Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > History and Archeology

Arianism

<< < (2/2)

slokind:
The Omega that looks like a W to us evolved from the  :Greek_Omega: naturally in pen and ink, as its round center shrank and its "handles" grew out and up, in the same period that serifs, too, tended to grow.  On papyri you can see pure upper case gradually evolving into lower case bookhands.  The rounded and angular W type of omega occurs quite commonly before the middle of the 3rd century on coins, especially Provincials of Hadrianopolis and Anchilaos in Thrace, but I name those only because I know them.  Pat L.

Robert_Brenchley:
I've never been too convinced by the claim that the Magnentius issue was intended as a symbol of orthodoxy, but I haven't looked at early use of the alpha-omega symbol, I'm just a bit weary of insubstantial arguments supporting orthodox conclusions! The reason that the Nicene Creed is regarded as a victory over Arianism is found in the original promulgation, not the version used in church liturgies today.

It seems that at the Council of Nicea in 325, Eusebuis and the Arians attempted to get their views accepted, and were rejected. The The 'orthodox' faction, let by Athanasius, then inserted their own phrases, 'from the substance ot to f the Father' and 'of one substance with the Father', denying the Arian claim that Jesus was 'of similar substance', the 'substance' being the ultimate 'essence' of the person; unfortunately HYPOSTASIS doesn't translate into either Latin or English, and the meaning has been distorted. There was an appendix, now left off, which said 'But as for those who say, There was when he was not, and Before being born he was not, and that he came into being out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes (or damns). These were all Arian clims; they held that Jesus was created in time, and was not of identical substance to the father. The 'orthodox' claimed that their views were more 'biblical', but in fact both could cite the New Testament in support of their views, they just used different bits of it. If I remember correctly (I have to dash out and take a service, so I'll have to look it up later), Constantine himself is alleged to have dictated the phrase about 'one substance with the Father'.

Robert_Brenchley:
Right, I'm back from my service. It seems the Eusebius says in a letter that Constantine suggested the key phrase about 'the same substance'. Since Eusebius was arguing the other point of view, he's likely to be telling the truth about this; it sounds as though the conclusion of the Council was determined by the emperor himself. This became the pattern; orthodox emperors called orthodox Councils, Arian emperors Arian Councils. In 357, for instance, a synod of bishops met at Sirmium, in the presence of Constantius II, a convinced Arian. The resulting document was later condemned as 'the blasphemy of Sirmium'.

The document we call the 'Nicene Creed' today was in fact a new document produced at the Council of Constantinople in 451, though the Western Church has altered one phrase since, much to the disgust of the Orthodox Churches. It didn't have the anathemas at the end, and while it has a great deal in common with the original creed of Nicea, there are sufficient differences to regard it as a new production, and the title 'Nicene Creed' used for it as misleading. It was claimed to represent the personal faith of the emperor, so again the imperial influence is present. It's still anti-Arian, with the clause about 'of one substance with the Father', but not so overtly so, as the extreme form of it which was opposed by Nicea was now obsolete.

Jochen:
Thanks, Robert, to deal with us your profound knowledge! So some of the most important parts of the Nicaeen Creed are created by the emperor. I think he was tired of the endless quarreling about an iota and such things and wanted to set an end to these disputes for he had other problems too in his empire.

It is interesting that nowadays a revival of Arianism could be noticed. Especially under the so-called 'progressive' theologians it is quite usual to say, that the term 'Son of God' is meant only metaphoric, and Jesus was only a  man with high moral standards.
And why they do so? I think there is a connection to the political correctness. If Jesus is 'homoousios' with God, then that is a severe obstacle on the way to the equivalence of all religions and the denying of any absolute truth.

Regards

Robert_Brenchley:
'#Son of God' in Jesus' time couls have meant a number of things, and none of them was really what orthodox Christianity means. It's used in the Old Testament to refer to the nation of Israel (Exodus 4:22), the Israelite king (Psalm 2:7, etc.), angels (Genesis 6:2, etc.), and in Eccesiasticus it's used of holy men. Luke uses it of Adam (Luke 3:38). If you really trawled through the texts, you might find yet more meanings, I haven't done a real study on it. So pinning the term down isn't easy at all.

There are very few theologians trying to say that religions are equivalent, mostly the furthest they get is a rather patronising approach where Muslims, say, are seen as 'anonymous Christians' who God treats as though they were 'proper' Christians, even though they're not aware of it. OK as far as it goes, but I wonder how the average Christian would react to being called an 'anonymous Muslim'? I think the real reason is a recognition that the Biblical texts aren't really saying what church tradition has always claimed, and people are trying to get to grips with what the authors might have meant in their own context, before doctrines like the Trinity or the two natures had been developed. But this is getting really OT!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page