - is there gothic etymology (?thiud?), or "only" common germanic?
                      And what about sifix -lieb/-leif?
                      Any idea?

                      M.


                      ---------------------------------
                      Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
                      Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • llama_nom
                      German lieb = Gothic liufs beloved, dear . And yes, G diet = Go. þiuda people, nation . Þetleifr (the Old Norse version of the name, from
                      Message 10 of 22 , Apr 10, 2007
                        German 'lieb' = Gothic 'liufs' "beloved, dear". And yes, G 'diet' =
                        Go. 'þiuda' "people, nation". Þetleifr (the Old Norse version of the
                        name, from Þiðreks saga) is borrowed along with the story from German,
                        as can be seen from the form 'þet', in place of the native 'þjóð'.
                        But the final part of the name has been replaced (whether by the
                        Norwegian translator or in the North German source material, I don't
                        know) with a roughly similar-sounding naming element: -leifr, related
                        to ON 'leifar', Go. 'laibos' "remnants, leavings", OE 'láf' "remnant,
                        remains; heirloom, legacy."

                        LN



                        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Michal Cigan <michalcigan@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi,
                        > im interested in etymology of the name of the hero
                        > of Dietrich/Thidrek cycle: Dietlieb/Thetleif - is there gothic
                        etymology (?thiud?), or "only" common germanic?
                        > And what about sifix -lieb/-leif?
                        > Any idea?
                        >
                        > M.
                        >
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
                        > Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.