 |
John Collins The Nicene Creed
Belated congratulations on what was an excellent programme - just what R4 does well. Might I suggest the Eastern Schism as a good topic, if a little broad, for a future programme?
'The Nicene Creed'
Nothing was said about the persistence of the Arian Church in the East, where it also I think syncretised with Buddhism/Hinduism. I was interested to see the Lotus used in Christian symbolism in an exhibiton in the Royal Academy a couple of years ago. I think we are being too Western if we do not look at this.I also think the whole subject is very abstruse for today's world - and I studied it for my Theology degree in the 1960's! I concluded then that I think in Hebraic terms, not Greek! It is all to do with power politics, and the power is quickly fading from the church.
David in Brussels: 'Arianism' was mainstream
Carolyn Humfrees was right in saying that Nicea was more about State power than truth. Constantine, still a sun-worshipper, presided. Politically, he wanted a universal church with easy entrance for pagans like himself. Pagan philosophers harangued the churchmen. Arius, a feisty professor of Bible exegesis, resisted ‘truth control’. Most Bible-educated Christians were ‘Arians’. During the fourth century, of the 45 church councils, 32 voted in favour of Arianism (15) or semi-Arianism (17) despite imperial pressure and violence. Only 13 voted against Arianism. Constantine was eventually baptised by the ‘Arian’ Eusebius.Orthodox doctrines then became heresy and believers were persecuted as State policy. Accounts say that enemies poisoned Dr Arius. Rhetorician (or PR expert), Athanasius, a rich, Platonist deacon, ignorant of Hebrew, constantly reviled ‘Arians’ as ‘madmen’. But Pope Alexander of Alexandria originally agreed with Dr Arius, according to Sozomen. (ALL bishops were then called ‘Popes’.) Different emperors later condemned Athanasius several times as an ‘impostor’ and an ‘arrogant exciter of sedition and dissension.’ The 325 Nicene Creed affirms two, not three, divine personages. (Compare this with the confused, self-contradictory 381 Constantinople version in Melvyn’s letter). Distortions increased in the two rich cities of Alexandria and Rome, influential centres of obsolete trinities (where Jesus had to be seen more divine than Isis, Horus, Serapis and the Roman Jupiter, Juno, Minerva). Their bishops were notorious for extortion, murder, pagan syncretism, high politics and big money.Doctrinal truth was warped because, officially, Nicea was extremely anti-Semitic. ‘Let us have nothing to do with that most detestable rabble of the Jews,’ Constantine decreed. He ordered his imperial church to ‘abandon their {Jewish} custom’. How could they grasp theology by rejecting the Hebrew Scriptures? They assimilated pagan fads and festivals and misconstrued Semitic concepts like time in God’s creation. In Britain and Gaul some poor, persecuted Christians, refusing imperial largesse, kept faithful to ‘Jewish’ custom. Churches today have still to come to grips with imperial pagan spin, bad logic and anti-Semitic activities in their past and the present. Courage!
Nicene Creed
When the kindness of Constantine gave the Holy Church endowmentsIn lands and leases, lordships and servants,The Romans heard an angel cry on high above them,"This day dos ecclesiae has drunk venomAnd all who have Peter's power are poisoned forever."William LanglandThe Vision of Piers PlowmanPassus XV
geoff colton nicene creed
I am interested to note that your version of the creed says that the holy spirit "proceedeth from the father". The Roman Catholic church has always stated and still states that the spirit "proceeds from the father and the son" "Patre filioque procedit" Blood has been shed over "filioque" and it was the stated cause of the great schism. I think this could have been mentioned
Peter Bolt: Nicene Creed
Why did Constantine favour the Christians ?Even your wonderfully articulate panel cannot better Edward Gibbon;In his magnificent "Decline & Fall,,," He devotes 4 out of the 71 chapters to the advance of Christianity in the Roman Empire.In particular Ch 20 deals with Constantine and his reasons for the preferment of Christians.To quote a marvellous sentences from that marvellous book " The passive and unresisting obedienece which bows under the yoke of authority, or even oppression,must have appeared to the eyes of an absolute monarch, the most conspicious and useful of the evangelic virtues".Always aware of their unpopularity with the "plebs". Constantine called their "special day" `dies solis` ie Sunday, a name which did not upset Pagan Rome.
the Nicene Creed
There appears in this discussion the suggestion that Christianity prior to the Council of Nicaea was non-unified in its beliefs. Martin, I believe, claimed that the Church did not exist in the Capital ‘C’ sense of the word, being pre-institutionalized and that no orthodoxy yet existed. Christianity was a loose band of groups without any central core set of beliefs. However, given the interview, it was demonstrated that Arius was a presbyter—an elder, and not a leader. He was being persecuted in Alexandria by the bishop there which suggests that Arius’ views were not considered ‘standard’ prior to the later Council. The development of the Creed, which may have helped institutionalize particular practices, did not create the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, only reaffirmed it (see Eusebius’ writings, for instance).
Nicene creed
Thank you for a very interesting discussion. Surely the reference to "sitting on the right hand of God" refers rather to such a verse as Hebrews 1:3 - "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high", and to Hebrew kings than to the Roman court as your guest suggested. Constantine's influence may have been considerable but history shows that there were Arian emperors and Arian Germanic tribes still to come, which makes one wonder what those bishops really believed. Arius and his followers own penchant for persecution needed to be brought in, Athanasius did not have it all his own way and was also persecuted. A discussion on the papacy's influence if any on the proceedings on what was essentially an Eastern meeting would be interesting.
Nicene Creed (Chris Jeynes)
Usually Melvyn Bragg is reliably right, but this time I thought he missed out several issues that would have helped listeners make sense of this rather arcane but hugely important topic. There was almost no mention of the idea of COHERENCE. Yes, the Councils were at one level power struggles. But of more lasting importance is that they forced the Church to find a form of words that set out a clear position and was NOT nonsense. This insistence of Christians on the need for coherence flourishes later, starting with the codification of Aquinas and underlying the development of scientific thought that has its roots with Aquinas' near contempories - Adelard, Grosseteste, Albertus Magnus, Francis Bacon and others.The coherence of the Nicene Creed was carefully tested by the Reformers in the sixteenth century. These iconoclasts were in the mood for revolution and it is an interesting and important fact that the Nicene Creed is still today the touchstone of orthodoxy distinguishing a Christian denomination from a sub-Christian sect.Finally, and related to the two preceding points, I think it would have been useful to make the point that Augustine's treatise "On the Trinity" (and also the several Orthodox writers) was hugely influential (especially later) in exploring the intellectual and spiritual depths of the new clarified understanding of Trinitarian doctrine. We can still profitably read this today!It is important to bring these issues right up to date since any relationship between Christians and Muslims will very rapidly come to a discussion on the Trinity, misunderstanding of which is central.
Nicaea
The whole discussion is based on a misunderstanding of the human psyche. Christ is a symbol of the Self and, in the light of the evolution of consciousness, Christ would have a beginning. We all have the possibility of Christhood in potentia.Nick Baker
|
|
