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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 22 , Apr 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 22 , Apr 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 22 , Apr 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 22 , Apr 9, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 22 , Apr 10, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.