Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I don't have a problem with all Christians, just Nicene Christians

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:07 PM
Original message
I don't have a problem with all Christians, just Nicene Christians
As described so well in this article:

Empires prefer a baby and the cross to the adult Jesus

From Constantine to Bush, power has needed to stifle a revolutionary message

Giles Fraser
Friday December 24, 2004
The Guardian

Every Sunday in church, Christians recite the Nicene Creed. "Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures." It's the official summary of the Christian faith but, astonishingly, it jumps straight from birth to death, apparently indifferent to what happened in between.
Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of a Jesus who is either too young or too much in agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric. The adult Christ who calls his followers to renounce wealth, power and violence is passed over in favour of the gurgling baby and the screaming victim. As such, Nicene Christianity is easily conscripted into a religion of convenience, with believers worshipping a gagged and glorified saviour who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war.

(snip)


The adult Jesus described his mission as being to "preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and to set at liberty those who are oppressed". He insisted that the social outcast be loved and cared for, and that the rich have less chance of getting into heaven than a camel has of getting through the eye of a needle. Jesus set out to destroy the imprisoning obligations of debt, speaking instead of forgiveness and the redistribution of wealth. He was accused of blasphemy for attacking the religious authorities as self-serving and hypocritical.

(snip)

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1379470,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gayrebel83 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Your perspective on "Nicene Christians" is incorrect...
While I do use the Nicene Creed (during the service at the local Episcopal Church) and believe what it says, I am also very much attentive to the Jesus that sought to "preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and to set at liberty those who are oppressed". Nonetheless, His birth, death, and resurrection are essential to Christian theology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I think Fraser's point was not that the birth and His death
Edited on Fri Dec-24-04 01:30 PM by Lorien
or resurrection are irrelevant (not in the least), but that His preachings have been pushed aside by "Christians of convenience", who don't want to trouble themselves with helping the poor, and have no intention of renouncing wealth.

I've asked RW fundies if they thought Jesus was a liberal. The admit that yes, he was/ is the ULTIMATE liberal, but the point of Christianity is to believe that you were born sinful, and that Jesus died for your sins-not to try to follow in Jesus' footsteps (adhere to His teachings), because that's impossible (so why try, right)? Oy vey!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gayrebel83 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I *do* agree on that point
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. B, D and R essential to christian theology, not Christ's message.
Christ's message was agape love and the fact that our souls, (our Christ Self), are the very substance of Prime Creator.

The mythology of the birth, death, resurrection et al are later constructs to obfuscate the simple and empowering message that Christ preached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Interesting... but WHY are they so important?

And why do these events seem to eclipse the rest of his life... maybe not for you, but for so many people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Because people like magic tricks?
"Christ was but a juggler" Christopher Marlowe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gayrebel83 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I believe there is a legitimate reason for the focus on those events...
According to the Christian Old Testament, humans are fundamentally separated from God because of sin (starting with the Original Sin, in the Garden of Eden). Therefore, a type of atonement is necessary in order to bridge that gap and spend one's afterlife in Heaven for all eternity. Before the coming of Christ, atonement could be made through a blood sacrifice. Once Christ came, His death was the *ultimate* blood sacrifice, making others henceforth unnecessary. Thus, through Him, everyone now has access to eternal life. Therefore, while His teachings are very relevant to THIS life, his death, for a Christian, is relevant to the NEXT life, which is eternal. I think *that* is the primary reason for the focus on His death (though other reasons, such as obscuring His teachings, certainly apply as well).

I believe it takes a sound understanding of the theology in order to distinguish between the religious (i.e., social, political, etc.) aspect and the spiritual aspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. The Christian Old Testament???
Come again???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gayrebel83 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. What, precisely, is your question?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Yes, the OT used by Christians is not the same as the Torah
The Torah has many more books in it which were edited out for use in the Bible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I don't think that's the case
The Torah is the first 5 books of the Old Testament - what Christians call the Pentatuech. The Tanahk is the rest of the OT - and I don't believe that Jews have any other writings in the Tanahk than the Catholics do, although the Protestants do exclude a few.

Yes, I can never remember how to spell Tanahk correctly. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. I stand corrected on that point. But, there are at least the books
of the Apochrapha which are in the Hebrew OT, and not in any Christian ones, and I am sure there are more, although I cannot find my reference right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. check this out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I thought so. Thanks for that link. That is really cool stuff.
I thought that somewhere in the murky recesses of my brain I recalled something like this, but could not remember where or why it was so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. no, the Apochrapha is in the Catholic Bible
There are no writings that Jews include that Catholics exclude, at least not in this group. In fact the name for the works and their division from the rest is a Catholic/Protestant thing, Jews have no such division.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. I think that the Orthodox have two books that Catholics don't
Catholics have only 1st and 2nd Maccabbees. I remember reading that the Ortodox also have 3rd and 4th Maccabbees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. That it true, and there are, of course, all the "other" gospels
which some claim were part of the Canon once, but removed by various Popes along the way before the 5th Century.

Some of them are considered to be BS... others, well, who knows?

Just off the top of my head there is Thomas, Mary, Joseph (of Arimatheia supposedly), and another one by Silas.

Many, many copies of these books have shown up over the years, but are not mentioned everywhere. They could have been tracts along the lines of what revival preachers pass out now, or books of local interest of a particular sect which died out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. Yeah, there is definitely stuff considered apocryphal by every major...
branch of Christianity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUDUing2 Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #30
51. The apocrypha were in the Torah at the time of the Council of Hippa which
is why they are included in the Catholic OT..they were in use at the time of Jesus and the RC version of the bible reflects the books Jesus would have used religiously. One of the main reason ML left them out was that they cover purgatory, etc..concepts he disagreed with..for that matter he wanted to leave James out of the Bible cause it emphasizes that you are required to do works along w/faith, but he was over-ruled/talked out of that one...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Someone has misinformed you. Luther left in the apocrypha
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 12:49 PM by JVS
Apocrypha was left in, but just as St. Jerome had done before Luther told the reader that they were "Good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture." His view was consistent with Catholic teachings of the time. I've even seen modern Lutheran publications quote Maccabees but not as underpinning for official doctrine.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html
Of course the Council of Trent would later decide that they were authoritative. And the idea that he wanted to leave James out is ridiculous, and is on the same level as saying that Catholics worship Mary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Here I found some more information about Luther's translation from...
a Catholic website that verifies that Luther did indeed include the apocrypha in his translation. German bibles published in the US by Concordia Publishing included the apocrypha as well up to 1930 when most Lutherans had switched to English and switched to available translations of the Bible, which for reasons I don't know had dropped the apocrypha.

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/martin_luthers__apocrypha.htm

At the time of his translations the nature of the Deuteronical Canon's authority was still up for debate. Luther's view of them certainly wasn't unique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Because they promise an escape from death.
I like GB Shaw's point of view, that someone who has agreed to die on Christian terms has refused to die on any terms whatsoever.

As an outsider, Christianity looks like a bribe religion to me. Be good and you'll a great big valuable present. I was taught that you do right for its own sake, even if there is no personal reward of any kind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gayrebel83 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. It's not so much an escape from DEATH...
...as it is an escape from ETERNAL PAIN. You see, within most of Christianity, it is believed (a priori) that there is a Heaven (eternal happiness) and a Hell (eternal pain). The promise of Christianity, to those who espouse the religion, is escape from the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very good post.
Thanks to you and Giles Fraser, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nadienne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. The best way to stifle a revolutionary message
is to claim it as yours, and ignore the most important parts.

Just like socialism is now considered practically synonomous with "giving all power to the government", when it was based on the workers owning the factories...

Calling them Nicene Christians, who don't pay much attention to the teachings of Jesus... I like that.

I seem to remember Dean criticised for talking about the teachings of Jesus. The criticiser (whom I don't remember) said that Jesus was important because he's the Son of God, not because of his teachings.

I think it's the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks for this
I never really thought of it this way. Interesting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Merry CHRISTmas Christo-fascists...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gayrebel83 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. To whom is this comment directed? If I may ask...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyfox Donating Member (692 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. LOVED the card....
snagged and sent to my entire address list! Ho Ho Ho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyfox Donating Member (692 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is an amazing (and wonderful) discussion
Please keep it going... I will take copious notes and TRY to keep my mouth shut -- er, well, keyboard quiet?

I am in agreement thus far (for the most part) if that even matters. <g>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
17. Out of Context....
Edited on Fri Dec-24-04 02:12 PM by happyslug
The Nicene Creed was written in 325 to resolve the debate over the Nature of Christ. Was Christ part of God (The Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant View) or Created by God (The Arian View). That debate had caused problems and the Council of Nicene was called to resolve the dispute. The Nicene Creed came out of that debate and resolved that debate (Except for the Arians who refused to accept the resolution, the Arians would be a problem for another 200 years with almost all of the Barbarian who would invade Rome being Arians while the Romans themselves stayed "Nicene").

As to Constantine making Christianity the State Religion of Rome, that is NOT quite what happened. Constantine did encourage Christianity and favored Christianity but he (nor his successors) tried to convert non-Christians nor did their make it illegal not to be a Christian (That would be up to Justinian in the Sixth Century, after the Western Roman Empire had Fallen). Constantine did take over many of the Temples and made them Christian Churches but this seems to be more tied in this Constantine Completion of Diocletian's Coinage reform than any true attempt to destroy the Temples.

Constantine needed Gold and Silver to issue new coins to replace the almost worthless coins of the 3rd Century AD, to do so he needed Silver and Gold which the Temples had in full supply in the form of Idols. The Christian's opposition to Idols fitted in nicely with Constantine's need for Gold and Silver. Constantine gave the Temples to the Christians, in return the Christians turned over the Gold and Silver Idols to Constantine. Constantine than took the Gold and Silver and issued new coins of 85% silver which would be the coinage of use for the next 600 years.

The Nicene Creed was to resolve the problem of Arianism NOT to undo the story of the Gospels. In fact the four Gospels we have today were also authorized by the Council of Nicene. Furthermore the comments of Jesus as to peace was viewed in full from Constantine to today. In the "Dark Ages" (500-1000 AD) the Orthodox Church of Constantinople took this one step further by forbidden soldiers from being in Communion for three years AFTER they left the Army.

The Church of Peace had always have had a problem with soldiers and war and each generation have had to resolve the conflict. Jesus never took up arms himself but did have his followers carry swords for self-protection. Thus Jesus was NOT completely against fighting, but as St Augustine said only for a "Just War" which does NOT include a war of conquest or personal gain. Defense is OK, but offense is NOT.

If you read the history of the Byzantine Empire, you find time and time again the Empire refusing to continue a war of Conquest whenever an Emperor Died. Such wars were NOT in the desires of the Empire by that time and this was due to the teaching of the Orthodox church which is also a follower of the Nicene Creed

My point here is the issue is NOT the Nicene Creed or the Council of Nicene that is the problem but how people who want to do evil will try to cover up that evil by saying the evil is being done for some good. You have people using Christianity to do non-Christian acts even at the time of Constantine. The last Roman ruler of both the Eastern and Western Empire (Theodosius) was actually ex-communicated when he did such an act. Theodosius was restored to full communion once he acknowledged his error and past a law saying all executions must take place no sooner than 30 days after the trial (To permit people to cool down for he did such an act when one of his officers where murdered and immediately ordered the town people punished for permitting th murder to occur).

The Council of Nicene did a lot of good. For Example the Council made Sunday the Christian Sabbath. This was done to assist Constantine for the followers of the Sun God had already made every other Sunday their holiday, Constantine asked that the Sabbath be moved to Sunday so that the days would fall on the same day of the week. The Bishops at Nicene read their Bible saw that all God demanded was to keep one day out of Seven "Holy" made the switch to accommodate Constantine who wanted to accommodate the worshipers of the Sun.

While a lot of decisions were made at the Council of Nicene, the Council does NOT represent some sort of break between the early Church and the Church of the Middle Ages, but an attempt to resolve conflicts within the Church by debate. The debates were long and intense and everyone had a say. In any organization one of the hallmark of a good organization is that debate is open and full UNTIL A DECISION IS MADE. Once a Decision is made than all debate must stop and people have to accept the decision. At Nicene Arianism was rejected. Sunday became the Sabbath. Most of the Books of the New Testament were accepted as part of the bible (With the books "rejected" NOT declared "non-holy" but secondary to the books that made it into the New Testament). These were the decisions made after a long debate. Once the decision was made the Church was no longer in a mood to debate these point over and over again. Even today Businesses are taught that once a decision is made EVERYONE, even people who opposed the decision, must than support and implement the decision. You either accept the decision or you leave the organization (many of the Arians left and were to cause all types of problems for the next 200 years, but as the Barbarian invaders became more and more in like the people they were ruling Arianism died out, being replaced by Nicene Christianity).

My point here is that it is NOT the Council of Nicene nor the Nicene Creed that is the problem, but the Corruption of any good by people who want to cover up their evil with a gloss of Good. Stalin and Mao did this to Marxism, Hitler did this to Nationalism, now Bush is doing it to Christian Fundamentalism, and the worse part the Fundamentalist do not even see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gayrebel83 Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. This is probably the best explanation offered yet
:)
"My point here is that it is NOT the Council of Nicene nor the Nicene Creed that is the problem, but the Corruption of any good by people who want to cover up their evil with a gloss of Good. Stalin and Mao did this to Marxism, Hitler did this to Nationalism, now Bush is doing it to Christian Fundamentalism, and the worse part the Fundamentalist do not even see it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Fascinating stuff; but about the second paragraph from the end:


I mostly slept through HS religion class but was not Arianism a "heresy", after the Council? And what kind of "trouble" did they cause, exactly.

Sometimes organizations have "ways of dealing with troublemakers", if ya know what I mean.

Again, correct me if necessary, but my distinct impression is the Arians did , in fact, "die out" but had a lot of help in this regard from the Nicene Christians. No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Arianism lasted for almost 200 years after Nicene
Edited on Fri Dec-24-04 05:26 PM by happyslug
As I pointed out in my original post most of the Germanic invaders of the Roman Empire in The Fifth Century were Arian Christian NOT Pagans. The Huns were Pagan, but the Goths were Arian. Years Ago I read the Franks of this time period were Catholic, but recently I have read the Franks were Pagan till they took over the last Roman Area of right is now France at which point their embraced Catholicism a opposed to the Goth's Arianism.

The fight between Arianism and Catholicism (And When I use the term Catholic I include what is now called the Orthodox church) was quite deep but the exact nature is obscure given the time period. We know what doctrine the dispute was over (Arianism said God Created Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Catholicism maintains God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, just different manifestation of God).

It seems Constantine lend to Arianism as he aged (He was baptized on his Death Bed by a Arian Bishop, through at least one writer thinks the Bishop was Catholic and only called a follower of Arian do to Constantius II preference for Arianism) and his sons seems also to be followers of Arianism. At the same time the overwhelming number of Bishops appear to be Anti-Arianism. The Various Council called by the aging Constantine and his sons seems to be attempts by them to have the Bishops accept Arianism. When Arianism was constantly rejected in these Councils Constantius seems to have arrested a few Catholic Bishops but very few.

Speculation indicates that the murders of Constantine's Relatives by his three Sons were to make sure only Followers of Arianism were in the family. Most of those who were killed appear to be Catholic not Arian.

As to the religion of the Roman Army, we have a similar confusion. Mirthism had been popular and subsidized by Diocletian and Constantine. When Julian Died in Battle the Army would pick a Catholic to lead them (which lead to the Catholics not the Arians being the Rulers of Rome in the last 1/2 of the Fourth Century). Just 20 Months previously the same Army had sided with Julian in his claim for the Throne. Julian was a follower of the old pagan religion (Though the Army may have backed Julian do to his recent victories over the Germans more than support for Julian's Religion).

I go into this for the Army decided who was to be Emperor in The Roman Empire. It appears the Army became more and more Catholic over the years, while the Auxiliaries (Mostly German Mercenaries in Roman Service) became Arians.

The best explanation for all of this is that Certain groups in Rome preferred Arianism's idea of God being superior over Jesus, thus Rome can be superior to the Germans. The Germans even seems to adopt this concept but drop it in the Sixth Century for the same reason the Catholics had rejected it, how can you be one church if you worship two different "gods" i.e. God and Jesus. As long as the Germans were willing to be tools of the Empire they accepted Arianism. Once the Germans rejected Rome as their master, instead treated the Empire as their Equal, the German Adopted Catholicism, thus making themselves Equals to the Romans.

Do not think the above thinking is wrong, Constantine and his sons probably had the last real Roman Army. Germans were in it, but they were NOT the Majority. Arianism would thus appear to Constantine and his Sons as a why to show the Germans they should accept second place to the Romans. The Chinese under the Ming Dynasty did a similar act with Buddaism and the Mongols, The Ming perfered Confusius to Budda for themselves, but wanted the Mongols to adopt Buddaism so the Mongols would become less warlike. Thus a dual track attitude might have been adopted, one for Romans (Catholicism) and anther to the Germans (Arianism).

When Jovian and than Valentian and Valens became Emperor after Julian, the Army was still overwhelming Roman, but this Army was destroyed by the Goths in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD. With that Destruction a new army had to be built up and that was the Army of Hired German Mercenaries that would lead to the Destruction of the Empire in the West.

Thus it appears Rome after Julian adopted a two track policy as to Christianity, one for Romans of Catholicism and the concept that EVERYONE was equal in the Eyes of the Lord, and another for the Germans of Arianism where hopefully the Germans would view themselves as Jesus was to God Under Arianism i.e Secondary but important.

This is the Best explanation I can come up with for Arianism and why it lasted as long as it did (and why it disappeared for all practical purposes within 50 years of the Germans occupying the Western Empire). The Disappearance of Arianism corresponds with various land reforms being implemented by the Germanic Invaders (Again viewing themselves and the Romans as one and the Same). Thus Arianism as shut out of the Empire, but encouraged among the Germans.

I go into this for often Religion difference do not reflect actual theology disputes but underlaying Economic and/or Political Disputes. For Example in the Sixth Century the Dispute in the Eastern Empire would be between the dual or single nature of Christ. Was Christ always divine even as he lived (The Single Nature of Christ) or did Christ have a dual nature, one divine the other Human (The Dual Natural of Christ concept). To today's modern ears this dispute sounds odd, who cares if Christ was divine while he was on earth? But this was the big dispute in the Sixth Century. If you looked at that Dispute the Single nature Concept came out of Egypt and the Dual nature out of Greece. As long as the Western Empire stayed part of the Empire this dispute was minor importance, but once the West had fallen the nature of Christ came to a head. Why? Simple The Single Nature Reflected what Egypt and the Dual Nature reflected Greece. With the West no longer part of the Empire these two sections were fighting for control over the Empire and themselves. Basically if you backed the Single nature of Christ you backed Egypt, if you backed the Dual nature you backed Greece. This dispute ended with the Arab conquest, for Egypt was taken out of the empire. The empire was reduced to its Greek Base. Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire points out the fact you had various religious disputes from Constantine to the Arab Conquest but than nothing for 800 years. He could not answer why, for he could not see that the Religious disputes masked fights between the ruling elites of Egypt and Greece. Gibbon was a product of 18th Century England, another Country where Religion had masked Political fight. The Puritans had presented the Growing Middle Class, the Anglican Church the Old Nobility and the Catholics the Working Class. Thus the English Civil War was NOT over religion but who should rule England, the Middle Class or the Aristocracy? (With both fearing the working class thus both sides backed harsh anti-catholic laws). On the Continent the same thing was occurring but there the Catholics had kept the Aristocracy and working class within the Catholic Church. Thus the French Revolution had to break away from Religion for the new and growing Middle Class to triumph. Even here the Revolution took place only as the Working class represented Priests in the Third Estate voted to join with the Second Estate to form the National Assembly (An Act most French Bishops opposed but the Parish Priests voted for).

My point is Religion is often used as cover for some other dispute. At the Time of Constantine it appears to be a Fight Between the Roman Citizens (Catholics) and the Germans (Arians) in the Army. During the Time of Justinian about who should rule the Empire, the Greeks (Dual Nature of Christ) or the Egyptians (Single Nature of Christ). During the English Civil war between the Middle Class (The Puritans), the Aristocracy (The Anglican Church) and the Working Class (The Catholics in Britain). During the French Revolution the Revolution only succeeded when the Catholics Priests (not the hierarchy the Parish Priests) voted to support the Huguenot (French Puritans) dominated Middle Class over their fellow Catholics in the Aristocracy (Who had cease to practice Catholicism decades before).

I go into the above for most "Heresies" are minor and disappears quickly from History, the ones that stayed always had strong economic and/or Political power roots. The Catholic - Arian dispute lasted to long (and disappeared to quickly) to be anything but some sort of Political power dispute (Economic disputes tend to last a lot longer and than slowly disappear as the under laying economic dispute is either resolved, disappears or replaced by another economic dispute).

My problem has been trying to solve the underlying Political dispute. It has something to do with the Roman Army but what is hard to say today. I suspect up till the time of Constantine the Common Soldier followed the Mirthic Religion while in the Army, but before and after his Army Service he was a Christian (and was his wife and children, The Roman Ban on their Soldiers marring having been abolished during the Third Century). The Arians seems to have accepted this, while the Catholics rejected it. With the rise of Constantius II as Emperor (Constantine's Son) he wanted to make this normal. The problem was while the Army was Arian/Mirthic the Cities, bureaucracy and Christian Elite of the empire were Catholic. With the Destruction of the Army at Adrianople the Country split even further. The Army going more and more for German Mercenaries became more and more Arian, while the people of the Empire embraced Catholicism. The German stayed Arian for that is the first type of Christianity they were exposed to. Only as the German occupiers of the Western Empire started to see themselves and the Romans as one and the same did the Germans drop Arianism for Catholicism.



Books of the Early Church Fathers:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

On Arianism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

Information on Constantine:
http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm
http://latter-rain.com/eccles/constant.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Wow, very complete explanation
Are you a professor of theology or ancient history, by chance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. No just a lawyer who likes his history
It sometime helps me understand the Law. Society and the law exists for two purposes, one is to protect "US" from "Them" and second is to keep "US" "US" (I mean "US" a in "we" not as an short form of the United States).

The law exist to keep "US" "US" in the sense it is an attempt to balance the wants and needs of various people of the Society. Theology is part of this effort to keep "US" "US", as while as the law. One of the reason for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the growing gulf between the Rich and Poor (a gulf that had existed since the time of the Late Republic). Christianity was part of the solution to that gulf, but was Not a complete solution. The pattern of the German "invaders" shows this rift, for the German were almost always defeated (an exception would be the Vandals) and than settled in parts of Europe by the Empire to help the ruling class keep down peasant revolts. This policy Finally failed as the German Invaders realized that the Roman Peasant could be made part of the German "US" by just giving the peasant the same rights to the land a German would have. This is the start of the conversion of late Roman large estate to the Feudal estates of the Middle Ages.

The Late Romans viewed their estate as their property and the peasants on the estate either their employees or virtual slaves (With the Serfs having some rights unlike slaves who had none). We see in the late Roman Era the old Latin Term for Slave "Servus" become the modern Word Serf. Furthermore the term "Serf" came to mean a person tied to the land but otherwise a freeman. Also in this era the term "Slave" came into to use for true "Slaves" who could be sold independent of the land their were on. This was the situation during the Christian era of the Roman Empire, but was just a continuation of the previous Pagan large estates except you had less slaves than in previous times.

With the Germans moving in to help the Roman Elites control their serfs, the German brought with them their ideas of ownership of property. The Germans liked owning large estates just like the Romans but with an important difference. While the Romans viewed the peasants as selfs who owned the Romans elites the product of their toil, the Germans viewed their estate more like military formations, where the foot soldiers had to follow orders but had rights AND their commanders had duties to them. This German view of ownership of large estates became more and more the norm as to go from the invasion of the Lombards (570 AD) to the invasion of William the Conqueror (1066AD).

It is this later "dual-ownership" concept of medieval Europe that our modern concept of Ownership of Property comes from. For example why do Tenants not pay land taxes? It is NOT because the Tenant does not have an ownership interest in the land (the Tenant DOES have such an ownership interest for a time period) but that in the Middle ages land "ownership" was tied in with military duty. If you owned land, you had to perform a military duty. On the other hand if you just worked the land you did not. When the Military duty was converted to taxes, the concept of who had to pay that taxes was already understood, the same person who had performed the Military duty it replaced.

Another aspect of our law is why inheritance rights of men and women were different in the Middle ages (and would stay different till the 20th century when the rules were finally changed by statute in most states). The difference in inheritance again reflected the German Ownership/Military duty concept. A husband who married a woman who owned land received full use of those lands while he was alive. Why? BECAUSE HE HAD TO PERFORM THE MILITARY DUTY TIED IN WITH THE LAND. This different from a wife of a Husband who owned land, she was only entitled to 1/3 of his property at his death. This reflected his increase value for he had a wife to watch his property and his children. In 1100 this was viewed not only a fair, but advantages for women (Remember men still had to serve in the army) but ceased to anywhere near being equal when Military service was converted to the payment of taxes (Even women could pay taxes).

Thus to understand the law, I have to understand history. Not popular history but REAL history. How it happened and why, not who did what wrong to what person. To fully understand today's law you have to understand the laws of the Middle ages. To fully understand the laws of the Middle ages you have to understand the Middle ages. To fully understand the Middle Ages you have to understand Rome its Creation and fall. You also have to understand Christianity to understand both late Roman Empire but the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages.

Thus I end up seeing the economics, theology, law as while as the history of these time periods. Every so often I fine out something new (Such as Theodosius the Greats excommunication and his acceptance of that excommunication and his resolution that was showed to the Church his request for forgiveness was real). History is fun once you get away from the "We offend no one" history of school, for then you can see history as a useful tool to see what is going on today. History often repeats the same patterns, but also we know ourselves better is we know where we are coming from.

For more on Theodosius see:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. interesting stuff about the coinage
Can you give me a link to that? Not long ago I read a great book called "The History of Money" and I'm always interested in this sort of thing. They debased the gold and silver coins with lead and the like, correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Here are some links, but a good Google Search will provide you more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
25. I agree with half of what you say.
You make some very good points. However, I disagree with one thing: In my church, we focus very much on the gospels -- what Jesus said and did in his lifetime -- even though we say the Nicene Creed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. so, you have a problem with Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants
Not all Christians, just the vast majority of them. How open minded of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Oops, wrong place
Edited on Sat Dec-25-04 11:32 AM by JVS


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
34. It would come as a big surprise to a lot of Christians to be told that

Every Sunday in church, Christians recite the Nicene Creed. "Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures."

Many Christians do not use the Nicene Creed at all. Some use the Apostles' Creed, some, notably all the different sorts of Baptists, plus the Quakers, don't use a creed at all.

Roman Catholics and Episcopalians do recite the Nicene Creed in church every Sunday. I am not sure about any of the Orthodox rites because it's been too long since I attended one of their services. Presbyterians don't; they use only the Apostles' Creed.

Why doesn't the Nicene Creed (or the Apostles Creed) cover the teachings of Jesus? Perhaps because the teachings were well-known and heresies arose over more abstruse matters such as Christ's divinity, so Christians needed to regularly recite a creed to keep their beliefs clearly in mind and not be led into heresy.

We hear the teachings of Jesus read from the Gospel every week, followed by a sermon that further emphasizes the Gospel teaching. Perhaps the writer was unaware of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. While for instance, Lutherans use both creeds on different
occasions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Nicene is generally for special occasions/ longer services otherwise...
it's Apostles

Recitation of the Creeds is not so important IMHO as belief in the creeds. I cannot remember the last time I heard the recitation of the Athanasian Creed, but it's there in the LBW for us to read and contemplate. My mother grew up Congregationalist and one of the things she told me about the creeds was that she likes that the Lutherans actually hold them as articles of faith, she says that in her church growing up that the creeds were considered historic documents but not necessarily the descriptions of the essence of the faith.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Catholics say the Nicene Creed during Mass but use the Apostles'

Creed at other times, such as when saying the Rosary. Thanks for the info about Lutherans, I suspected both might be used by Lutherans but didn't know for sure.

I think there's a fairly important distinction between those who use the Nicene Creed and/or the Apostles' Creed, those who use only the Apostles' Creed, and those who use no creed at all. To say all Christians are the same is to betray one's own ignorance of the different Christian churches that exist today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #34
56. not true
Presbyterians do use the Nicene creed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catbert836 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
38. I recite the Nicene Creed
And most Catholics, Orthodox and Episcopalians recite it as well. A better adjective would be 'Imperial', to reflect how Jesus' message was corrupted by the Roman Empire, or possibly 'Post-Constantine'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #38
43. The actual rule is that you
recite the Nicene Creed when there's Eucarist/Communion and the Apostle's Creed when there isn't.

Currently, my church, like most Episcopal churches, has Eucharist every Sunday, so we say the Nicene Creed. However, at our Sunday afternoon Evensongs, which do not include Eucharist, we say the Eucharist.

During my youngewr days, Lutherans had Communion only on the first Sunday of the month. Other Sundays, the service would stop short of the Great Thanksgiving and the Words of Institution, so we usually said the Apostel's Creed.

The trend in both the Lutheran and Episcopal churches is Communion every Sunday, since that is the most historically correct.

I would like to echo DBDB in saying that we get Gospel readings every Sunday, plus a sermon, and for many people, Bible study, so we hear plenty about Jesus' teachings and ministry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catbert836 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. So do we
as a Catholic Church, we certainly have communion every mass and so recite the Creed every Sunday. My point was it was incorrect to dismiss Nicene Christians because most Christians do, in fact, recite the Nicene Creed.
We get first Reading (Old Testament), Second reading (Old/New Testament-Non Gospel) and the Gospel reading, followed by a Homily, or a sermon as its more well known.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Isn't there a technical difference between homily and sermon
I was told that a sermon is a discussion and elaboration on the message of a reading, while a homily is not rooted in a reading of the day and can discuss a moral principle or current event that the speaker wishes to discuss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUDUing2 Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. nope..was raise SB and converted to RC...sermons and homilies are the same
thing..just different names...my SB deacon father was floored the first time he attended mass w/us cause *it focused on the Bible so much, if you take away all the ceremony it just isn't much different*...he was born in 1924 in Southern Missouri and had been raised to view catholics pretty much from the Jack Chick viewpoint...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-28-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. We use each name differently
Sermons are more frequent and deal with the readingsbut there are also times when we have homilies which may not deal with a particular reading of the day. It really depends on what the pastor chooses to do that particular service. Funerals are also usually given homilies because it allows the pastor to more directly deal with the issue at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUDUing2 Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. most RC refer to the sermon as the homily..tbh in 25 yrs I have never seen
or heard the homily called a sermon in a catholic church..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. No Pslams? You know what is really interesting about that
pattern of worship?

At the very first Christian worship service, recalled in Acts 2, it was Sunday, 9:00a.m. There were readings from the OT, a Pslam was sung and two lectures of the Lord Jesus' works, or what became the NT followed by a sermon, Communion, a sharing of peace and a blessing.

I think that is amazing, that through all the changes and all the years, the pattern of worship remains about the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catbert836 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. And yes, 1 Psalm
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #49
55. The Episcopalians have a psalm between the
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 02:38 AM by Lydia Leftcoast
first (usually Old Testament) and second (usually an epistle) reading.

Both the readings and the psalms are designated according to a three-year cycle. There are readings and psalms designated for every day of the year, although most people hear only the Sunday and festival readings, unless they're in a monastery or convent or have home devotions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
57. Which teachings of Jesus should have been included in the Creed?
Including all of the teachings of Christ would have made the whole thing way too long to recite and impossible to remember.

I recite both the Nicene and the Apostles Creed and it has never impaired my ability to also focus on the teachings of Christ. But to imclude some and not all of his words, would have put undue importance on some more than others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC