Paul's Different Gospel 4
The Trinitarian-Unitarian dispute need not be glossed over. The whole of Christianity was split by it and Constantine feared that it would cause grave problems to his rule.
The "heretical" teaching of Arius depends on where the different Christians stood. It is obvious that Arius had his supporters and he was also right in stating that the "Son" is not of one nature or substance with "God the Father", etc.
The teaching of Arius was based not only on Judaism but the teaching of Jesus himself that "God is One". What could be more straightforward than that? Those who disputed this assertion were the real heretics.
Any dilution of this central assertion and truth must certainly be treated as suspect and could have been due to a few factors, not the least among which was forgery, interpolation and misinterpretation.
I'm not at all saying that Trinitarian Christians misunderstand their own message. I am quite sure that they understand their own message. But do they understand the real message of Jesus?
When I say "Trinitarian Christians" I use this term to distinguish them from the original followers of Jesus, who were Nazarenes of the Judaic-Essenic sect or movement (i.e. all of whom were Jews) and also from the "Unitarian Christians" such as Arius and others of his persuasion (who were essentially, though not all, non-Jews).
As all will note, I have not made a single reference to the so-called "Qur'anic view" of "Christian" scriptures, as I believe that "Christian" scriptures or what the Christians (both Trinitarian and Unitarian) accept as "scriptures" can and should be looked at on their own merit.
Indeed we must look at all Christian scriptures as a whole, not just those accepted by the Trinitarian Christians.
If the Trinitarian Christians do not accept the Qur'an being imposed upon them, then likewise they should not insist upon their version of the Bible, especially the New Testament, being imposed upon others, including Christians of other persuasions (and thus ignoring those who disagree with their Bible as well).
Paul wasn't able to pull a fast one over the other Apostles. Far from it. While they all at first continued to pray and preach in the Temple of the Jews, there is doubt the others were interested in spreading the word of Jesus outside of the Jewish community, and they were only too happy to let Paul say what he liked to the Gentiles.
It only concerned them when he tried to impose his clearly different teachings on Jewish communities outside of Israel and many times they sent emissaries to correct him, which upset Paul no end, as we can see from his letters. And this is where he came into conflict with them, as his letters also clearly indicate.
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus the Nazarene was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22 NIV).
As for the Council of Nicea, it was called by Constantine to settle once and for all the differences between the warring Unitarian Christians (Arians) and the Trinitarian Christians (Athanasians) so that he could preserve the political integrity of his Empire.
This interference by civil authority in the affairs of the Church was not merely over doctrinal differences, but because those differences had become violent and threatened the stability of the Empire.
Origen just 50 years earlier had taught that the "Son" was chosen not by superiority of nature but by virtue of his self-effort. This was also Arian teaching.
It is also known that Origen had access to many of the lost words of Jesus, and quotes from the disciples not recorded in the NT. Origen knew the real nature of Jesus was that of an extremely holy man. And all can become holy men, as evident from the teachings of Jesus himself recorded in writing by those of the first century, but now lost - probably destroyed in the aftermath of the Council of Nicea.
"And we recall the words of St. John in his epistle: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God...." (1 John 3: 2).
The Trinitarians looked down on Arius, who to them was a mere priest of Alexandria. He was not a Bishop, nor did he have any authority to elaborate in the teachings of the Church.
Arius being "simply a Priest" is immaterial, as well as whether he had any authority to elaborate in the teachings of the "Church". The Trinitarian "Church" of course denounced and disowned his teachings since they were not the teachings of the Trinitarians, so it really was of no relevance whether he had its authority or not.
Obviously there was more than one movement in Christianity at that time and even till today. So it is rather disingenous when Trinitarian Christians refer to the "Church" as if theirs was the only authentic "Church", especially when the original followers of Jesus only had the Temple.
There was absolutely no reason for Arius to submit to their authority. In fact he was putting forward a totally different creed/doctrine of his own, one which he thought was closer to the truth - and comparatively speaking he was right.
Paul's "different" gospel makes it very clear who were the real heretics or blasphemers, and they were the ones, including Paul himself, who taught anything which was contrary to the Mosaic Law, which Jesus had come to fulfill, not to destroy as Paul did.
Just because they now claim to be "orthodox" Christianity does not make Athanasius's explanation of the "Logos" or his defence of the personality and deity of the "Holy Spirit" right and Arius wrong.
While most of the Christian priests and bishops signed the Nicene Creed, affirming that "Jesus Christ" - whom none of them had known - was "Very God of Very God" and "of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made," they did so under threat of banishment.
Obviously and for some reason (which probably had nothing to do with the truth), Constantine sided with the Trinitarians on the issue of the nature of Jesus, i.e. whether he was one with God and therefore God Himself, or a human being - one of those closest to God.
In "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity", by David W. Bercot, there were 5 who did not agree with the Nicene Creed.
"...Constantine himself chaired the two-month long conference and actively participated in the discussions... Constantine persuaded the group to draw up a church-wide creed that specifically addressed the Divine nature of the Son. This was something quite new, for in the past each congregation used its own individual creed. (pp. 131-132)
Constantine himself proposed the wording of the new church-wide creed. To exclude the viewpoints of Arius, Constantine argued that the Greek term homoousios should be used to describe the relationship of Jesus and His Father. This term is usually translated into English by the phrase, "being of the same substance." ... In fact, several pre-Nicene Christian writers had used that term to describe the Deity of the Son. However, the term doesn't appear anywhere in Scripture, and it had never been included in any of the early congregational creeds... (p. 132)
Nevertheless, as a result of Constantine's persuasive skills, all but five of the church representatives at Nicaea eventually signed the newly-established creed. Constantine then banished into exile the five who wouldn't sign, one of whom was Arius. Constantine also decreed: "... If anyone shall be detected in concealing a book written by Arius, and does not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death."... (p. 132)
Subsequently, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicea regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, as they said in a letter to Constantine written by Eusebius of Nicomedia: "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you."
And a blasphemy it was that rules most of Christendom to this day, even though Constantine did change his mind about Arius and brought him back from banishment in an effort to unify the Empire which was still in grave danger of being torn apart by the warring factions of "Christianity", even after the Nicene Council.
For his efforts Constantine, in collusion with the conniving bishops who supported him, rewarded himself with the office of Messiah - an office previously reserved only for Jesus. It was Constantine, not Jesus, who became the embodied Messiah, Saviour and Head of the "Church" - the Trinitarian Church of course.
What had Jesus have to do with this? Absolutely nothing, for the Nicene Creed had transformed him into something else entirely and that he had never ever claimed to be - God.
The very human Jesus of history had been transformed beyond redemption by the bishops of the Trinitarian Church with the backing of the very secular Emperor Constantine into God Himself and Constantine had himself become transformed into the Messiah.
No comments:
Post a Comment