Nestorius Blog

The trial of the zombie pope

2012-01-18T15:16:00.000-08:00

"Nobody likes ending up in front of judge and jury being charged with serious crimes. This individual, however, handled it like a pro, and the fact that he was already a corpse probably helped. He also happened to be the pope (or at least, he was when he still had a pulse). How did Pope Formosus up as a dead body on trial?
The year was 897 CE, and these were the days when powerful rival families battled each other to have one of their own elected as pope. Apparently, these rivalries were so intense that they didn't end with death. So, when a certain Stephen VI became the new pope, he promptly had the body of his predecessor dug up and put on trial at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. After propping Formosus in a chair, Stephen read the charges against him: perjury, serving as bishop while a layman, and trying to usurp the papacy.

Formosus was found guilty, and Stephen VI had the corpse stripped of his papal clothes, three fingers he had used for blessings cut off, and declared all his acts invalid. As an added insult, the body was buried in a cemetery for foreigners."
--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniele-bolelli/7-religion-facts_b_1211712.html#s619086&title=The_trial_of

Fight in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem

2011-12-28T22:17:00.001-08:00

Gothic for Goths - Lesson 5

2011-12-19T22:21:00.001-08:00

The Godhead

2011-12-17T14:54:00.000-08:00

Here are the references to Godhead and divinity and alternate renderings:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [divine].
Act_17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead [divine being] is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Rom_1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead [divine nature]; so that they are without excuse:

Col_2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [deity] bodily.

2 Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Santa Claus: Pugilist for Christ

2011-12-08T21:55:00.000-08:00

And now for a different point of view:

Santa Claus: Bishop and Pugilist for Christ

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - December 6, AD 2011 6:42 PM MST

Today is the Feast of St. Nicholas, who died on December 6, AD 343. Saint Nicholas is well-known by his Dutch moniker, "Santa Claus". Don't be fooled by the crass, commercialized image. Saint Nicholas was a stone-cold butt-kicker for Christ and His Church. Early in the Fourth Century, there was a terrible heresy in the Church put forth by a very persuasive man named Arius. Arius contended that Christ was not fully divine, but a creature, created by the Father. This heresy was threatening to schism the Church. (Back then everyone understood this to be totally and completely evil and thus unacceptable - the Church is ONE. Christ has ONE Bride, not a harem. There is ONE Truth. Not multiple "truths". As soon as you start saying that there are "multiple truths", what you have done is denied Truth Itself, of which there is only ONE.) So, the First Council of Nicea was called in AD 325 to hash this out and put the Arian heresy down once and for all.
Arius was at the Council, of course, and was called upon to defend his position on the inferiority of Christ. Being a bishop, Nikolaos of Myra (in present-day Turkey) was naturally in attendance. Arius' nonsensical, destructive and insulting lying contentions about Our Lord became too much for Bishop Nikolaos, who stood up and proceeded to haul off and go all Manny Pacquiao on Arius with a left jab directly to Arius' piehole.
Everyone was alarmed by Bishop Nikolaos' violent outburst, and he was immediately summarily stripped of his bishopric. In those days, the two things that designated a man a Christian bishop were a personal copy of the Gospels and a pallium, which is like a stole. Now you may taken aback by the "personal copy of the Gospels" thing. Well, of course! How could a bishop NOT have the Gospels? But you must remember that the printing press wasn't invented until AD 1439. Before that, if you wanted a book, it had to be written out BY HAND. And what were you going to write on? Try vellum. Every piece of vellum had to be harvested from an animal and made. So you see, for a man to have a personal copy of any written text was a HUGE, and frankly EXPENSIVE, deal. So, poor Nikolaos was stripped of his Gospel and his pallium AND thrown in the hoosegow.
Now here is where it gets really good.
While Nikolaos was in the clink, he received a visit from both Our Lord and the Virgin Mary. Jesus asked Nikolaos, "Why are you here?" And Nikolaos replied, "Because I love You, my Lord and my God."
At this, Jesus then presented Nikolaos with his copy of the Gospels, and Mary put his pallium back on him, thus restoring his rank as a bishop. When Nikolaos was discovered sitting calmly in his cell, still under guard, with his Gospel and his pallium, which the other bishops had locked away themselves far from Niklaos' prison cell, Nikolaos was released, welcomed back by his brother bishops, and rejoined the Council. The heresy of Arianism was struck down once and for all, and the Nicene Creed (which we still recite today) was authored. The anti-Arian part is this:
". . . Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum, (And [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ)
Fílium Dei Unigénitum, (the only begotten Son of God)
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula. (And born of the Father, before all ages.)
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, (God of God: Light of Light:)
Deum verum de Deo vero, (true God of true God)
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: (Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father)
Per quem ómnia facta sunt." (by Whom all things were made.)
I post this because it speaks directly to our question of love and defense of Truth and defense of those we love. Arius was attacking Christ and His Church with his heresy just as viciously as if he had been leading an army - and Nikolaos stepped into the breach to defend his Beloved. PHYSICALLY. The reason Nikolaos stepped in was because Arius was attacking CHRIST, and His Bride, the Church, which is made up of Niklaos' fellow human beings - whose immortal souls were being put at risk by Arius. We are in no way taught by Christ to stand by and watch as our loved ones are attacked. The miracle in Nikolaos' cell is proof of this. Nikolaos did the right thing by going all Pacquiao on Arius and dropping him on his heretical keister before God and everyone.
"Why are you here?"
"Because I love You, my Lord and my God."
Go Santa.

Bishop Nikolaos (left) in righteous anger borne from intense charity for mankind which sprang from his intense love of God, delivering a powerful left jab to a rather terrified-looking Arius, who totally had it coming.
DOWN. GOES. ARIUS! DOWN. GOES. ARIUS!

Don't worry about getting it exactly right

2011-11-26T10:20:00.000-08:00

Even if someone has a flawed understanding of the Gospel, the important thing is that Christ is preached. So don't worry about heresy!

From Philippians:
Every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice.

Forget the Past

2011-11-26T09:57:00.000-08:00

The past was either good or bad. If it was bad, time to move on. If it was good, then it is holding you back from living today to the fullest.

From Philippians:
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.
This one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Clementine Statement of Faith, Part IV

2011-11-26T09:08:00.000-08:00

Hymn to the Only Begotten Son

Holy also is Thy only begotten Son our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, who in all things ministered to His God and Father, both in Thy various creation and Thy suitable providence, and has not overlooked lost mankind.

But after the law of nature, after the exhortations in the positive law, after the prophetical reproofs and the government of the angels,

when men had perverted both the positive law and that of nature, and had cast out of their mind the memory of the flood, the burning of Sodom, the plagues of the Egyptians, and the slaughters of the inhabitant of Palestine, and being just ready to perish universally after an unparalleled manner,

He was pleased by Thy good will to become man, who was man’s Creator; to be under the laws, who was the Legislator; to be a sacrifice, who was an High Priest; to be a sheep, who was the Shepherd.

And He appeased Thee, His God and Father, and reconciled Thee to the world, and freed all men from the wrath to come, and was made of a virgin, and was in flesh, being God the Word, the beloved Son, the first-born of the whole creation, and was, according to the prophecies which were foretold concerning Him by Himself, of the seed of David and Abraham, of the tribe of Judah.

And He was made in the womb of a virgin, who formed all mankind that are born into the world;

He took flesh, who was without flesh;

He who was begotten before time, was born in time;

He lived holily, and taught according to the law;

He drove away every sickness and every disease from men, and wrought signs and wonders among the people;

and He was partaker of meat, and drink, and sleep, who nourishes all that stand in need of food, and “fills every living creature with His goodness;”

“He manifested His name to those that knew it not;”

He drave away ignorance;

He revived piety, and fulfilled Thy will;

He finished the work which Thou gavest Him to do;

and when He had set all these things right, He was seized by the hands of the ungodly, of the high priests and priests, falsely so called, and of the disobedient people, by the betraying of him who was possessed of wickedness as with a confirmed disease;

He suffered many things from them, and endured all sorts of ignominy by Thy permission; He was delivered to Pilate the governor,

and He that was the Judge was judged,

and He that was the Saviour was condemned;

He that was impassible was nailed to the cross, and He who was by nature immortal died, and He that is the giver of life was buried, that He might loose those for whose sake He came from suffering and death, and might break the bonds of the devil, and deliver mankind from his deceit.

He arose from the dead the third day; and when He had continued with His disciples forty days, He was taken up into the heavens, and is sat down on the right hand of Thee, who art His God and Father.

Clementine Statement of Faith, Part III

2011-11-26T09:04:00.001-08:00

Hymn to the Trice-Holy Lord of Hosts

For all these things, glory be to Thee, O Lord Almighty. Thee do the innumerable hosts of angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, authorities, and powers, Thine everlasting armies, adore.

The cherubim and the six-winged seraphim, with twain covering their feet, with twain their heads, and with twain flying, say, together with thousand thousands of archangels, and ten thousand times ten thousand of angels, incessantly, and with constant and loud voices, and let all the people say it with them: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts, heaven and earth are full of His glory: be Thou blessed for ever. Amen.”

And afterwards let the high priest say: For Thou art truly holy, and most holy, the highest and most highly exalted for ever.

Clementine Statement of Faith, Part II

2011-11-26T09:02:00.000-08:00

Hymn to the Creator

For Thou art He

who didst frame the heaven as an arch, and “stretch it out like the covering of a tent,” and didst found the earth upon nothing by Thy mere will;

who didst fix the firmament, and prepare the night and the day;

who didst bring the light out of Thy treasures, and on its departure didst bring on darkness, for the rest of the living creatures that move up and down in the world;

who didst appoint the sun in heaven to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and didst inscribe in heaven the choir of stars to praise Thy glorious majesty;

who didst make the water for drink and for cleansing,

the air in which we live for respiration and the affording of sounds, by the means of the tongue, which strikes the air, and the hearings which co-operates therewith, so as to perceive speech when it is received by it, and falls upon it;

who madest fire for our consolation in darkness, for the supply of our want, and that we might be warmed and enlightened by it;

who didst separate the great sea from the land, and didst render the former navigable and the latter fit for walking, and didst replenish the former with small and great living creatures, and filledst the latter with the same, both tame and wild;

didst furnish it with various plants, and crown it with herbs, and beautify it with flowers, and enrich it with seeds;

who didst ordain the great deep, and on every side madest a mighty cavity for it, which contains seas of salt waters heaped together, yet didst Thou every way bound them with barriers of the smallest sand;

who sometimes dost raise it to the height of mountains by the winds, and sometimes dost smooth it into a plain; sometimes dost enrage it with a tempest, and sometimes dost still it with a calm, that it may be easy to seafaring men in their voyages;

who didst encompass this world, which was made by Thee through Christ, with rivers, and water it with currents, and moisten it with springs that never fail, and didst bind it round with mountains for the immoveable and secure consistence of the earth:

for Thou hast replenished Thy world, and adorned it with sweet-smelling and with healing herbs, with many and various living creatures, strong and weak, for food and for labour, tame and wild;

with the noises of creeping things, the sounds of various sorts of flying creatures;

with the circuits of the years, the numbers of months and days, the order of the seasons, the courses of the rainy clouds, for the production of the fruits and the support of living creatures.

Thou hast also appointed the station of the winds, which blow when commanded by Thee, and the multitude of the plants and herbs.

And Thou hast not only created the world itself, but hast also made man for a citizen of the world, exhibiting him as the ornament of the world;

for Thou didst say to Thy Wisdom: “Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the heaven.”

Wherefore also Thou hast made him of an immortal soul and of a body liable to dissolution—the former out of nothing, the latter out of the four elements—and hast given him as to his soul rational knowledge, the discerning of piety and impiety, and the observation of right and wrong;

and as to his body, Thou hast granted him five senses and progressive motion: for Thou, O God Almighty, didst by Thy Christ plant a paradise in Eden, in the east, adorned with all plants fit for food, and didst introduce him into it, as into a rich banquet.

And when Thou madest him, Thou gavest him a law implanted within him, that so he might have at home and within himself the seeds of divine knowledge;

and when Thou hadst brought him into the paradise of pleasure, Thou allowedst him the privilege of enjoying all things, only forbidding the tasting of one tree, in hopes of greater blessings; that in case he would keep that command, he might receive the reward of it, which was immortality.

But when he neglected that command, and tasted of the forbidden fruit, by the seduction of the serpent and the counsel of his wife, Thou didst justly cast him out of paradise.

Yet of Thy goodness Thou didst not overlook him, nor suffer him to perish utterly, for he was Thy creature;

but Thou didst subject the whole creation to him, and didst grant him liberty to procure himself food by his own sweat and labours, whilst Thou didst cause all the fruits of the earth to spring up, to grow, and to ripen.

But when Thou hadst laid him asleep for a while, Thou didst with an oath call him to a restoration again, didst loose the bond of death, and promise him life after the resurrection.
And not this only; but when Thou hadst increased his posterity to an innumerable multitude, those that continued with Thee Thou didst glorify, and those who did apostatize from Thee Thou didst punish.

And while Thou didst accept of the sacrifice of Abel as of an holy person, Thou didst reject the gift of Cain, the murderer of his brother, as of an abhorred wretch.

And besides these, Thou didst accept of Seth and Enos, and didst translate Enoch:

for Thou art the Creator of men, and the giver of life, and the supplier of want, and the giver of laws, and the rewarder of those that observe them, and the avenger of those that transgress them;

who didst bring the great flood upon the world by reason of the multitude of the ungodly, and didst deliver righteous Noah from that flood by an ark, with eight souls, the end of the foregoing generations, and the beginning of those that were to come;

who didst kindle a fearful fire against the five cities of Sodom, and “didst turn a fruitful land into a salt lake for the wickedness of them that dwelt therein,” but didst snatch holy Lot out of the conflagration.

Thou art He who didst deliver Abraham from the impiety of his fore-fathers, and didst appoint him to be the heir of the world, and didst discover to him Thy Christ; who didst aforehand ordain Melchisedec an high priest for Thy worship;

who didst render Thy patient servant Job the conqueror of that serpent who is the patron of wickedness;

who madest Isaac the son of the promise, and Jacob the father of twelve sons, and didst increase his posterity to a multitude, and bring him into Egypt with seventy-five souls.

Thou, O Lord, didst not overlook Joseph, but grantedst him, as a reward of his chastity for Thy sake, the government over the Egyptians.

Thou, O Lord, didst not overlook the Hebrews when they were afflicted by the Egyptians, on account of the promises made unto their fathers; but Thou didst deliver them and punish the Egyptians.
And when men had corrupted the law of nature, and had sometimes esteemed the creation the effect of chance, and sometimes honoured it more than they ought, and equalled it to the God of the universe, Thou didst not, however, suffer them to go astray, but didst raise up Thy holy servant Moses, and by him didst give the written law for the assistance of the law of nature, and didst show that the creation was Thy work, and didst banish away the error of polytheism.

Thou didst adorn Aaron and his posterity with the priesthood, and didst punish the Hebrews when they sinned, and receive them again when they returned to Thee.

Thou didst punish the Egyptians with a judgment of ten plagues, and didst divide the sea, and bring the Israelites through it, and drown and destroy the Egyptians who pursued after them.

Thou didst sweeten the bitter water with wood; Thou didst bring water out of the rock of stone; Thou didst rain manna from heaven, and quails, as meat out of the air; Thou didst afford them a pillar of fire by night to give them light, and a pillar of a cloud by day to overshadow them from the heat;

Thou didst declare Joshua to be the general of the army, and didst overthrow the seven nations of Canaan by him; Thou didst divide Jordan, and dry up the rivers of Etham; Thou didst overthrow walls without instruments or the hand of man.

Clementine Statement of Faith, Part I

2011-11-26T08:38:00.000-08:00

In an ancient liturgy, at the place where the Nicene Creed is stated, is a very long statement that I have arbitrarily divided into four "hymns". This is the first.

Hymn to the True God

Then let the high priest say: It is very meet and right before all things to sing an hymn to Thee, who art the true God, who art before all beings, “from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named;” who only art unbegotten, and without beginning, and without a ruler, and without a master; who standest in need of nothing; who art the bestower of everything that is good; who art beyond all cause and generation; who art alway and immutably the same; from whom all things came into being, as from their proper original.

For Thou art eternal knowledge, everlasting sight, unbegotten hearing, untaught wisdom, the first by nature, and the measure of being, and beyond all number; who didst bring all things out of nothing into being by Thy only begotten Son, but didst beget Him before all ages by Thy will, Thy power, and Thy goodness, without any instrument, the only begotten Son, God the Word, the living Wisdom, “the First-born of every creature, the angel of Thy Great Counsel,” and Thy High Priest, but the King and Lord of every intellectual and sensible nature, who was before all things, by whom were all things.

For Thou, O eternal God, didst make all things by Him, and through Him it is that Thou vouchsafest Thy suitable providence over the whole world; for by the very same that Thou bestowedst being, didst Thou also bestow well-being: the God and Father of Thy only begotten Son, who by Him didst make before all things the cherubim and the seraphim, the æons and hosts, the powers and authorities, the principalities and thrones, the archangels and angels; and after all these, didst by Him make this visible world, and all things that are therein.

Ancient Prayer

2011-11-12T19:17:00.000-08:00

It is very meet and right before all things to sing an hymn to Thee, who art the true God, who art before all beings, “from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named;” [Eph. iii. 15] who only art unbegotten, and without beginning, and without a ruler, and without a master; who standest in need of nothing; who art the bestower of everything that is good; who art beyond all cause and generation; who art alway and immutably the same; from whom all things came into being, as from their proper original. For Thou art eternal knowledge, everlasting sight, unbegotten hearing, untaught wisdom, the first by nature, and the measure of being, and beyond all number; who didst bring all things out of nothing into being by Thy only begotten Son, but didst beget Him before all ages by Thy will, Thy power, and Thy goodness, without any instrument, the only begotten Son, God the Word, the living Wisdom, “the First-born of every creature, the angel of Thy Great Counsel,” [Col. i. 15; Isa. ix. 6, LXX.] and Thy High Priest, but the King and Lord of every intellectual and sensible nature, who was before all things, by whom were all things.

--http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.ix.ii.html

The Macrostich

2011-11-06T10:05:00.000-08:00

Here is the Fifth Arian Confession, nicknamed the "macrostich" because of its length. This was pronounced at a council in Antioch in 344. From: http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/5arcon.htm

==================================
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named.
And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and Power and Life and True Light, who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified and dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the age to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works, whose Kingdom endures unceasingly unto the infinite ages; for He sitteth on the right hand of the Father not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, which, having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after the ascension into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things: through whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.
But those who say,(1) that the Son was from nothing, or from other subsistence and not from God;(2) and that there was a time or age when He was not, the Catholic and Holy Church regards as aliens. Likewise those who say,(3) that there are three Gods:(4) or that Christ is not God;(5) or that before the ages He was neither Christ nor Son of God;(6) or that Father and Son, or Holy Ghost, are the same;(7) or that the Son is Ingenerate; or that the Father begat the Son, not by choice or will; the Holy and Catholic Church anathematizes.
(1.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Un-begun, the Father of Christ, is One.
(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, 'There was once when He was not,' from unscriptural sources, imagine any interval of time before Him, but only the God who has generated Him apart from time; for through Him both times and ages came to be. Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unbegun and co-ingenerate with the Father; for no one can be properly called Father or Son of one who is co-unbegun and co- ingenerate with Him. But we acknowledge that the Father who alone is Unbegun and Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably and incomprehensibly to all: and that the Son hath been generated before ages, and in no wise to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but to have the Father who generated Him as His beginning; for 'the Head of Christ is God.' (1 Cor. xi. 3.)

(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities and three Persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and Unbegun and Invisible God to be one only(1), the God and Father (Joh. xx. 17) of the Only-begotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully.
(4.) Nor again, in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is one only God, the only Ingenerate, do we therefore deny that Christ also is God before ages: as the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who say that after the incarnation He was by advance made God, from being made by nature a mere man. For we acknowledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father and God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and true, and not first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never having been deprived of being.
(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematize those who make a pretence of saying that He is but the mere word of God and unexisting, having His being in another,--now as if pronounced, as some speak, now as mental,--holding that He was not Christ or Son of God or mediator or image of God before ages; but that He first became Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh from the Virgin, not quite four hundred years since. For they will have it that then Christ began His Kingdom, and that it will have an end after the consummation of all and the judgment. Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus of Galatian Ancyra, who, equally with Jews, negative Christ's existence before ages, and His Godhead, and unending Kingdom, upon pretence of supporting the divine Monarchy. We, on the contrary, regard Him not as simply God's pronounced word or mental, but as Living God and Word, existing in Himself, and Son of God and Christ; being and abiding with His Father before ages, and that not in foreknowledge only, and ministering to Him for the whole framing whether of things visible or invisible. For He it is, to whom the Father said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness s, (Gen. i. 26), who also was seen in His own Person by the patriarchs, gave the law, spoke by the prophets, and at last, became man, and manifested His own Father to all men, and reigns to never-ending ages. For Christ has taken no recent dignity, but we have believed Him to be perfect from the first, and like in all things to the Father.
(6.) And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take the Three Names of one and the same Reality and Person, we justly proscribe from the Church, because they suppose the illimitable and impassible Father to be limitable withal and passible through His becoming man: for such are they whom Romans call Patripassians, and we Sabellians. For we acknowledge that the Father who sent, remained in the peculiar state of His unchangeable Godhead, and that Christ who was sent fulfilled the economy of the Incarnation.
(7.) And at the same time those who irreverently say that the Son has been generated not by choice or will, thus encompassing God with a necessity which excludes choice and purpose, so that He begat the Son unwillingly, we account as most irreligious and alien to the Church; in that they have dared to define such things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning Him, nay, beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. For we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over Himself, have a religious judgment that He generated the Son voluntarily and freely; yet, as we bare a reverent belief in the Son's words concerning Himself (Prov. viii. 22), 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works,' we do not understand Him to have been originated like the creatures or works which through Him came to be. For it is irreligious and alien to the ecclesiastical faith, to compare the Creator with handi -works created by Him, and to think that He has the same manner of origination with the rest. For divine Scripture teaches us really and truly that the Only-begotten Son was generated sole and solely". Yet, in saying that the Son is in Himself, and both lives and exists like the Father, we do not on that account separate Him from the Father, imagining place and interval between their union in the way of bodies. For we believe that they are united with each other without mediation or distance, and that they exist inseparable; all the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father's breast continually. Believing then in the All-perfect Triad, the most Holy, that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and calling the Father God, and the Son God, yet we confess in them, not two Gods, but one dignity of Godhead, and one exact harmony of dominion the Father alone being Head over the whole universe wholly, and over the Son Himself, and the Son subordinated to the Father; but, excepting Him, ruling over all things after Him which through Himself have come to be, and granting the grace of the Holy Ghost an-sparingly to the saints at the Father's will. For that such is the account of the Divine Monarchy towards Christ, the sacred oracles have delivered to us.
Thus much, in addition to the faith before published in epitome, we have been compelled to draw forth at length, not in any officious display, but to clear away all unjust suspicion concerning our opinions, among those who are ignorant of our affairs: and that all in the West may know, both the audacity of the slanders of the heterodox, and as to the Orientals, their ecclesiastical mind in the Lord, to which the divinely inspired Scriptures bear witness without violence, where men are not perverse.

Pelagius on Ability vs. Volition

2011-10-29T05:38:00.000-07:00

"We distinguish three things, arranging them in a certain graduated order. We put in the first place 'ability;' in
the second, 'volition;' and in the third, 'actuality.' The 'ability' we place in our nature, the 'volition' in our will, and the 'actuality' in the effect. The first, that is, the 'ability,' properly belongs to God, who has bestowed it on His creature; the other two, that is, the 'volition' and the 'actuality,' must be referred to man, because they flow forth from the fountain of the will. For his willing, therefore, and doing a good work, the praise belongs to man; or rather both to man, and to God who has bestowed on him the 'capacity' for his will and work, and who evermore by the help of His grace assists even this capacity. That a man is able to will and effect any good work, comes from God alone. So that this one faculty can exist, even when the other two have no being; but these latter cannot exist without that former one. I am therefore free not to have either a good volition or action; but I am by no means able not to have the capacity of good. This capacity is inherent in me, whether I will or no; nor does nature at any time receive in this point freedom for itself. Now the meaning of all this will be rendered clearer by an example or two. That we are able to see with our eyes is not of us; but it is our own that we make a good or a bad use of our eyes. So again (that I may, by applying a general case in illustration, embrace all), that we are able to do, say, think, any good thing, comes from Him who has endowed us with this 'ability,' and who also assists this 'ability;' but that we really do a good thing, or speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds from our own selves, because we are also able to turn all these into evil. Accordingly,--and this is a point which needs frequent repetition, because of your calumniation of us,--whenever we say that a man can live without sin, we also give praise to God by our acknowledgment of the capacity which we have received from Him, who has bestowed such 'ability' upon us; and there is here no occasion for praising the human agent, since it is God's matter alone that is for the moment treated of; for the question is not about 'willing,' or 'effecting,' but simply and solely about that which may possibly be." (from Book 3)
-- http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Pelagius_Defense_Of_The_Freedom_Of_The_Will.html

Recovering Pelagius

2011-10-29T05:34:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15068

Pelagius was an ascetic who denied the need for divine aid in performing good works. For him, the only grace necessary was the declaration of the law; humans were not wounded by Adam's sin and were perfectly able to fulfill the law apart from any divine aid. He denied the doctrine of original sin as developed by Augustine of Hippo. Pelagius was declared a heretic. His interpretation of a doctrine of free will became known as Pelagianism.

According to Pattison, the historical record of Pelagius's contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire and their ecclesiastical dominance. "An understanding of his life and writings might bring more to bear on his good standing in our tradition."

Pattison wants to see Pelagius's "restitution as a viable theological voice within our tradition might encourage a deeper understanding of sin, grace, free will, and the goodness of God's creation, and that the history of Pelagius represents to some the struggle for theological exploration that is our birthright as Anglicans.

"The church needs to reclaim his voice in our tradition," concluded Pattison.

On hearing the news, retired South Carolina Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison expressed disdain. "As one considers the theologically inept accommodation to the secular world there should be no surprise that Pelagian doctrine of the will's freedom without grace would be dug up again. A world losing its trust in God will compulsively trust in the human will to obey if it is sufficiently rebuked, exhorted, threatened and scolded. No wonder Richard Hooker and St. Augustine called it a 'cruel doctrine'."

===================================
Comment: Pelagius denied the doctrine of original sin as developed by Augustine of Hippo. That is exactly correct. Here is what Augustine says: "You are a big stinking pile of doggy doo that you put the white sheet of Jesus over and call holy". Here is what Pelagius says: "Stop whining, get your act together, stop blaming your parents for your problems. Jesus did it, so can you." Pelagius is the drill instructor, Augustine is the overindulgent co-dependent parent.

Augustine wrote thousands of pages attacking Pelagius. Blah, blah, blah. We have about two pages of what Pelagius wrote. Here is a good quote: "[Grace is sent by God] in order that men may more easily accomplish by grace that which they are commanded to do by free will." Pelagius believes in free will, Augustine doesn't.

Common Ground on John 1:1

2011-10-23T06:11:00.000-07:00

John 1:1 seems to me to be the only scripture that supports the Trinitarian position. The Trinitarians have an entire vocabulary which they insist is THE truth, as in, if you disagree you are a heretic, but it is almost entirely non-scriptural. Here is the list: "Trinity", "essence" or "substance" or "nature", "person" (in reference to God and Christ), "hypostasis", "Godhead", "very God".

The word "hypostasis" is used in Hebrews 1:3, but the English versions usually translate it as "nature", to make it more confusing. In Philippians 2:6, the word usually translated "nature", is "morphe", not "ousia", so this doesn't help the Trinitarians.

I don't have an interest in calling the Trinitarians heretics, I am just asking them to back off on their arrogance, and consider that another point of view is acceptable. It don't know how you get from John 1:1 that the Logos has the same essence as the Father, when the word essence isn't used.

So here is my proposed common ground:

1. "God" is referred to twice in John 1:1. It can't have the same meaning in both places. The first use is to God the Father. The second use is to divinity. So this could be better translated: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine."
2. The divinity of the Son is derived from the Father - it isn't a stand-alone attribute. Jesus is not another god. He is not God. He is the Son of God.

Debate over John 1:1 and John 14:28

2011-10-17T20:19:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple of interesting links for future reference:

Trinity and Modern Arians

BUT THE GREEK TEXT HAS FOUR DEFINITE ARTICLES (Strongs # 3588)
1722 746 2258 3588 3056 2532 3588 3056 2258
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was
4314 3588 2316 2532 2316 2258 3588 3056
with THE God, and God was the Word

It doesn't take a Greek scholar to compare these verses and see that the translators have intentionally left out one definite article.

Your comment that "The Word was with THE God or the Word was WITH God -- no difference, Harold." is simply an evasion of the fact that John made a difference between them. The definite article is used to distinguish between persons or things. That is why John used it, to distinguish between Jesus (theos - God) and His Father (ho theos - The God)

The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Holy Trinity

"ORIGEN (C. 253) is free from all ambiguity..."I admit", he says "that there may be some.....(sic) who maintain that the Saviour is the Most High God over all, but we do NOT certainly hold such a view, who believe Him when He said Himself: "THE FATHER WHO SENT ME IS GREATER THAN I"; and again: "Clearly we assert.....(sic) that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but INFERIOR."

Did Jesus self-resurrect?

2011-10-12T20:06:00.000-07:00

I haven't done an exhaustive word search but these scriptures plainly answer the question no:

Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up
Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up
Acts 3:15 Whom God hath raised from the dead
Act 3:26 God, having raised up his Son Jesus
Acts 4:10 Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead

The only scripture in Acts that seems to refer to Jesus raising from the dead is
Acts 10:41 to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
But see the previous verse:
Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

Jesus was dead. As in ... he's dead Jim. He was dead. He wasn't just apparently dead, he was actually dead. A dead person doesn't have any power. God can't die. But Jesus did, because he wasn't God, he was the Son of God with a different nature.

The Lord's Prayer in Gothic

2011-10-10T19:17:00.001-07:00

Auxentius of Durostorum on Wulfila

2011-10-09T22:27:00.000-07:00

From: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html

"[Wulfila was] of great propriety, verily a confessor of Christ, a teacher of piety and a preacher of truth. He never hesitated to preach quite openly and very clearly to willing and unwilling alike the one true God, the Father of Christ, and the second rank of this same Christ, knowing this one true God to be alone unbegotten, without beginning, without end, eternal, exalted, sublime, excellent, most high creator, epitome of all excellence, better than all good, interminable, uncontainable, invisible, immense, immortal, incorruptible, incommunicable, of incorporeal essence, not compounded of parts, simple, immutable, undivided, immovable, lacking in nothing, inaccessible, undivided, unbounded, ungoverned, uncreated, unmade, existing perfectly in Onness, incomparably greater and better than all. Who being alone, not to the division or diminution of His divinity, but to the display of His goodness and power by His will and power alone, passionless passionlessly, incorruptible incorruptibly, immovable immovably, did create and beget, make and establish an only-begotten God.

He never concealed that, according to the authority and tradition of the Holy scriptures, this second God and Author of all things existed by the Father, after the Father, for the Father, and for the glory of the Father; rather he always set forth according to the Blessed Gospels that He was both great God and great Lord and great King, and great Mystery, great Light and great Pontifex, providing and law-giving Lord, Redeemer, Savior, Pastor (?), born before all time, Creator of all creation, just Judge of the quick and the dead, having a greater God, His Father ..."

Cyril of Jerusalem on the Doctrine of the Trinity

2011-10-09T06:15:00.000-07:00

Cyril of Jerusalem had an excellent catechism, available here, which does not use the term "homoousious" (same essence), and here is an interesting discussion of the controversy and his position on it.

From: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.iii.x.html

The next supposed proof of Cyril’s opposition to the Nicene doctrine is that he has not adopted in his Lectures the phrases “of the essence (οὐσίας) of the Father,” and “of one essence (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father.” This omission is the chief ground of the reproaches cast upon the memory of Cyril by the writers of Ecclesiastical History; for this he was described by Jerome as an Arian, and by Rufinus as a waverer, while his formal acceptance of the terms used at Nicæa is called by Socrates and Sozomen an act of repentance. By others he was denounced as ᾽Αρειανόφρων because he had addressed his letter to Constantius as “the most religious king,” and never used the word ὁμοούσιον in his Lectures.

We shall be better able to estimate the justice of these reproaches, if we consider first the history of these words οὐσία and ὁμοούσιος, and the reasons which Cyril may have had for not employing them in the instruction of youthful Candidates for Baptism.

It is strange to find that seven hundred years before the great controversy at Nicæa on the introduction of the word Οὐσία into the Creed, it had been the war-cry of almost as fierce a conflict between rival schools of philosophy.

“There appears,” says Plato in the person of the Eleatic stranger, “to be a sort of war of the giants going on between them because of the dispute concerning οὐσία. Some of them are dragging all things down from heaven and from the invisible to earth, grasping rocks and oaks in their hands; for of all such things they lay hold, in obstinately maintaining that what can be touched and handled alone has being (εἶναι), because they define ‘being’ and ‘body’ as one; and if any one else says that what is not a body has being, they altogether despise him, and will hear of nothing but body….Therefore their opponents cautiously defend themselves from above out of some invisible world, mightily contending that certain intelligible and incorporeal ideas are the true essence (οὐσίαν) Plato, Sophist. § 246. “The passage is quoted by Theodoret, Græcarum affectionem Curatio, ii. p. 732.” (Heindorf.).”

It is apparently to this passage of Plato that Aristotle refers in describing the ambiguity of the word οὐσία Metaph. vi. § 2.: “Now Οὐσία seems to belong most manifestly to bodies: wherefore animals and plants and their parts we say are οὐσίαι, also natural bodies as fire and water and earth and all such things, and all either parts of these, or products either of parts or the whole, as the heaven and its parts, stars, moon, and sun. But whether these are the only οὐσίαι or there are others also, or none of these but others of a different kind, is a matter for inquiry. Some think that the boundaries of bodies, as a surface, and a line and a point and a unit (μονάς), are οὐσίαι, even more so than body and solid. Further, one class of persons thinks that besides things sensible there is no οὐσία, and another that there are many things, and these more enduring (ἀΐδια), as Plato thinks that the ideas (εἴδη) and the mathematical elements are two kinds of οὐσία, and that the οὐσία of sensible bodies is a third.”

In proceeding to define the term, Aristotle says that οὐσία is used in four senses if not more: the essential nature (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι), the universal (τὸ καθόλον) the genus, and a fourth the subject (τὸ ὑποκείμενον). Under, this fourth sense he proceeds to discuss the application of the term οὐσια to the matter, the form, and the resulting whole. Without going further we may see that the use of the word in philosophy was full of difficulty and ambiguity.

The ambiguity is thus expressed by Mr. Robertson, Athanasius, Proleg. p. xxxi., in this Series.: “We may look at a concrete term as denoting either this or that individual simply (τόδε τι), or as expressing its nature, and so as common to more individuals than one. Now properly (πρώτως) οὐσία is only appropriate to the former purpose. But it may be employed in a secondary sense to designate the latter, in this sense species and genera are δεύτεραι οὐσίαι, the wider class being less truly οὐσίαι than the former.” Perhaps the earliest use of οὐσία in Christian writings is in Justin M., Tryph. c. 128*., where he describes the Logos as “having been begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission (ἀποτομήν), as if the οὐσία of the Father were divided, as all other things when divided and cut are no longer the same as before.” His example was fire, from which other fires are kindled, while it remains undiminished and unchanged. According to Dr. Newman, Arians, p. 186., οὐσία here means “substance, or being.”

In Clement of Alexandria, Fragm. § 50, Sylb. 341., οὐσία means a “nature” common to many, for he speaks of the Gnostic Demiurge as creating an irrational soul ὁμοούσιον with the soul of the beasts;” and again as implanting in man “something co-essential (ὁμοούσιον) with himself, inasmuch as he is invisible and incorporeal; his essence (οὐσίαν) he called “the breath of life,” but the thing formed (μορφωθέν) became “a living soul,” which in the prophetic Scriptures he
lixconfesses himself to be. Again in §42 of the same Fragment, according to the Valentinians, “the body of Jesus is co-essential (ὁμοούσιον) with the Church.”

So Hippolytus, Adv. Beron. et Hel. Fragm. i. speaks of the Son Incarnate as being “at one and the same time Infinite God and finite Man, having the nature (οὐσίαν) of each in perfection:” and again, “There has been effected a certain inexpressible and irrefragable union of the two (the Godhead and the Manhood) into one subsistence (ὑπόστασιν).”

In Origen we find the two words οὐσία (essence, or substance) and ὑπόστασις (individual subsistence) accurately distinguished. Quoting the description of Wisdom, as being the breath (ἀτμίς) of the power of God, and pure effluence (ἀπόρροια) from the glory of the Almighty, and radiance (ἀπαύγασμα) of the Eternal Light, Wisdom of Solomon vii. 25, quoted by Origen, Fragm. in Epist. ad Hebræos, Lommatzsch, V. p. 300.,” he says that “Wisdom proceeding from Him is generated of the very substance of God,” and adds that “these comparisons most manifestly shew that there is community of substance between Father and Son. For an effluence appears to be ὁμοούσιος, that is, of one substance with that body from which it is an effluence or vapour.”

On the other hand he writes, “We worship the Father of the Truth, and the Son who is the Truth, being in subsistence (τῇ ὑποστάσει) two, Contra Celsum, viii. p. 386..” On this passage Bishop Bull remarks: “The words ὑπόστασις and οὐσία in ancient times were variously used, at least by the Christians. That is to say, sometimes ὑπόστασις was taken by them for what we call οὐσία, and vice versa, οὐσία for what we call ὑπόστασις: sometimes the ancients even before the Council of Nicæa used ὑπόστασις for what we now call ‘person’ or ‘subsistence Def. Fid. Nic. II. c. 9, § 11.’.” This Bishop Bull presently explains again as “an individual thing subsisting by itself, which in rational beings is the same as person.”

For examples of these interchanges of meaning, we may notice that the Synod of Antioch (a.d. 269), in the Epistle addressed to Paul of Samosata before his deposition, speaking of the unity of Christ’s Person, says that “He is one and the same in His οὐσίᾳ, Routh, Rel. Sacr., III. p. 299..” On this passage Routh remarks that “The words οὐσία and φύσις are sometimes employed by the ancients for a personal subsistence (persona subsistente), as is plainly testified by Photius.”

In the earlier part, Ib. p. 290. of the same Epistle the Son is described as “being before all ages, not in foreknowledge, but in essence and subsistence (ἐν οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει).”

The confusion arising from the uncertainty in the use of these two words is well illustrated in the account which Athanasius, De Synodis, c. 45, p. 474, in this Series. himself gives of this same Synod of Antioch: “They who deposed the Samosatene, took Co-essential (ὁμοούσιος) in a bodily sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, ‘Unless Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is Co-essential with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three essences (οὐσίαι), one the previous essence, and the other two from it;’ and therefore guarding against this they said with good reason, that Christ was not Co-essential (ὁμοούσιον).” Athanasius then explains on what grounds the Bishops at Nicæa “reasonably asserted on their part, that the Son was Co-essential.” Athanasius himself states that, in giving this explanation of the rejection of οὐσιον by the Bishops who condemned the Samosatene, he had not their Epistle before him Ib. c. 43.; and his statement, that Paul used the term not to express his own view, but to refute that of the Bishops, is thought to be opposed to what Hilary says Liber de Synodis, 513., “Male ὁμοούσιον Samosatenus confessus est: sed numquid melius Ariani negaverunt?”

That the statement of Athanasius himself is not free from difficulty is clear from the way in which so great a Theologian as Bishop Hefele endeavours to explain it: “Athanasius says that Paul argued in this way: If Christ is ῾Ομοούσιος with the Father, then three subsistences (οὐσίαι) must be admitted—one first substance (the Father), and two more recent (the Son and
lxthe Spirit); that is to say, that the Divine Substance is separated into three parts, Councils, I. p. 124..” The logical subtlety of Paul was better understood by Basil the Great, Epist. 300 (al. 52), quoted by Bull, D.F.N. ii. 1, § 11.: “For in truth they who met together about Paul of Samosata found fault with the phrase, as not being distinct; for they said that the word ὁμοούσιος gave the idea of an οὐσία and of those derived from it, so that the title ὁμοούσιον assigned the οὐσία separately to the subjects to which it was distributed: and this notion has some reason in the case of copper and the coins made from it; but in the case of God the Father, and God the Son, there is no substance conceived to be antecedent and superior to both: for to say and to think this surpasses all bounds of impiety.”

The confusion arising from the uncertainty in the use of these words had been the cause of strife throughout the Christian Church for more than twenty years before the date of Cyril’s Lectures; and though it was declared at the Council of Alexandria (362) to be but a controversy about words, Athan. Tomus ad Antiochenos, §§ 5, 6., it had long been and long afterwards continued to be a fruitful cause of dissension between men who, when forced to explain their meaning, were found to be in substantial agreement. That Cyril abstained from introducing into his elementary teaching terms so provocative of dangerous controversy, is a reason for commendation, not for censure. But if it is alleged that he denied or doubted or failed to assert the essential Godhead of the Son, the suspicion is unfounded and easily refuted. To the many passages already quoted concerning the eternal generation of the Son, it will be enough to add one single sentence which ought to dispel all doubt of his orthodoxy. “The Only-begotten Son, together with the Holy Ghost, is partaker of the Godhead of the Father (τῆς θεότητος τῆς Πατρικῆς κοινωνός).” The word chosen by Cyril to express the Divine Essence (θεότης) common to the three Persons of the Godhead is at least as appropriate as οὐσία.

If we now look at the particular errors mentioned in the Anathema of the Nicene Council, we shall find that every one of them is earnestly condemned by Cyril.

“Once He was not (῏Ην ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν). This famous Arian formula is expressly rejected in Cat. xi. § 17: “Neither let us say, There was a time when the Son was not.” The eternity of the Son is asserted again and again, in reference, for instance, to His generation, Cat. iv. § 7., His Priesthood Ib. x. § 14., and His throne, Ib. xiv. § 27..

“Before His generation He was not” (πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν). Compare with this Cyril’s repeated assertions that “the Son is eternally begotten, by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation, Cat. xi. § 4.,” “the Son of God before all ages, without beginning, § 5.,” that “time intervenes not in the generation of the Son from the Father, § 7..”

“He came to be from nothing” (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο). Cyril’s language is emphatic: “As I have often said, He did not bring forth the Son from non-existence (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος) into being, nor take the non-existent into Sonship, § 14. Cf. S. Alex. Epist. apud Theodoret, § 4: “That the Son of God was not made ‘from things which are not,’ and that ‘there was no time when He was not,’ the Evangelist John sufficiently shews” (Ante-Nic. Library)..”

“That He is of other subsistence or essence” (ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας). It is certain that Cyril has given no countenance to the error or errors condemned in this clause, but is in entire agreement with the Council.

The Apocatastasis

2011-09-11T08:59:00.000-07:00

Apocatastasis means restoration to the original condition. When a computer gets a root virus, often the only way of restoring it is to reinstall the operating system.

According to Edward Moore of St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology, Nebraska, Apokatastasis was first properly conceptualized in early Stoic thought, particularly by Chrysippus whose thinking was influenced by the theory of recurrence and cosmic cycles in Babylonian astronomical thought. The return (apokatastasis) of the planets and stars to their proper celestial signs , namely their original positions, would spark a conflagration of the universe (ekpyrosis). The original position was believed to consist of an an alignment of celestial bodies with Cancer. Thereafter, from fire, rebirth would commence, and this cycle of alternate destruction and recreation was correlated with a divine Logos. Antapocatastasis is a a counter-recurrence when the stars and planets align with Capricorn, which would mark destruction by a universal flood. Origen of Alexandria correlated the Stoic's concept of the rebirth and reconstruction of the cosmos with the active guidance and sustenance of the Logos, which is taken to be an emanation of Zeus, when Zeus turns his thoughts outwards once more. In Origen's understanding, in Stoic philosophy, the cosmos is a physical expression of Zeus' perfect thoughts and apocatastasis is the contraction when Zeus returns to self-contemplation. Leibniz explored both Stoic and his understanding of Origen's philosophy in two essays written shortly before his death, Apokatastasis and Apokatastasis panton (1715).
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apokatastasis

The only direct mention of this in Scripture is Acts 3:21:
"Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (KJV)

It is referred to in 1 Corinthians 15:28: "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

John Eldredge on Jesus

2011-09-11T08:30:00.000-07:00

We’ve been running to and fro in the Gospels, picking up one treasure, then dashing off to find another, like children on Christmas morning. Now I want to look at a moment from Jesus’ life that is recorded in the Old Testament, in the book of Daniel. This honest prophet – who spent his adult years an exile serving the Babylonian courts – was given a number of startling glimpses into the future. Here is, in my opinion, the most dazzling of them all:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (7:13-14).

The coronation of Jesus.

Perhaps the most joyful, certainly the most triumphant moment in history, second only to the resurrection. For now the glorious kingdom will come, the eternal summer romp of men and angels. His crowning ensures the triumph of a kingdom of laughter and beauty and life, forever. But it was a long and circuitous road to that throne. No king has ever taken such a humble path. His first step is a staggering descent – the Son of God becomes a son of man.

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient... (Philippians 2)

“Humbled himself?”

Humility hardly begins to describe the Incarnation.

That’s like saying it would be a humble thing for you to become a goldfish, to live in the bowl, in a fishy world, trying to help those other fishies become something more like Phoenixes. It boggles the mind. The eternal Son of God, “Light of light, very God of very God…one substance with the Father,” spent nine months developing in Mary’s uterus. Jesus passed through her birth canal. He had to learn to walk. The Word of God had to learn to talk. He who calls the stars by name had to learn the names of everything, just as you did. “This is a cup. Can you say cup? Cuuup.”

For ages upon ages, his generous hand fed every creature on earth; now it is he that has to be fed, spoon fed, drooling most of it down his chin like any other toddler. The Son of God doesn’t even know how to tie his shoes. Someone had to teach him how to tie those sandals John the Baptist said none of us were worthy to untie. “The rabbit goes around the tree and down through the hole…like that. Now you try it.” Picture seven year old Jesus in the shop out back, learning from Joseph how to use a hammer and saw. He who hung galaxies in such perfect poise, like a hundred billion mobiles, has to be shown how to nail two boards together.

I take my shoes off. The humility of this is beyond words.

Remember – Jesus wasn’t faking it when he took on his humanity. Think of the implications. He who never tires, never slumbers accepted the need for sleep. Every night. How deep was the exhaustion that kept him dozing right through the gale, waves crashing over the boat? Jesus ate, every day, breakfast, lunch and dinner; he needed to. He had to trim his toenails. He who clothes the lilies of the field with greater glory than Solomon’s splendor had to do his laundry, squatting riverside, rinsing the dust from his worn garments like any other peasant.

What about the humility of simply getting from here to there by means of walking?

We read that Jesus “left Judea and went back once more to Galilee” and don’t pause to wonder – how far was that? More than one hundred and twenty miles. A four to five day journey on foot, pushing sunup to sundown. When was the last time you walked four days straight? We pass right over phrases like, “Jesus went up to Jerusalem” as though it happened quick as we read it, like he ran across the street for a quart of milk. Bethany to Cana is roughly seventy miles; back down to Jerusalem is another forty-five plus. Jesus is making these trips all the time. He who once rode “on the wings of the wind” is now getting around only as fast as his two sore feet will carry him. Hours and hours, for days and months upon end, just…walking.

God – who is in all places at all times – has to get from one place to another like a guy who can’t even come up with bus fare. The beauty of this is enough to make me weep.

The more we discover Jesus for who he really is – freed from the religious veils, all the goofy images – the more we will fall in love with him! And the more we will experience him for ourselves, which is the best hope of all. Beautiful Outlaw is almost here (it comes out October 12!). Meanwhile, I pray you find Jesus this month, and that he finds you.

--From http://www.ransomedheart.com/assets/PDF/Newsletters/2011%20August%20Newsletter.pdf

Thor

2011-09-03T03:10:00.000-07:00

I missed the movie "Thor" earlier, but apparently it had a Christian message.

============================
Earth proves to be a good boot camp for Thor. Stripped of his titles, prestige and nifty hammer, the guy learns about humility. When he's told that his father died from sorrow (a lie), Thor grows familiar with loss and regret—critical components to developing a new appreciation for what it means to be both a king and a son. And when a fearsome monster threatens his new human friends and begins to ravage the tiny New Mexico town they're all holed up in, he discovers a wellspring of charity and sacrifice.

[Spoiler Warning] Perhaps the most telling sign of Thor's radical transformation comes at the end, when the heir of Asgard opts to break apart the realm's Rainbow Bridge, the conduit through which he and others visit the universe's nine known realms. Breaking the bridge means, in essence, that he's giving up the chance of ever visiting Earth, and beautiful Jane Foster, again. But it also means saving another world—the world of the frost giants. We've been conditioned to see heroes make sacrifices for their friends or values. But when Thor sacrifices something of great value to save his eternal enemies … well, that puts this warrior on rare ground.

From: http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/thor.aspx
===========================

All myths point to Jesus. Whether correct in their understanding or not, myths have been derived from humanity’s attempt at understanding the Divine.

In the first half of Thor, the audience discovers that the hero was banished to Earth without his supernatural powers because of his arrogance and disobedience. In essence, his father Odin’s purpose was to force Thor to learn humility and obedience before being found worthy of royal reign. After Thor fulfilled this duty, he even saved his worst enemies at the expense of never seeing his true love.

Scripture tells us that Jesus willingly forsook his place as God to become weak and human (Phil. 2:6-10). The author of Hebrews also wrote that Jesus “learned obedience,” an obedience that qualified him as Savior of the world (Heb. 5:8). Furthermore, Jesus offered his life for his enemies in order to make them his own (Rom. 5:8).

The original storyline in the comics portrayed Thor’s earthly existence in the form of disabled medical student Donald Blake. In the movie, however, Thor still retains an element of superhuman strength, but does not receive his full supernatural powers until he sacrifices his life for his friends.

In a similar fashion, Jesus emptied himself of divine status. Jesus, however, did this willingly, and shows a greater love by sacrificing himself for those who hate him (Thor later sacrifices something of great worth on behalf of his enemies).

While mythology offers no redemptive work, the history of stories about mysterious deities testifies to the driving impulse of humans to understand God. Paul referenced Psalm 19 in his treatise concerning unbelief in Romans 1:18-25, arguing that all humans are given some knowledge of God despite corrupting it in their sin.

The reason parallels between Thor and Jesus come so naturally is because Thor was a futile Norse attempt at understanding the need for a mediator between God and man. Drawing these parallels is not “sacrilegious,” but a heartfelt attempt to bridge the gap between Norse understanding and the person of Jesus Christ (maybe even the same way Paul bridged the gap between the unknown god of Athens and the true God of the universe).

From http://stepcraig.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/christology-mythology-finding-jesus-in-thor/

A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong

2011-08-29T05:20:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-adv-galileo-wrong-20110828,0,3264179.story

Reporting from Chicago—

Some people believe the world revolves around them — and their belief is born not of selfishness but of faith.

A few conservative Roman Catholics are pointing to a dozen Bible verses and the church's original teachings as proof that Earth is the center of the universe, the view that was at the heart of the church's clash with Galileo Galilei four centuries ago.

The relatively obscure movement has gained a following among those who find comfort in knowing there are still staunch defenders of early church doctrine.

"This subject is, as far as I can see, an embarrassment to the modern church because the world more or less looks upon geocentrism, or someone who believes it, in the same boat as the flat Earth," said James Phillips ofCicero, Ill.

Phillips attends Our Lady Immaculate Catholic Church in Oak Park, Ill., a parish run by the Society of St. Pius X, which rejects most of the modernizing reforms made by the Vatican II council from 1962 to 1965.

But by challenging modern science, proponents of a geocentric universe are challenging the very church they seek to serve and protect.

"I have no idea who these people are," said Brother Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites and spokesman for the Vatican Observatory. "Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?"

Those promoting geocentrism argue that heliocentrism, or the centuries-old consensus among scientists that Earth revolves around the sun, is a conspiracy to squelch the church's influence.

"Heliocentrism becomes dangerous if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system," said Robert Sungenis, leader of a budding movement to get scientists to reconsider. "False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today.… Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world, and governments and academia were subservient to her."

Sungenis is no Don Quixote. Hundreds of curiosity seekers, skeptics and supporters attended a conference last fall titled "Galileo Was Wrong. The Church Was Right" near the University of Notre Dame campus inSouth Bend, Ind.

Astrophysicists at Notre Dame didn't appreciate the group hitching its wagon to America's flagship Catholic university and resurrecting a concept that's extinct for a reason.

"It's an idea whose time has come and gone," astrophysics professor Peter Garnavich said. "There are some people who want to move the world back to the 1950s when it seemed like a better time. These are people who want to move the world back to the 1250s."

Garnavich said the theory of geocentrism violates what he believes should be a strict separation of church and science. One answers why, the other answers how, and never the twain should meet, he said.

But supporters contend there is scientific evidence to support geocentrism, just as there is evidence to support the six-day story of creation in Genesis.

There is proof in Scripture that Earth is the center of the universe, Sungenis said. Among many verses, he cites Joshua 10:12-14 as definitive proof: "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, while the nation took vengeance on its foe.… The sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course."

But Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., said the Bible is silent on geocentrism.

"There's a big difference between looking at the origin of the planets, the solar system and the universe and looking at presently how they move and how they are interrelated," Ham said. "The Bible is neither geocentric or heliocentric. It does not give any specific information about the structure of the solar system."

Just as Ham challenges the foundation of natural history museums by disputing evolution, Sungenis challenges planetariums, most notably the Vatican Observatory.

But Consolmagno said the very premise of going after Galileo illustrates the theory's lack of scientific credibility.

"Of course, we understand the universe in a far more nuanced way than Galileo did 400 years ago," he said.

"And I would hope that the next 400 years would see just as much development."

Justin Martyr's view of the Logos

2011-08-19T12:16:00.000-07:00

The Logos is the pre-existent, absolute, personal Reason, and Christ is the embodiment of it, the Logos incarnate. Whatever is rational is Christian, and whatever is Christian is rational. The Logos endowed all men with reason and freedom, which are not lost by the fall. He scattered seeds of truth before his incarnation, not only among the Jews, but also among the Greeks and barbarians, especially among philosophers and poets, who are the prophets of the heathen. Those who lived reasonably and virtuously in obedience to this preparatory light were Christians in fact, though not in name; while those who lived unreasonably were Christless and enemies of Christ. Socrates was a Christian as well as Abraham, though he did not know it.{13}

--http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/justin.html

============================
At last, about A.D. 130, after a conversation with an old man, his life was transformed: "A fire was suddenly kindled in my soul. I fell in love with the prophets and these men who had loved Christ; I reflected on all their words and found that this philosophy alone was true and profitable. That is how and why I became a philosopher. And I wish that everyone felt the same way that I do."

Justin continued to wear his philosopher's cloak, seeking to reconcile faith and reason. His teaching ministry took him first to Ephesus (c. 132), where he held a disputation with Trypho, a Jew, about the true interpretation of Scripture. The Dialogue with Trypho teaches three main points: the Old Covenant is passing away to make place for the New; the Logos is the God of the Old Testament; and the Gentiles are the new Israel.

Later Justin moved to Rome, founded a Christian school, and wrote two bold apologies (i.e., defenses—from the Greek apologia). Justin's First Apology, addressed to Emperor Antoninus Pius, was published in 155 and attempted to explain the faith. Christianity was not a threat to the state, he asserted, and should be treated as a legal religion. He wrote "on behalf of men of every nation who are unjustly hated and reviled."

Justin argued that Christians are, in fact, the emperor's "best helpers and allies in securing good order, convinced as we are that no wicked man ... can be hidden from God, and that everyone goes to eternal punishment or salvation in accordance with the character of his actions." He further showed that Christianity is superior to paganism, that Christ is prophecy fulfilled, and that paganism is actually a poor imitation of the true religion.

--http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/evangelistsandapologists/martyr.html

=================
Justin's use of the idea of the logos has always attracted attention. It is probably too much to assume a direct connection with Philo of Alexandria in this particular. The idea of the Logos was widely familiar to educated men, and the designation of the Son of God as the Logos was not new to Christian theology. The significance is clear, however, of the manner in which Justin identifies the historical Christ with the rational force operative in the universe, which leads up to the claim of all truth and virtue for the Christians and to the demonstration of the adoration of Christ, which aroused so much opposition, as the only reasonable attitude. It is mainly for this justification of the worship of Christ that Justin employs the Logos-idea, though where he explicitly deals with the divinity of the Redeemer and his relation to the Father, he makes use of the Old Testament, not of the Logos-idea, which thus can not be said to form an essential part of his Christology.

On the other hand, Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him:

"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr#Doctrine_of_the_logos

Christianity in the Burgundian Kingdom

2011-08-19T11:59:00.000-07:00

From: http://theburgundian.blogspot.com/2010/07/christianity-in-burgundian-kingdom.html

Salvian of Marseille wrote in the 440s that Barbarians are strangers to learning and know nothing unless it is taught to them. Thus, since they were taught heretical, or Arian Christianity, they held that theirs was the true faith and that Catholics were heretical just as the Catholics thought the same of them. This kind of tolerant attitude toward Arian Christians may not have been prevalent, but it may help to explain the tolerance, or at least the lack of antagonism, between the ecclesiastics of each brand of Christianity.

According to Salvian, Roman Catholics and barbarian Arians associated rather freely and probably were more unified by the common aspects of Christianity than they were splintered by dogmatic belief in either being the only true form. In Burgundy, the Roman Catholic Church was treated fairly, probably because the royal house had been divided between Arianism and Catholicism. (Some historians believe the Burgundians went from Catholicism to Arianism and then back again).

It seems that, in general, barbarian rulers kept their Arian bishops close at hand and didn’t appoint Arian bishops to cities, as was done in the Eastern Empire. They resided near him in his capital and performed services for the king and his retinue, but performed few other ecclesiastical functions. Thus, bishops formed a sort of sacred council and they performed special, mostly diplomatic, missions at the request of the king.

more

Dream of the Rood

2011-08-12T20:47:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia:

Like many poems of the Anglo-Saxon period, “Dream of the Rood” exhibits many Christian and pre-Christian images, but in the end is a Christian piece. Examining the poem as a pre-Christian, or pagan, piece is difficult, as the scribes who wrote it down were Christian monks and who lived in a time when Christianity was already established (at least among the aristocracy) in Anglo-Saxon England. Some argue for the prevalence of pagan elements within the poem, claiming that the idea of a talking tree is animistic, recalling the way in which pagan elements incorporate spirits and other fantastical elements. The belief in the spiritual nature of natural objects, it is argued, recognizes the tree as an object of worship. In his text, Heathen Gods in Old English Literature, Richard North stresses the importance of the sacrifice of the tree in accordance with Pagan virtues. He states that "the image of Christ's death was constructed in this poem with reference to an Anglian ideology on the world tree. Additionally, North suggests that the author of Dream of the Rood "uses the language of this myth of Ingui in order to present the Passion to his newly Christianized countrymen as a story from their native tradition". Furthermore, the tree's triumph over death is celebrated by adorning the cross with gold and jewels.

Despite the possibility of pagan elements, the very nature of The Dream of the Rood is based upon Christian belief. The entire poem deals with the passion, death and resurrection of Christ as a triumph over sin and evil, which is the strongest mark of Christian faith. The dreamer, in his converted state, remarks, "May the Lord be my friend/ he who here on Earth once suffered/ on the hanging tree for human sin/ he ransomed us and gave us life/ a heavenly home." Here the dreamer realizes that Christ's death was not only victory in battle, but also the way in which human salvation was secured.

The poem may also be viewed as both a Christian and pre-Christian piece. Bruce Mitchell notes that “The Dream of the Rood” is “the central literary document for understanding [the] resolution of competing cultures which was the presiding concern of the Christian Anglo-Saxons”. Within the single culture of the Anglo-Saxons were the at times conflicting Germanic heroic tradition and the Christian doctrine of forgiveness and self-sacrifice, the influences of which are readily seen in the poetry of the period. Thus, for instance, in “The Dream of the Rood” Christ is presented as a "heroic warrior, eagerly leaping on the Cross to do battle with death; the Cross is a loyal retainer who is painfully and paradoxically forced to participate in his Lord's execution." Christ can also be seen as "an Anglo-Saxon warrior lord, who is served by his thanes, especially on the cross and who rewards them at the feast of glory in Heaven". Thus, the crucifixion of Christ is a victory because Christ could have fought His enemies, but He chose to die on the cross. John Canuteson believes that the poem "show[s] Christ's willingness, indeed His eagerness, to embrace His fate, [and] it also reveals the physical details of what happens to a man, rather than a god, on the Cross". This image of Christ as a “heroic lord” or “heroic warrior” is seen frequently in Anglo-Saxon (as well as further Germanic) literature, and follows in line with the theme of understanding Christianity through pre-Christian Germanic tradition. (cp. Alfred the Great’s translation of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy and the Old English Genesis). In this way, “the poem resolves not only the pagan-Christian tensions within Anglo-Saxon culture but also current doctrinal discussions concerning the nature of Christ, who was both God and man, both human and divine”.

Arius v Athanasius

2011-07-17T22:33:00.001-07:00

Lucian of Antioch

2011-07-07T05:18:00.000-07:00

Lucian of Antioch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saint Lucian of Antioch

Saint Lucian of Antioch (c. 240–January 7, 312), known as Lucian the Martyr, was a Christian presbyter, theologian and martyr. He was noted for both his scholarship and ascetic piety.

History

According to Suidas, Lucian was born at Samosata, Kommagene, Syria, to Christian parents, and was educated in the neighbouring city of Edessa, Mesopotamia, at the school of Macarius. However, this tradition might be due to a conflation with his famous namesake, Lucian of Samosata, the pagan satirist of the second century.

At Antioch, Lucian was ordained presbyter. Eusebius of Caesarea notes his theological learning and Lucian's vita (composed after 327) reports that he founded a Didaskaleion, a school. Scholars following Adolf von Harnack see him as the first head of the School of Antioch, with links to later theologians Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, but that contention is unrecorded in the extant sources.

After the deposition of Antioch's bishop Paul of Samosata, he fell under suspicion for heresy, and was excommunicated. According to Alexander of Alexandria, he remained in schism during the episcopates of three bishops, Domnus, Timaeus and Cyril, whose administration extended from 268 to 303. Lucian was reconciled with the Church either early in the episcopate of Cyril (perhaps about 285), which seems more likely, or under Cyril's successor Tyrannus.

During the persecution of Maximinus Daia, Lucian was arrested at Antioch and sent to Nicomedia, where he endured many tortures over nine years of imprisonment. He was twice brought up for examination, and both times defended himself ably and refused to renounce his Christian faith.

His death is uncertain. He might have been starved to death. Another, more likely, possibility is that he was beheaded. The traditional date ascribed to his execution is January 7, 312, in Nicomedia. There is a late tradition of uncertain origin that he had been drowned in the sea and that his body was returned to land by a dolphin.

He was buried at Drepanum on the Gulf of Nicomedia, which was later renamed Helenopolis to honour Helena, mother of Constantine the Great.

He is also commemorated as a saint, with a feast day of January 7.

Theology

Lucian's theological position is a matter of contention. Attempts to reconstruct his theology from the extant sources have led to contradictory results.

Because Arius in a letter addressed Eusebius of Nicomedia as "sylloukianistes" ("Fellow-Lucianist"), Lucian's theology came to be associated with the Arian controversy. Following Adolf von Harnack, many scholars have interpreted the word (which only appears in this instance) as denoting a theological school and have therefore seen not only Eusebius but also Arius and other Arian leaders (among them Maris, Theognis and Asterius) as pupils of Lucian and have transferred Arian views unto Lucian. The first writer to clearly attest such a discipleship for a number of Arian sympathisers - but not for Arius and his closer associates - was the Anomoean church historian Philostorgius.

Others have interpreted the word as indicating not a theological link but the special veneration accorded to Lucian by Eusebius, who by that time headed the church of Nicomedia, the place of Lucian's martyrdom. Lucian's veneration increased during the latter half of Constantine's reign, in particular due to the patronage of the Empress Helena.

Opponents of Arianism, such as Alexander of Alexandria, countered this veneration by noting Lucian's schismatic past. Marcus Victorinus identified the Eusebian party with Lucian. Epiphanius associates Lucian with heretical views about Christ's human soul held by Arians (but also by others) and relates that the Arians venerated Lucian as their martyr and that Lucian lived together with Eusebius at Nicomedia.

Associated with Lucian's name is also the Creed of the Dedication passed at the Council of Antioch in 341. This association is unknown to Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilarius of Poitiers, but known and accepted by later writers. It was most likely brought up by the Homoiousian party. In their opposition against the Homoian party supported by Emperor Constantius II, the Homoiousians claimed the legacy of Lucian and adopted the definition of 341 as their creed.

Other attempts to reconstruct Lucian's theology have started out with Paul of Samosata, whose rejection of the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrian School, and especially those of Origen, was transferred to Lucian.

Because these identifications created a contradictory picture of Lucian, some scholars have proposed the existence of two Lucians, the first being a follower of Paul of Samosata, the second being Lucian the martyr, a theologian in the Origenist tradition and the teacher of Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. However, this proposal has now been largely rejected.

Whatever his theology had been, his status as a martyr and a saint was not impacted by concerns of orthodoxy. In the words of Philip Schaff: "The contradictory reports are easily reconciled by the assumption that Lucian was a critical scholar with some peculiar views on the Trinity and Christology which were not in harmony with the later Nicene orthodoxy, but that he wiped out all stains by his heroic confession and martyrdom".

Biblical text

Lucian is also commonly credited with a critical recension of the text of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, which was later used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and which lies at the basis of the textus receptus.

Jerome mentions that copies were known in his day as "exemplaria Lucianea" but in other places he speaks rather disparagingly of the texts of Lucian.^[8] In the absence of definite information it is impossible to decide the merits of his critical labors.

He believed in the literal sense of the biblical text and thus laid stress on the need of textual accuracy. He undertook to revise the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew and the resulting manuscript was popular in Syria and Asia Minor.

Ulfilas

2011-07-07T04:41:00.000-07:00

Ulfilas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wulfila or Ulfilas
Wulfila explaining the Gospels to the Goths

Ulfilas, or Gothic Wulfila (also Ulphilas. Orphila) (ca. 310 – 383;), bishop, missionary, and Bible translator, was a Goth or half-Goth and half-Greek from Cappadocia who had spent time inside the Roman Empire at the peak of the Arian controversy. Ulfilas was ordained a bishop by Eusebius of Nicomedia and returned to his people to work as a missionary. In 348, to escape religious persecution by a Gothic chief, probably Athanaric he obtained permission from Constantius II to migrate with his flock of converts to Moesia and settle near Nicopolis ad Istrum, in what is now northern Bulgaria. There, Ulfilas translated the Bible from Greek into the Gothic language. For this he devised the Gothic alphabet. Fragments of his translation have survived, notably the Codex Argenteus held since 1648 in the University Library of Uppsala in Sweden. A parchment page of this Bible was found in 1971 in the Speyer Cathedral.

His parents were of non-Gothic Anatolian origin but had been enslaved by Goths on horseback. Ulfilas converted many among the Goths, preaching an Arian Christianity, which, when they reached the western Mediterranean, set them apart from their Orthodox neighbors and subjects.

Historical sources

There are five primary sources for the study of Ulfilas's life. Two are by Arian authors, three by Catholics.

Arian sources
- Life of Ulphilas in the Letter of Auxentius
- Remaining fragments of Historia Ecclesiastica by Philostorgius
Catholic sources
- Historia Ecclesiastica by Sozomen
- Historia Ecclesiastica by Socrates Scholasticus
- Historia Ecclesiastica by Theodoret

There are significant differences between the stories presented by the two camps. The Arian sources depict Ulfilas as an Arian from childhood. He was then consecrated as a bishop around 340 and evangelized among the Goths for 7 years during the 340s. He then moved to Moesia (within the Roman Empire) under the protection of the Arian Emperor Constantius II. He later attended several councils and engaged in continuing religious debate. They date his death in 383.

The accounts by the Catholic historians differ in several details, but the general picture is similar. According to them, Ulfilas was an orthodox Christian for most of his early life. He was only converted to Arianism somewhere around 360, and then only because of political pressure from the pro-Arian ecclesiastical and governmental powers. The sources differ in how much they credit Ulfilas with the conversion of the Goths. Socrates Scholasticus gives Ulfilas a minor role, and instead attributes the mass conversion to the Gothic chieftain Fritigern, who adopted Arianism out of gratitude for the military support of the Arian emperor. Sozomen attributes the mass conversion primarily to Ulfilas, though he also acknowledges the role of Fritigern.

For several reasons, modern scholars depend more heavily on the Arian accounts than the Catholic accounts. Auxentius was clearly the closest to Ulfilas, and so presumably had access to more reliable information. The Catholic accounts differ too widely among themselves to present a unified case. Debate continues as to the best reconstruction of Ulfilas's life.

The Creed of Ulfilas

The creed of Ulfilas, which concludes a letter praising him written by his foster-son and pupil Auxentius of Durostorum (modern Silistra) on the Danube, who became bishop of Milan, distinguishes God the Father ("unbegotten") from God the Son ("only-begotten"), who was begotten before time and who created the world, and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son:

I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him (so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God); and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); being neither God (the Father) nor our God (Christ), but the minister of Christ ... subject and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son, subject and obedient in all things to God who is his Father ... (whom) he ordained in the Holy Spirit through his Christ.

Maximinus, a 5th century Arian theologian, copied Auxentius' letter, among other works, into the margins of one copy of Ambrose's De Fide; there are some gaps in the surviving text.

Eusebius of Nicomedia

2011-07-07T04:02:00.000-07:00

Eusebius of Nicomedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

For other people named Eusebius, see Eusebius (disambiguation).

Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) was the man who baptised Constantine. He was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia, then of Nicomedia where the imperial court resided in Bithynia, and finally of Constantinople from 338 up to his death.

Influence in the Imperial family and the Imperial court

Distantly related to the imperial family of Constantine, he not only owed his removal from an insignificant to the most important episcopal see to his influence at court, but the great power he wielded in the Church was derived from that source. In fact, during his time in the Imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers. With the exception of a short period of eclipse, he enjoyed the complete confidence both of Constantine and Constantius II and was the tutor of the later Emperor Julian the Apostate; and it was he who baptized Constantine the Great on May 22, 337. Also during his time in the Imperial court, Arianism became more popular with the Royal family. It can be logically surmised that Eusebius had a huge hand in the acceptance of Arianism in the Constantinian household. The Arian influence grew so strong during his tenure in the Imperial court that it wasn't until the end of the Constantinian dynasty and the appointment of Theodosius I that Arianism lost its influence in the Empire.

It was of particular interest that Eusebius was nearly persecuted because of his close relationship to the Emperor Licinius while serving as Bishop of Nicomedia during Licinius' reign.

Relations with Arius

Like Arius, he was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch, and it is probable that he held the same views as Arius from the very beginning; he was also one of Arius' most fervent supporters who encouraged Arius. It was also because of this relationship that he was the first person whom Arius contacted after the latter was excommunicated from Alexandria by Alexander. Apparently, Arius and Eusebius were close enough and Eusebius powerful enough that Arius was able to put his theology down in writing. He afterward modified his ideas somewhat, or perhaps he only yielded to the pressure of circumstances; but he was, if not the teacher, at all events the leader and organizer, of the Arian party.

At the First Council of Nicaea, 325, he signed the Confession, but only after a long and desperate opposition in which he "subscribe with hand only, not heart" according to ancient sources. It was a huge blow to the Arian party since it was surmised that the participants in the First Council of Nicaea were evenly split between non-Arians and Arians. His defense of Arius angered the emperor, and a few months after the council he was sent into exile due to his continual contacts with Arius and the exiles. After the lapse of three years, he succeeded in regaining the imperial favor by convincing Constantine that Arius and his views do not conflict with the Nicene Creed. After his return in 329 he brought the whole machinery of the state government into action in order to impose his views upon the Church.

Political and Religious career

Eusebius was more of a politician than anything else, and a skilled one. Upon his return, he regained the lost ground resulted from the First Council of Nicaea, established alliances with other groups such as the Meletians and expelled many opponents.

He was described by modern historians as an "ambitious intriguer" and a "consummate political player". He was also described by ancient sources as a high-handed person who was also aggressive in his dealings.; he also used his allies to spy on his opponents.

He was able to dislodge and exile three key Arian opponents who espoused the First Council of Nicaea: Eustathius of Antioch in 330, Athanasius of Alexandria in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra in 336. This was no small feat since Athanasius was regarded as a "man of God" by Constantine. and both Eustathius and Athanasius held top positions in the church.

Another major feat was his appointment as the Patriarch of Constantinople by expelling Paul I of Constantinople; Paul would eventually return as Patriarch after Eusebius' death.

Even outside the empire, Eusebius had great influence. He brought Ulfilas into the Arian priesthood and sent the latter to convert the heathen Goths.

Eusebius baptised Constantine the Great in his villa in Nicomedia, on May 22, 337 just before the death of the Emperor.

Death and aftermath

He died at the height of his power in the year 342.

He was so influential that even after his death, Constantius II heeded his and Eudoxus of Constantinople's advice to attempt to convert the Roman Empire to Arianism by creating Arian Councils and official Arian Doctrines.

It was because of Eusebius that "On the whole, Constantine and his successors made life pretty miserable for Church leaders committed to the Nicene decision and its Trinitarian formula."

Eusebius of Nicomedia is not to be confused with his contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of a well-known early book of Church History.

=====================

Comment: History is written by the victors, and Eusebius lost and Athanasius won. But what if Eusebius was right, and the views of Athanasius become predominent because of political intrigue? That is what I think.

There is another pre-Nicene or even anti-Nicene view of the church. I don't know what to call it, since Arianism is too easily confused with Aryanism (white supremacy) with which it has nothing in common other than the name. What about "Gothic Christianity", since it was the religion of the Goths who sacked Rome? "Arianism had retained some presence among Romans in Italy during the time between its condemnation in the empire and the Ostrogothic conquest. However, since Arianism in Italy was reinforced by the (mostly Arian) Goths coming from the Balkans, the Arian church in Italy had eventually come to call itself "Church of the Goths" by the year 500." How about the Gothic Orthodox Church?

In the Gothic Orthodox Church, if there is such a thing, Eusebius of Nicomedia is a saint. Baptizer of Constantine and Ordainer of Ulfilas, truly a man of God.

The Logos Principle

2011-04-18T05:32:00.000-07:00

The Logos is the controlling force in the universe. To live one's life according to the Logos principle means to act logically, rationally, ethically and to obey laws. The Logos is not just a dead set of rules, it is an active force, personified in Christ.

=============================

From: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

Logos

A principle originating in classical Greek thought which refers to a universal divine reason, immanent in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections in the cosmos and humanity. An eternal and unchanging truth present from the time of creation, available to every individual who seeks it. A unifying and liberating revelatory force which reconciles the human with the divine; manifested in the world as an act of God's love in the form of the Christ.

Logos - Longer definition: The Greek word logos (traditionally meaning word, thought, principle, or speech) has been used among both philosophers and theologians. In most of its usages, logos is marked by two main distinctions - the first dealing with human reason (the rationality in the human mind which seeks to attain universal understanding and harmony), the second with universal intelligence (the universal ruling force governing and revealing through the cosmos to humankind, i.e., the Divine).

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus appears to be the first to have used the word logos to refer to a rational divine intelligence, which today is sometimes referred to in scientific discourse as the "mind of God." The early Greek philosophical tradition known as Stoicism, which held that every human participates in a universal and divinely ordained community, then used the Logos doctrine as a principle for human law and morality. The Stoics believed that to achieve freedom, happiness, and meaning one should attune one's life to the wisdom of God's will, manifest in the second distinction (above) of Logos. The Christian church then extended the Stoic idea of the universal community by claiming the universal nature of salvation and the potential for all humans to participate in it.

In the New Testament, the phrase "Word (Logos) of God," found in John 1:1 and elsewhere, shows God's desire and ability to "speak" to the human. The Christian expression of this communication is evidenced in the Christ, who is the "Word become flesh." In these three biblical words, Christianity points to the possibility of union between the human and the divine, or the personal and the absolute. God's logos, which the Christ represents, acts as a bridge between the human's inner spiritual needs and the answer proclaimed by the Christian message.

Because it is highly philosophical, the logos doctrine has caused some of the more orthodox theologians of recent times to claim that it should not be used in theology, while other theologians claim it is absolutely necessary to a doctrine of God. According to the philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich, "He who sacrifices the Logos principle sacrifices the idea of a living God, and he who rejects the application of this principle to Jesus as the Christ rejects his character as Christ." In other words, without an understanding of God's love, will, and power as a living and active force in the world - through the logos in the Christ and through our participation in the logos with our reason - the Christian message becomes a lifeless and inconsequential set of doctrines which can be accepted or rejected without bearing on one's life.

Heraclitus and Lao Tzu

2011-04-17T18:45:00.000-07:00

Heraclitus was a Greek philosopher who lived in the 6th century BC. Lao Tzu was a Chinese philosopher who lived in the 6th century BC, and there are some similarities between them.

Here are some quotes from Heraclitus:
"All things come to be in accordance with the Logos"
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
"Nothing endures but change."

Compare this quote by Heraclitus: "This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it" with this: "The Logos was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (John 1:10)

The Way of Lao Tzu was the same as the Logos of Heraclitus. "The way is the path, or pattern of heaven, the course that all things follow. The way is the uncreated cause of all things. It is the way that creates, and it is the way that nourishes, develops, cares for, shelters, comforts and protectes the creation."

Taoist Christianity

2011-04-17T14:25:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted here in a long time. I had planned on closing this blog at some point, but I had some unresolved issues. The issue that I got stuck on was the debate between Arius and Athanasius over the nature of Christ.

My current thinking is that it is unnecessary to choose sides between Arius and Athanasius, and that the whole field of Christology - the debate over the exact nature of Christ - is unnecessary.

My position is now this: All of Christianity has chosen sides in this Christology debate and I choose not to choose sides, nor to condemn those who have chosen sides, and in doing so I don't give up my belief in truth. The Catholics see the Pope as the ultimate authority. The Protestants see the Bible as the ultimate authority (with the caveat that everyone has the right to interpret the bible for himself). The Orthodox see the Church as the ultimate authority. I see Jesus as the ultimate authority.

I need a name for this philosophy and I am temporarily calling it "Taoist Christianity". I don't know that much about Taoism, but I do know that "Tao" means the Way, and Taoism has lots of short pity proverbs and sayings all dealing with compassion and non-action. I see Taoism as a pre-Christian philosophy that leads up to it.

My first thinking about this philosophy came when a woman asked to borrow money from me and I didn't think she would ever pay it back. I thought about it and there was a passage in Luke which I can't find right now that said if someone wants to borrow from you, lend it to them without expectation of repayment. I lent it to her and of course she didn't repay me and of course I felt like a sucker.

Last year I encountered a philosophy called the Law Of Attraction (LOA), which states that you will receive whatever you obsessively think about. This is similar to the earlier ideas stated by Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich. The problem with this is that it promotes obsessive thinking and also it causes unhappiness when you don't get what you expect. The mere fact that someone thinks constantly about something doesn't mean they will receive it. The promoters of LOA will say something in response like, "Shoot for the moon and even if you miss you will fall among the stars" or "When one door shuts another door will open". I believe that this way of thinking is dangerous and it promotes obsessive thinking and causes unhappiness.

My Taoist Christian thought for the day is: "The secret to happiness is to lower your expectations". It is ok to have hopes but when they become expectations you are sure to be disappointed.

I'll admit that last fall I had a problem with obsessive thinking justified partially by LOA. I did some research on this and it is an addiction similar in some ways to alcoholism and the way to deal with addictions is the 12-step plan. One of the steps in the Twelve Step plan is to believe in a Higher Power.

Who is this Higher Power - isn't it necessary to understand who he is before believing fully in him? Right now I would say no. You don't have to define or understand the nature of God or Christ to believe. And its not just a matter of having simple faith that will lead to a greater understanding later. There is no later and there is no deferring to a theologian who has a greater understanding. Jesus is The Way. That's it. Is he fully God and fully Man or half God and half Man? Is the Son of God the same in essence as God? I have explored these and similar questions ad naseum. I would say that if you ask these questions you don't understand The Way.

The major potential flaw with this thinking has to do with allowing yourself to become a victim. But if someone asks you for a cloak and you give it to them are you a victim? No. But what if this means that you are poor and have no cloak? Then so be it. Is it so bad to be poor? Isn't it better to be poor and happy than rich and miserable?

So that is some of my current thinking and I haven't stated it the most coherently but I do find it inspiring and thought-provoking.

Update: Here is a very interesting talk about Christianity and Taoism.
http://ancientfaith.com/specials/podup/christ_the_eternal_tao/christ_the_eternal_tao_-_part_1

Hidden in a cave: First ever portrait of Jesus found in 1 of 70 ancient books?

2011-04-03T09:01:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372741/Hidden-cave-First-portrait-Jesus-1-70-ancient-books.html

The image is eerily familiar: a bearded young man with flowing curly hair. After lying for nearly 2,000 years hidden in a cave in the Holy Land, the fine detail is difficult to determine. But in a certain light it is not difficult to interpret the marks around the figure’s brow as a crown of thorns.

The extraordinary picture of one of the recently discovered hoard of up to 70 lead codices – booklets – found in a cave in the hills overlooking the Sea of Galilee is one reason Bible historians are clamouring to get their hands on the ancient artefacts.

If genuine, this could be the first-ever portrait of Jesus Christ, possibly even created in the lifetime of those who knew him.

Mitchell Heisman Suicide Note

2010-09-24T11:38:00.000-07:00

A guy named Mitchell Heisman committed suicide in Boston and left a 1900 page suicide note. It might be worth a read. I guess if you belief God is dead then the only intellectually honest option for you to do is to kill yourself because there is no purpose in life. This could perhaps be compared in some ways to the Unabomber manifesto.

Tesla in Telluride

2010-09-10T07:20:00.000-07:00

Here is a fascinating article about a hydroelectric plant built by Nikolai Tesla and George Westinghouse in 1907 on top of Bridal Veil Falls near Telluride, Colorado. It is still in operation.

God doesn't HAVE an essence, He IS an essence

2010-08-26T23:10:00.000-07:00

The Nicene creed states that the Son of God is of "one substance with the Father". I think "essence" is a better translation here than "substance" because the Greek word is "homoousious" but my objection is the same. (I prefer "substance" as the translation of "hypostasis").

When you talk about the essence of something you are referring to its abstract qualities. I point to one metal object and say that its essence is "chair", and to another cloth-covered object and say that is essence is also "chair". Even though the individual qualities are different, they share the same chair-ness. What makes the ideal chair? Well you need to be able to sit on it, although you can sit on things which aren't chairs. A chair doesn't need to have 4 legs although most chairs do. Probably a chair should have a back, since otherwise I would call it a stool. Anyhow, you can see that whenever we talk of the essence of an individual object we are talking about what all members of the class have in common.

The problem with the Trinity is thinking of 3 persons who all share the essence of God-ness, as if there is some abstract God or super-God, whose qualities are common to the members of the Trinity. I think this is nonsense. God the Father is the super-God.

I prefer this formula: The essence of Christ is God. The substance of God is Christ. God is the abstract class, Christ is the instance. Christ is a member of a set of beings whose essence is God. And Christ is the ONLY member of that set. He is a Singleton, which is a mathematical expression meaning the same thing as "only begotten Son".

Proof that the moon landing was a hoax

2010-08-25T21:06:00.000-07:00

(From: http://pictureisunrelated.com/2010/07/27/wtf-photos-videos-space-cats/)

Arius: Archetypal Heretic

2010-08-20T21:20:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting paper called: "The Shadow of Arius: Subordinationism Then and Now". The author, Andrew McGowan, says that since so little is known about him, there is a tendency for scholars to caricature him as either a goat or hero. "Usually a magnet for the negative fears and fantasies of defenders of their own orthodoxies - a cautionary tale for those who seek to draw parallels today - he has also occasionally been made a more sympathetic figure, promethean defender of an authentic human Jesus prior to the triumph of dogmatic Trinitarian Christianity." "Arius was advocating a somewhat Neoplatonist schema, including a strongly articulated hierarchy of being and the absolute transcendence of the one God over the cosmos, including over the Logos itself". There is a lot more I would quote but I can't cut and paste it, so read the article.

The Father and the Son

2010-08-13T22:39:00.000-07:00

Here is an incomplete chart I am working on of the differences between the Father and the Son:

Father	Son	Cite
unbegotten	begotten
exists eternally	existed from the beginning	"the firstborn of all creation" Col. 1:15
the original	the copy	"the express image of his person" Heb 1:3
grantor	heir	"his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things" Heb 1:2
principal	agent
Master	Servant	"[he] took upon him the form of a servant" Phil 2:7
invisible	visible
greater	lesser	"my Father is greater than I" John 14:28
abstract	concrete
impersonal	personal
the King	the Prince	"[he] sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" Heb 1:3
God	Lord
Actor	Instrument
the Speaker	the Word
immortal	mortal (but resurrected)	"God raised him up" Acts 2:24
cannot be tempted		"God cannot be tempted with evil" James 1:13;
	was tempted	"[he] was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. " Heb. 4:15
Judge	Advocate	"if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father" 1 Jn 2:1
God	mediator	"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" I Tim 2:5
Eternal God	High Priest	"Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come" Heb 9:11
Father in Heaven	Emmanuel (God with us)	"Our Father which art in Heaven" Matt 6:9; "they shall call his name Emmanuel" Matt 1:23
One God	Messiah
Holy God	offering	"through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ" Heb 10:10
giver	recipient	"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." Jn 3:35

Arius' Statement of Faith

2010-08-13T21:55:00.000-07:00

We acknowledge One God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament; who begat an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages [Heb 1:2] and all that was made; who begot Him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature (ktisma) of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of the other things begotten; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an emanation (probolē); nor as the Manicheans taught that the offspring was a one-in-essence-portion (meros homoousion) of the Father; nor as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-Father; nor as Hieracas speaks of one torch [lit] from another, or as a lamp divided into two; nor that he who existed before was later generated or created anew into a Son, as you yourself, O blessed father, have often condemned both in church services and in council meetings; but, as we say, he was created at the will of God, before time and before the ages, and came to life and being from the Father, and the glories which coexist in him are from the Father.

For when giving to him [the Son] the inheritance of all things [Heb 1:2], the Father did not deprive himself of what he has without beginning in himself; for he is the source of all things. Thus there are three subsisting realities (hypostaseis). And God, being the cause of all that happens, is absolutely alone without beginning; but the Son, begotten apart from time by the Father, and created (ktistheis) and founded before the ages, was not in existence before his generation, but was begotten apart from time before all things, and he alone came into existence (hypestē) from the Father. For he is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two unbegotten beginnings. But God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son, as we have learned also from your public preaching in the church.

Therefore he thus has his being from God; and glories, and life, and all things have been given over to him; in this way God is his beginning. For he is over him, as his God and being before him. But if the expressions from him [Rom. 11:36] and from the womb [Ps. 109:3 (LXX), 110:3 English] and I came from the Father, and I have come [John 16:28], are understood by some to mean that he is part of him [the Father], one in essence or as an emanation, then the Father is, according to them, compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, the incorporeal God endures a body.

From: http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-6

Athanasius' Statement of Faith

2010-08-13T21:33:00.000-07:00

We believe in one Unbegotten God, Father Almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible, that hath His being from Himself. And in one Only-begotten Word, Wisdom, Son, begotten of the Father without beginning and eternally; word not pronounced nor mental, nor an effluence of the Perfect, nor a dividing of the impassible Essence, nor an issue; but absolutely perfect Son, living and powerful (Heb. iv. 12), the true Image of the Father, equal in honour and glory. For this, he says, ‘is the will of the Father, that as they honour the Father, so they may honour the Son also’ (Joh. v. 23): very God of very God, as John says in his general Epistles, ‘And we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and everlasting life’ (1 Joh. v. 20): Almighty of Almighty. For all things which the Father rules and sways, the Son rules and sways likewise: wholly from the Whole, being like the Father as the Lord says, ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father’ (Joh. xiv. 9). But He was begotten ineffably and incomprehensibly, for ‘who shall declare his generation?’ (Isa. liii. 8), in other words, no one can. Who, when at the consummation of the ages (Heb. ix. 26), He had descended from the bosom of the Father, took from the undefiled Virgin Mary our humanity (ἄνθρωπον), Christ Jesus, whom He delivered of His own will to suffer for us, as the Lord saith: ‘No man taketh My life from Me. I have power to lay it down, and have power to take it again’ (Joh. x. 18). In which humanity He was crucified and died for us, and rose from the dead, and was taken up into the heavens, having been created as the beginning of ways for us (Prov. viii. 22), when on earth He shewed us light from out of darkness, salvation from error, life from the dead, an entrance to paradise, from which Adam was cast out, and into which he again entered by means of the thief, as the Lord said, ‘This day shalt thou be with Me in paradise’ (Luke xxiii. 43), into which Paul also once entered. [He shewed us] also a way up to the heavens, whither the humanity of the Lord, in which He will judge the quick and the dead, entered as precursor for us. We believe, likewise, also in the Holy Spirit that searcheth all things, even the deep things of God (1 Cor. ii. 10), and we anathematise doctrines contrary to this.

2. For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. Neither do we ascribe the passible body which He bore for the salvation of the whole world to the Father. Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father’s deity passes into the Son without flow and without division. For the Lord says, ‘I came out from the Father and am come’ (Joh. xvi. 28). But He is ever 85with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son. For He says, ‘I was by Him as one setting in order’ (Prov. viii. 30). But we do not regard God the Creator of all, the Son of God, as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, for He is truly existent from Him who exists, alone existing from Him who alone exists, in as much as the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the Father. For ‘He that hath seen’ the Son ‘hath seen the Father (Joh. xiv. 9). All things to wit were made through the Son; but He Himself is not a creature, as Paul says of the Lord: ‘In Him were all things created, and He is before all’ (Col. i. 16). Now He says not, ‘was created’ before all things, but ‘is’ before all things. To be created, namely, is applicable to all things, but ‘is before all’ applies to the Son only.

From: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.x.ii.html

Do Catholics have a broken line of succession?

2010-08-13T00:23:00.000-07:00

I just read something bizarre - over 90% of Roman Catholic bishops worldwide trace their ordination through a 16th century Italian named Scipione Rebiba, yet there is no proof he was ever ordained and no one knows who ordained him. So much for Apostolic Succession.

I am sure there is more to this and I will update this post if I learn anything else.

I'm Arius of Alexandria, the talk of the town

2010-08-11T23:51:00.000-07:00

“I'm Arius of Alexandria, the talk of the town,
Friend of Saints, elect of heaven, filled with learning and renown,
If you want the Logos-Doctrine, I'll serve it piping hot
God begat Him and before He was begotten, HE WAS NOT!”

Heresy of Arianism defeated by St. Athanasius

2010-08-11T23:38:00.000-07:00

How to destroy your opponent: create a strawman and put words in his mouth, and knock him down. Arius didn't say that Christ was a creature, he said that Christ was begotten. Otherwise this is an interesting video exactly on topic.

Short explanation of Arian theology

2010-08-11T21:58:00.000-07:00

I don't know exactly what Arius believed, since most of his writings were burned and most of his followers were persecuted, but I think it might have been similar to the following:

1. There is one God. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" Deut. 6:4.

2. The first thing God the Father (henceforth "God") did was to begat his Son. "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Ps. 2:7. "When he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him'." Heb 1:6 (ESV). "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old" Prov. 8:22. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Col. 1:15. "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God". Rev. 3:14.

3. The Son, being begotten of the Father, was fully divine, but he wasn't exactly the same as God the Father. John 1:1 can be interpreted as: "In the beginning, God begat the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine (or in the nature of God)". (If you don't like this interpretation, then state your own: "The Word existed eternally, and the Word was with God, and the Word, though a different being, was exactly the same as God". It's impossible not to interpret John 1:1) Although the Son was in the form of God, he differed from the Father because he was begotten and the Father was unbegotten, and the Father existed from eternity, while the Son existed from the beginning. (Yea its a fine line between existing from eternity vs. existing from the beginning of time, but St. Nick will slap you if you say it wrong).

4. The Son in turn created everything in the universe. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Gen 1:3. (God didn't directly create light, he did it through his Word). "For by him were all things created" Col 1:16. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3. "By whom also he made the worlds" Heb 1:2. Note that the Nicene Creed says that the Father is the creator, not the Son, another reason not to subscribe to it.

5. The Son is a copy of the Father. Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God. "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" Heb 1:3. "being in the form of God" Phil 2:6.

6. Christ is clearly distinguished from God. "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed [Christ]" Ps 2:2. "Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Rom 1:7. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph 4:5-6. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." I Cor 8:6. We have one God and one Lord.

7. The Father is greater than the Son. John 14:28 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1Co 11:3.

8. The Son, just like he had a beginning, will have an end. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending" Rev. 1:8. "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power." I Cor 15:24. "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." I Cor 15:28.

St. Nicholas loses his cool

2010-08-11T21:46:00.000-07:00

Here is one of the accounts of old Saint Nick showing how to treat your Christian brothers who disagree with you:

In AD 325 Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, the very first ecumenical council. More than 300 bishops came from all over the Christian world to debate the nature of the Holy Trinity. It was one of the early church's most intense theological questions. Arius, from Egypt, was teaching that Jesus the Son was not equal to God the Father. Arius forcefully argued his position at length. The bishops listened respectfully.

As Arius vigorously continued, Nicholas became more and more agitated. Finally, he could no longer bear what he believed was essential being attacked. The outraged Nicholas got up, crossed the room, and slapped Arius across the face! The bishops were shocked. It was unbelievable that a bishop would lose control and be so hotheaded in such a solemn assembly.
--http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=57

Response to Athanasius Contra Mundum

2010-08-11T21:22:00.000-07:00

I am playing devil's advocate and replying to the prior post.

The most important part of the prior lines is the following:

To Athanasius this was no splitting of theological hairs. Salvation was at issue: only one who was fully human could atone for human sin; only one who was fully divine could have the power to save us. To Athanasius, the logic of New Testament doctrine of salvation assumed the dual nature of Christ. "Those who maintain 'There was a time when the Son was not' rob God of his Word, like plunderers."

I could be wrong but I doubt Athanasius ever emphasized the dual nature of Christ or talked about Christ being "fully human" and "fully divine". The only theologian who believed that Christ was both fully human and fully divine was Nestorius (and his followers), whom this blog is named after, and he was condemned as a heretic. (The other pre-Reformation theologians emphasize the divinity of Christ and thus emphasize the title of Mary as the Mother of God and point to her as the mediator between God and Man instead of Christ). Athanasius was focused solely on the idea that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father.

Athanasius was just one in a long line of extreme thinkers from Alexandria (I am not going to call them heretics) including Alexander, Cyril and Dioscorus who insisted on the "one nature" of Christ. They insisted on persecuting their opponents instead of admitting that this was a complex topic which was a mystery.

The opponents of Athanasius did believe that Christ was "fully divine", they just didn't believe that being "fully divine" meant "exactly the same as God the Father".

===========================

Here is the statement of Arius in his own words:
"But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, ot established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted"
--http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/arius1.htm

Athanasius Contra Mundum

2010-08-11T21:14:00.000-07:00

Here is a nutshell of Athanasius' theology, courtesy of Christianity Today:

Most often the problem was his stubborn insistence that Arianism, the reigning "orthodoxy" of the day, was in fact a heresy.

The dispute began when Athanasius was the chief deacon assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. While Alexander preached "with perhaps too philosophical minuteness" on the Trinity, Arius, a presbyter (priest) from Libya announced, "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not." The argument caught on, but Alexander and Athanasius fought against Arius, arguing that it denied the Trinity. Christ is not of a like substance to God, they argued, but the same substance.

To Athanasius this was no splitting of theological hairs. Salvation was at issue: only one who was fully human could atone for human sin; only one who was fully divine could have the power to save us. To Athanasius, the logic of New Testament doctrine of salvation assumed the dual nature of Christ. "Those who maintain 'There was a time when the Son was not' rob God of his Word, like plunderers."

Alexander's encyclical letter, signed by Athanasius (and possibly written by him), attacked the consequences of the Arians' heresy: "The Son [then,] is a creature and a work; neither is he like in essence to the Father; neither is he the true and natural Word of the Father; neither is he his true wisdom; but he is one of the things made and created and is called the Word and Wisdom by an abuse of terms… Wherefore he is by nature subject to change and variation, as are all rational creatures."

The controversy spread, and all over the empire, Christians could be heard singing a catchy tune that championed the Arian view: "There was a time when the Son was not." In every city, wrote a historian, "bishop was contending against bishop, and the people were contending against one another, like swarms of gnats fighting in the air."
--http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/theologians/athanasius.html

Athanasius the extremist

2010-08-08T22:36:00.000-07:00

On street-level, the Roman populace was equally divided between Arian and Nicene Christianity. Nicene Christianity was only forced (ineffectually) upon the Empire for 10 years before the greater will of the Christian church triumphed. In the interim, sectarian fighting amongst Christians had been gradually increasing. Normal roman citizens, who had previously, as pagans, tolerated each other's widely varying choice of gods, were now Christians engaged in mob violence against one-another based on technical theological differences.
...

Arians had accepted the principal of sharing Christendom with Athansius's Nicene Christianity. The anti-Arians, led by Athanasius, were the sectarians: when Athanasius was commanded by the Emperor to allow exiled Arian priests back to their churches, Athanasius said that Arians were "enemies of Jesus Christ" and that the Church had no place for them. Athanasius commanded small armies of riotous mobs to do his bidding including beatings, church burnings and murder.

...

Athanasius (a violent anti-arian) returned to Alexandria where, according to his enemies, "he seized the churches... by force, by murder, by war". Christianity was suddenly torn apart by a new violence; cities' populaces were so divided by fiery Christian denominational debates that many cities were in a state of virtual civil war. Arian theology itself became divided between radical, moderate and liberal Arians. "No doubt, the initial enthusiasm for Julian among some of the common people reflected their distaste for the scandalous disunity of the Church. Christianity had conspicuously failed to bring the empire together or to secure it from enemy attack. As the contemporary historian Ammianus said, 'no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most Christians in their deadly hatred of one another'.
--http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_arianism.html

Throughout most of his career, Athanasius had many detractors. There were allegations of defiling an altar, selling Church grain that had been meant to feed the poor for his own personal gain, and for suppressing dissent through violence and murder. It cannot be claimed, beyond all doubt, whether any or all of these specific allegations were true, but Rubenstein suggests that Athanasius employed a level of force when it suited his cause or personal interests.^--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

Post-Modern Christianity

2010-08-08T21:19:00.000-07:00

I doubt if anyone ever reads my blog, but that isn't the purpose; instead it is to document whatever I think is interesting at the time. Anyways, I think my philosophy is now what I would call Post-Modern Christianity, and I want to explain more about what it means.

First of all, it IS Christianity, which is about the uniqueness of Christ and his message. I want to proclaim that "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father". (Phil. 2:11)

Second, it is post-modern, which just means beyond modern. The modern world really dates from about 1700, with the Scottish Enlightenment. It is based on the scientific method, and logic, and machinery and the idea of progress. The modern world claims to have superseded the ancient world with its primitive ideas and superstitions. I think that the ancient world had some advantages which were lost with modernity. I think the modern world is breaking down (although this may just be a fatal flaw in Keynesian economics, which is a different topic). So to some degree to be post-modern means to go back to some pre-modern ideas.

It also means that I am influenced, or open to be influenced to some degree by post-modern ideas such as existentialism and by liberal theologians. It doesn't mean that I agree with all of these ideas or even understand them. For instance, I was once interested in the writings of Karl Barth, who held that Christ is the Word of God, not the Bible. I discovered that the whole time he was writing his theological treatises, he was carrying on an affair with his secretary, which greatly weakened his standing in my eyes. What is the purpose of writing about theology if you aren't going to live a Christian life?

With regards to Christianity, I see two distinct periods which could be called "modern", first the era starting in AD 325 at the Council of Nicea, and second, the Protestant era starting with Martin Luther in 1517. To be a post-modern Christian means to go back before either of these eras and to see if some of these pre-modern ideas are more applicable.

I started this blog to talk about the so-called Nestorian heresy and more recently I have been writing about the Arian heresy. The more I think about it the more I am unwilling to condemn either Arius or Nestorius as heretics. Both of these men had powerful enemies, Athanasius who opposed Arius and Cyril who opposed Nestorius. For these issues at least I would like to live in the pre-modern world and not make a final judgment call.

That means I can't be considered "orthodox", since the the Orthodox and Catholic churches have made final judgment calls about these men. This means that I am more open to ideas which might be considered heretical. It doesn't mean that I am saying that there is no such thing as truth, but it does mean that I am more cautious in labeling an idea as heresy.

Another aspect of this is that I reject, or at least don't automatically accept, the founding principles of Protestantism, one of which is the idea of inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. While I have the utmost respect for the Scriptures, the idea of inerrancy is a modern idea. I don't think the Scriptures are inerrant (although the errors don't obscure the essential message) and the purpose of the idea of infallibility is to demean any other source of authority, such as apostolic tradition.

It sounds like I am rudderless, relying on neither traditional authority nor accepting scripture as the final word, and it sounds like I am making myself as the ultimate authority. But I don't think that is true. I am a follower of Jesus and I want to leave it at that. Some of the complex theological ideas are interesting and have some merit, but I don't think it is necessary to make decisions about every idea.

On a final note, post-modern Christianity seeks to be relevant to the post-modern world and to engage it. If you are not "visiting the widows and orphans in their affliction", and bearing good fruit, then a correct understanding of certain theological precepts is in vain.

The original Nicene Creed

2010-08-08T21:13:00.000-07:00

This was composed to condemn Arius.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things seen and unseen.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same being as [homoousius] the Father, through whom all things came to be, both the things in heaven and on earth, who for us humans and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, becoming human, who suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, who is coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

The catholic and apostolic church condemns those who say concerning the Son of God that “there was a time when he was not” or “he did not exist before he was begotten” or “he came to be from nothing” or who claim that he is of another subsistence (hypostasis) or essence (ousia), or a creation (ktistos), or changeable (alloiōtos), or alterable (treptos).
--http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-24

The Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea

2010-08-07T22:53:00.000-07:00

This was the forerunner of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of (from) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages; through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory, to judge the living and dead; and in the Holy Spirit.
--http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/nicene_bate.html

Update: Here is another version of it:

"We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for He is the Logos of God, God of God, Light of Light, life of life. His only Son, the first-born of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption, who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third day, returned to the Father, and will come again one day in His glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Ghost. We believe that each of these three is and subsists : the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as our Lord also said, when He sent His disciples to preach : Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
--http://readinghall.org/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Book-2/32-33.html

The Homoian Creed

2010-08-07T22:35:00.000-07:00

The Homoian Creed tried to avoid the "iota" debate between the advocates of "homoousius" (same nature) and "homoiousius" (similar nature) by avoiding mention of the term "ousius" (essence, or nature).

We believe in One God, Father Almighty, from whom are all things; And in the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God before all ages and before every beginning, by whom all things were made, visible and invisible, and begotten as only-begotten, only from the Father only, God from God, like to the Father that begat Him according to the Scriptures; whose origin no one knows, except the Father alone who begat Him. He as we acknowledge, the Only-begotten Son of God, the Father sending Him, came hither from the heavens, as it is written, for the undoing of sin and death, and was born of the Holy Ghost, of Mary the Virgin according to the flesh, as it is written, and convened with the disciples, and having fulfilled the whole Economy according to the Father’s will, was crucified and dead and buried and descended to the parts below the earth; at whom hades itself shuddered: who also rose from the dead on the third day, and abode with the disciples, and, forty days being fulfilled, was taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, to come in the last day of the resurrection in the Father’s glory, that He may render to every man according to his works. And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten Son of God Himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the race of man, as Paraclete, as it is written, ‘the Spirit of truth’, which He sent unto them when He had ascended into the heavens. But the name of ‘Essence,’ [ousia] which was set down by the Fathers in simplicity, and, being unknown by the people, caused offence, because the Scriptures contain it not, it has seemed good to abolish, and for the future to make no mention of it at all; since the divine Scriptures have made no mention of the Essence of Father and Son. For neither ought Subsistence [hypostasis] to be named concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But, we say that the Son is Like the Father, as the divine Scriptures say and teach; and all the heresies, both those which have been afore condemned already, and whatever are of modern date, being contrary to this published statement, be they anathema.
--http://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_homoian_of_constantinople_360.htm

Geocentricity

2010-07-24T01:22:00.000-07:00

... the Bible's authority is weakened by heliocentrism; stems from the firm manner in which the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to "up" and "down;" through the question of just what the earth was "orbiting" the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Here the Moderator of Scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, endorses the daily movement of the sun and moon. After all, God could just as well have written: "And the earth stopped turning, so that the sun appeared to stand still, and the moon seemed to stay ... ." That wording would be no more "confusing" to the reader than anything in Job chapters 38 through 41. There are those who would claim that the language used is phenomenological, that it was not meant to convey the truth of the matter. They like to equate Joshua 10:13 with verses like Isaiah 55:12 where the trees are said to "clap their hands." The problem with that is that everyone since Adam can understand that Isaiah 55:12 is a literary device; but there is not a clue to tell those before Copernicus that Joshua 10:13 is not to be taken literally.

...

To illustrate the difference in approach between geocentricity and heliocentrism, consider the derivation of the equations which technicians use to orbit space ships. Now some will insist that since satellites are sent up using heliocentrically-derived equations, that the space program is proof of heliocentrism. This erroneously assumes that the geocentrically-derived equations would be different from the heliocentric ones. That such is not the case has repeatedly been shown in scientific papers since the turn of the twentieth century. References Back in the nineteenth century, Ernst Mach (photo at left) showed that if there were an essential difference between geocentricity and heliocentrism, that then all the rules of geometry would be violated. Ever since then, geocentricity has been referred to by physicists as Mach's Principle.
--http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/whygeo.html

Heaven came to Earth in a small package

2010-07-18T19:44:00.000-07:00

Heaven came to earth in a small package
For a child was born, a gift to man
Yes. the living light came to the darkness
Wore the harness of mankind
Laid His body down to be sin for us
Gave His earthly crown so we could be kings
Yes, He came to break the yoke of darkness
That would harness all mankind
This morning star of love still shines and shines
We buried Him within our sin but He rose again
Gave His heart away so we could find Him
Changed our night to day so we'd live in light
Tore the veil between the light and darkness
Broke the harness for mankind
This Morning Star of love still shines and shines
We buried Him within our sin but He rose again
Let our hearts rejoice in Christ our Savior
Let us come before His throne with praise
Let us pray for peace so we'll break the darkness
Melt the hardness of mankind

Pete Peters and Bart Sibrel

2010-07-16T22:58:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting interview of Bart Sibrel, who believes that the lunar landing was a hoax.

Was Mary the surrogate mother of Jesus?

2010-07-16T21:57:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting discussion today with a mostly Spanish-speaking Jehovah's Witness fellow, who told me that Jesus was not related to either of his parents, Mary and Joseph (Maria y Jose). The theory as I understand him to say is that Adam and Eve (Adan y Eva) were perfect before the fall, but then became imperfect. Since Jesus is perfect, then he could not have come from Mary. The Holy Spirit (Espiritu Santo) instead transported an embryo into her womb.

Another discussion we had was the nature of Christ. I told him there were 4 theories: 1) Jesus was God only, 2) Jesus was man only, 3) Jesus was both God and Man, 4) Jesus was like an Angel, lesser than God, but greater than Man. I think he was stating #4 but I'm not sure. He said that God first created Jesus, and then God and Jesus together created the universe. I tried to see if he really meant that God "begat" Jesus, instead of to "create" him, but I don't know if he understood the difference.

I told him about the "iota" debate between those promoting "homoousios" and "homoiousios" (same nature v. similar nature), and that Arius believe the later and was condemned at the Council of Nicea. He had never heard of Arius.

Anyways it was an interesting conversation, especially with someone who doesn't speak fluent English, and I was impressed with his sincerity and his faith.

Another Lunax Hoax site

2010-07-11T13:01:00.000-07:00

Here is a very interesting site for future reference: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt-index.html . It is mostly in German with some bad English translations. What makes it really interesting is all the information about Wernher von Braun, about the space cartoon "propaganda" of Walt Disney, and about the Soviet space program, including the mysterious "death" of Yuri Gagarin.

Benjamin Warfield on Christ's duplex consciousness

2010-07-10T12:20:00.001-07:00

I don't know that much about Benjamin Warfield, but he was briefly mentioned in "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, as one who attributed some actions and emotions of Christ to his human nature and others to his divine, so this peaked my interest. Here is an excerpt from one of Warfield's articles:

it will be well to bear in mind that Jesus was definitely conceived by the Evangelists as a two-natured person, and that they made no difficulties with his duplex consciousness. In almost the same breath they represent him as declaring that he knows the Father through and through and, of course, also all that is in man, and the world which is the theatre of his activities, and that he is ignorant of the time of the occurrence of a simple earthly event which concerns his own work very closely; that he is meek and lowly in heart and yet at the same time the Lord of men by their relations to whom their destinies are determined, — “no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” In the case of a Being whose subjective life is depicted as focusing in two centers of consciousness, we may properly maintain some reserve in ascribing distinctively to one or the other of them mental activities which, so far as their nature is concerned, might properly belong to either. The embarrassment in studying the emotional life of Jesus arising from this cause, however, is more theoretical than practical. Some of the emotions attributed to him in the Evangelical narrative are, in one way or another, expressly assigned to his human soul. Some of them by their very nature assign themselves to his human soul. With reference to the remainder, just because they might equally well be assigned to the one nature or the other, it may be taken for granted that they belong to the human soul, if not exclusively, yet along with the divine Spirit; and they may therefore very properly be used to fill out the picture.
--http://www.the-highway.com/emotion-Christ_Warfield.html

Binitarianism

2010-06-12T20:02:00.000-07:00

Binitarianism is the view that there is one God made of two persons, the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is not a separate person in the same sense as the Father and the Son are. Here is a very interesting Church of God article on the subject: Binitarian View. In this view, the pre-existent Son was fully God, but when he came to earth, he was voluntarily gave up his divine powers (citing Phil 2:7; 2 Cor 8:9), but upon his resurrection he received his divine powers back again. "Jesus' nature is that He was fully God before being made fully man, and now He is fully God who had been man. But at no point was He both fully God and fully man." This would explain why Jesus was tempted, but God cannot be tempted.

One problem with this view is the question of how Jesus performed miracles. I think a binitarian would say that Jesus received the Holy Spirit upon his baptism and through the Spirit was able to perform miracles, the same way Paul and the other apostles did miracles. However, there were times when Jesus clearly performed miracles under his own authority. See Mark 4:35-41 when Christ calmed the waves.

They claim that the trinitarian view denies that Jesus was ever truly man. "The trinitarian teaching that Jesus was still fully God while on Earth suggests that Jesus did not actually empty Himself of His divinity and that He truly was not in all things made like His brethren .... The trinitarian teachings thus deny that Jesus truly came in the flesh". [I would note that this isn't a problem with trinitarian theology per se, but rather with the hypostatic union doctrine.]

This topic deserves more discussion which I don't have time for right now. But I would suggest that the author of the article is confusing three closely related topics: 1. Semi-Arians, who believe that while Jesus was truly God, that there was a time when he was not, but had no special belief about the Holy Spirit; 2. Kenotic theology, which focuses on how Christ emptied himself, but again says nothing about the Holy Spirit; and 3. Binitarian theology, which says that the Holy Spirit was not a separate person of the Godhead, but says nothing about the eternal pre-existence of the Son or about how he emptied himself.

I do agree with the criticism of the trinitarian theology in that it denies the humanity of Christ. But I also think there is a problem with the binitarian position because it denies the divinity of Jesus while he was on earth. The Nestorian position solves both these problems with the dual-mode Jesus, who could shift back and forth between being God and Man.

Firstborn of All Creation

2010-06-12T19:21:00.000-07:00

"Giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist." -- Col 1:12-17 (ASV).

Read in the most straight-forward fashion, this says that God the Father created or gave birth to the Son, who in turn created everything else. Ok, how does this not support Arianism or at least semi-Arianism? What does the original Nicene Creed say (the one formulated at the first ecumenical council)?

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

This is the argument that street gangs in Constantinople used to fight about - "he was eternally begotten of the Father" vs. "there was a time when he was not". I'm going to have to side with the people who say that "there was a time when he was not". Of course, I am not talking about the time we know about, physical time, instead I am speaking of logical time.

The semi-Arians rejected the original Nicene Creed, but they accepted the revised version from the Council of Constantinople in 381, called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.

Closing the collapse gap

2010-05-24T23:18:00.000-07:00

Ok this isn't new but I had never heard of it before. Dmitry Orlov, a Russian-born US engineer, sees parallels between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the coming collapse of the US, but he thinks that the ex-soviet people were much more prepared for such a collapse. He has a blog - ClubOrlov - where he regularly posts his ideas.

Pelagius redux

2010-05-09T22:18:00.000-07:00

Here is another recent article condemning Pelagianism: BELIEF THAT ONE IS MADE “WORTHY” BY THEIR OWN WORKS RATHER THAN THE MYSTERIES IS PELAGIANISM (pdf)

Excerpt:

Pelagianism in the strictest form is the belief that mankind can achieve “worthiness” and “perfection” by way of his own free will, without the need of God’s grace or the Mysteries to be the source of that worthiness and perfection. Rather than viewing good works as a method of achieving God’s mercy, they view the good works as a method of achieving self‐worth and self‐perfection. The most common understanding of Pelagianism refers to the supposed “worthiness” of man by way of having a good will or good works prior to receiving the Mystery of Baptism.

The article then attempts to condemn Pelagianism by quoting Augustine, the arch-heretic, and proto-Calvinist! I've written extensively about Pelagianism before and can't remember my conclusion on it, but here my a quick take on it now:

Yes, it is theoretically possible to achieve worthiness and perfection without God's grace. Go for it! But if you make a single mistake, even a tiny one, then you will recognize your need for God. The law is a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). If it is theoretically impossible for someone to live a sinless life, then God is unjust in condemning someone for doing what he couldn't help doing. Instead God justly condemns men for sinning, because it is a choice that they make.

The immediate context of the article had to do with fasting as preparation for communion - the idea that fasting makes one "worthy to commune". I understand the practice of fasting as a spiritual discipline, the purpose of which is to make one more aware of one's own shortcomings and thus be receptive to the grace. If one instead refuses to fast and claims a "right" to take communion, then that person is probably taking shortcuts in other areas of life and is not even trying to live a spiritual life. Salvation is a partnership in which you do your part and God does his part.

Thursday was a Black Swan event

2010-05-07T05:39:00.000-07:00

The term "Black Swan events" was invented by economist Nassim Taleb to refer to extremely unusual events which should never happen. I think of them as similar to 1,000 year floods or perfect storms. But what does it mean if Black Swan events happen every few years? Maybe that what you think is stable is really precarious and requires constant intervention or manipulation.

Here is my list of Black Swan events in reference to the stock market:
October 19, 1987 ("Black Monday") - The stock market crashed for no apparent reason, and the Dow was down 22%.
October 13, 1989 ("Friday the 13th mini-crash") - The stock market drops 12% over 2 days, blaming a failed buyout. "Many investors were left stunned".
September 23, 1998 - LTCM crash. LTCM was providing returns of 40% annually when suddenly their economic theories quit working. The Fed bailed them out, fearing a systemic collapse.
September 11, 2001 - The stock market closed for a week and when it opens, drops 14%.
September 15, 2008 - Lehman Bros collapsed, the stock market quickly drops 5%, the Fed takes over AIG, and Congress rushes through a $700 billion bailout.
May 6, 2010 - At about 2:45 pm, the stock market drops 1000 points and then quickly regains 700. Some blue chip stocks drop to $0.01 before quickly recovering.

None of these events should have happened. Part of the problem is that the stock market is fundamentally overvalued. The Dow was at 777 on August 12, 1982 and at 2365 on October 11, 1990. On February 23, 1995 the Dow was at 4003. During the dot-com bubble it rose to 11,722 on January 14, 2000. Today the Dow is at 10,519. I think the natural level of the Dow is about 5000 but everyone keeps reinflating the collapsing bubble.

Heresy in the Kirykite Synod

2010-04-18T17:47:00.000-07:00

There is an obscure Greek Old Calendarists known as the "Kirykites" (after their leader Metr. Kirykos of Mesogaias), and whose website is here, which is apparently teaching some ancient heresies.

Thanks to the bright expertise of "theologian" Mr. Ktenas, the Gregorian faction now holds positions that are largely Arian and Paulician in content. For instance, they state that Jesus Christ is not pre-eternal, but that only God the Word is pre-eternal, and that Jesus Christ exists only from the Nativity onwards. In making this statement, they undermine the oneness of the Person of Jesus Christ, who is the Word made flesh, and whether before the incarnation or after, can be called Jesus Christ, and pre-eternal God. The Gregorians also claim that the Church was non-existent prior to the day of Pentecost in 33 AD, despite the fact that the Holy Fathers believe in a pre-eternal Church, which derives its pre-eternity from the pre-eternity of Jesus Christ. They also claim that only the humanity of Christ is the head of the Church, while his divinity is not. Additionally they claim that the Church can only be called the Church of Christ, but not the Church of God, or that only the humanity of Jesus Christ is the ruler of the Church, whereas the Father and the Holy Spirit do not rule the Church. In so doing they separate the Holy Trinity from the Church.
--http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2010/04/exclusive-mysterious-reappearance-of.html

What a minute. Part of this is correct, right, that Jesus Christ the God-Man did not exist prior to the Incarnation?

I just wanted to note this and may come back to it later.

Man thinks he has killed God, but actually he has committed intellectual suicide

2010-04-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

“There is first, the God who has been thrown out of the search and is no longer permitted to answer questions: living in retirement from the life of reason he has shriveled into an object of unreasoned faith; and at appropriate intervals he is declared to be dead. There is, second, the cogitare of the Archimedean observer outside the movement: it has swollen into the monster of Hegel’s Consciousness which has brought forth a God, man, and history of its own; this monster is still engaged in the desperate fight to have its dialectical movement accepted as real in place of the real movement of the search in the In-Between. And, finally, there is the man of the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: he has sadly come down in the world, being reduced as he is to the fact and figure of the Sartrean sum ergo cogito; the man who once could demonstrate not only himself but even the existence of God, has become the man who is condemned to be free and urgently wants to be arrested for editing a Maoist journal.”
--Eric Voegelin, http://voegelinview.com/ev/sartre_and_descartes.html

Polish conspiracy theory

2010-04-12T18:35:00.000-07:00

I'm repeating this from another forum:

As most everyone has seen by now there was a certain recent tragedy involving Poland and Russia.
Some folks seemed prone to conspiracy theories. I will say the first ones I heard to express such theories were some RL Poles. These theories have a few points as their basis: 1. The Polish President who died was part of their (far?) right-wing who favored certain USA missile placements the people were mostly against. 2. The Polish President was up for re-election, with only one credible opposition candidate, who ascended to the Presidency from his position as Speaker of Parliament immediately following the plan crash, and is likely to win the emergency election by a large margin, since it must take place within 60 days.
For those who don't know, the trip was supposed to take these Polish leaders to commemorate the Katyn Massacre which happened back in 1943. This has been a historical sore spot since Russia insisted the Germans were behind it until admitting responsibility in 1990. So, now they hold commemoration events.
Now, is there anything odd about the Russian response? Sure. They also put Prime Minister Putin in charge of the investigation panel. This is odd because even as recently as last year, when he was in Europe to talk over certain points with Poland such as the USA missiles, their conversation veered onto the upcoming commemoration in Katyn. It was only a footnote in several news sources at the time, but he demonstrated he is firmly in lockstep with a trend of historical revisionism popular with some Russian nationalist movements, by insisting that it was never really proven the Russians were behind the Katyn massacre, that it could have been the Germans. This ruffled feathers, naturally, and caused more then a little dislike for him in some Polish government circles.

Another source says: "Here is what is being said by the conspiracy believers:
The KGB aka the Soviet intelligence brought down the plane. Why? Well, because Kaczynski was working very close with Obama on missile defense and was no friend of Russia so the KGB decided to kill all the important figures of the country all at once."

Sounds believable to me.

The World Turned Upside Down

2010-04-04T20:39:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-world-turned-upside-down-1286220/1/20

Luke 24:1-10
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " Then they remembered his words. When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

As the story has it, when Lord Cornwallis surrendered our army at Yorktown, his band struck up a tune titled, “When the King Enjoys His Own Again”

http://www.lukehistory.com/ballads/kenjoys.html

If you read the words this way of course, of course, what you find is a roiling Royalist taunt. It says to the colonists in effect,

“We’ll be back. To claim what is rightfully ours. You cannot beat us in the end.”

Or so we might have thought at the time.

But if you know your history, what you most often read is that the tune in question is called,
“The World Turned Upside Down”, a ballad which has many more versions than I knew of before preparing this sermon. The original is in fact a song that berates the Puritans for abolishing Christmas, and goes as follows:

---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------

Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis'd, new fashions are devis'd.
Old Christmas is kicked out of Tow
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
The wise men did rejoyce to see our Savior Christs Nativity:
The Angels did good tidings bring, the Sheepheards did rejoyce and sing.
Let all honest men, take example by them.
Why should we from good Laws be bound?
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
Command is given, we must obey, and quite forget old Christmas day:
Kill a thousand men, or a Town regain, we will give thanks and praise amain.
The wine pot shall clinke, we will feast and drinke.
And then strange motions will abound.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
Our Lords and Knights, and Gentry too, doe mean old fashions to forgoe:
They set a porter at the gate, that none must enter in thereat.
They count it a sin, when poor people come in.
Hospitality it selfe is drown'd.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
The serving men doe sit and whine, and thinke it long ere dinner time:
The Butler's still out of the way, or else my Lady keeps the key,
The poor old cook, in the larder doth look,
Where is no goodnesse to be found,
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
To conclude, I'le tell you news that's right, Christmas was kil'd at Naseby fight:
Charity was slain at that same time, Jack Tell troth too, a friend of mine,
Likewise then did die, rost beef and shred pie,
Pig, Goose and Capon no quarter found.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

But the version that most often gets quoted, and is perhaps more akin to the nature of the American Revolution is this one:

If buttercups buzz'd after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.

So today is Easter, and we Christians celebrate this most revolutionary event in history. It may have been a minor miracle, an accident of history that Washington’s army, aided by the Army of the Comte de Rochambeau and the Fleet of Admiral de Grasse managed to corner and trap Lord Cornwallis on the shores of the York River – but here is a real miracle, a revolt against the state of nature itself.

For every minister called upon to preach this message today, therefore, a choice lies ahead. Does one attempt to soothe the listener with reason, explaining how this paradoxical happening really does, after all, accord with the order of being ? Do we then delve into the evidences, to explain why the witness of those who claim to have seen Jesus alive after the Crucifixion is not just true – but most true and believable ? Or, as is the more risky path, do we emphasize the anomalous character if this event, its uniqueness and non-repeatability ? For both interpretations are true, and in fact necessary to the orthodoxy of our Christian faith. The Resurrection is both a well documented historical event, and as a miracle, it lies outside the normal state of affairs.

But as with all things we find in scripture, there is a deeper message that God has for mankind – and this is where we find the revelation that shakes our world view, that revolutionizes the universe in which we exist. My generation believed that God created a reasonable universe. For God to go back in and shake things up, to change the rules in midstream was deeply unsettling, and many refused to believe and continue to disbelieve. Among the revolutionaries of America, their name was legion: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine. I once happened upon Jefferson’s redaction of the New Testament – you might have heard of it: he cut all the miracles out. But I was fascinated by this fact, and you may inspect this book to verify that what I say here is true. The miracles that Jefferson excised were all the miracles – and only the miracles – that lay in the past. He left in all the prophecies. In other words, Jefferson took the very opposite tack on the rationality of theistic religion than John Locke or Thomas Hobbes, both of whom claimed (whether they truly believed, or not) that the miracles of the Bible really did happen, but that in the modern era, we live in a new dispensation, where miracles simply do not happen. What are we to make of this deist revolutionary, who believes that all the miracles must happen IN THE FUTURE ? I leave it to the reader to resolve this paradox.

So here we are in the New World, where game mechanics are the only rules in THIS world order…and as we all know, the rules can change and in fact are expected to change quite soon. But I find and have found that the most serious offense to reason lie not in the occasional breaches of the rules, in cheating, but in the unwillingness of the players to approach the game with an open mind. Now, of course, in modern education, there both an ignorance and a deep rejection of metaphysics embedded in the program, so that many actually believe that what they are thinking and doing when they reject creativity as well as innovation is, in a way, scientific and rational. This is particularly true for those students who are not terribly confident in their own intellectual powers, or are browbeaten into accepting the opinions of the majority. C.S. Lewis’s book, “The Abolition of Man”, speaks eloquently to the point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_man

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm

but there is also an echo of it at the end of Herman Hesse’s “The Glass Bead Game” whose hero, Joseph Knecht, having left the safety and peace of Castalia, drowns in the lake, pursuing the salvation of the young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_Bead_Game

And I would rejoin by saying that while Herman Hesse may have been crazy, he was no fool, and that this book is one of my favorites, a kind of medieval morality play for his times – and ours.

What we perceive in our minds is at least as important as what our senses tell us. The truth about the New World is that conjecture often precedes perception. For those who are comfortable in a world of intuition and contingency – who enjoy the exploration of possibilities, who can deal with the “proof of things unseen”, the New World can be an exciting and rewarding place. But for those who regard these things as not only untrustworthy, but manifestations of the enemy, the hated Other, the New World is a dark, dangerous and tragic place. As we celebrate Easter this glorious and beautiful day, let us pray for the enlightenment of their souls, to the joy and to the glory of our God who reigns on high: to the Father who created us, to His Resurrected Son and Saviour of all, and to the Holy Spirit who abides with us and in us. Amen.

Samuel Seabury

Languishing languages

2010-04-02T19:09:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1160499.html

The Jews who lived in the regions of northern Iraq on the border with Turkey, Kurdistan and Azerbaijan brought a plethora of languages to Israel with them, some of which were classified as "Neo-Aramaic."

The key to the development of these different languages was the isolation of the various Jewish communities in the region. Linguists explain that when an innovation is introduced in a language, it moves like a wave between the communities that speak that language. However, in mountainous areas, linguistic innovations cannot easily spread, and the more isolated the communities were - especially Jewish communities that kept to themselves - the more likely it was that a unique language would arise.

Thus it was that in towns and villages like Zakho, Urmia, Bijil and Nerwan, where there were flourishing Jewish communities, unique dialects of Aramaic developed. The difference between these dialects, which began developing in medieval times, was so great that the speakers of one could not converse with those of another, and therefore they needed yet a third language - generally that spoken by the Muslims of the region - in order to communicate with one another.

Linguistically, this is one of the indications that these are two separate languages, and not merely local dialects. Furthermore, this "family of languages" is dying out, like others around the world, in the face of globalization.

Indeed, according to data released by UNESCO, approximately once every two weeks another language becomes extinct, as its last active speaker dies.

The situation of many languages is critical. In fact, of the 6,000 languages known to mankind, 500 are spoken by 100 people or even fewer. Some 96 percent of the languages in the world are spoken by only 4 percent of the world's population.

In these pages, writers discuss the fate of various ancient languages and dialects that have vanished over the centuries, and pay tribute to the miracle of survival of the Hebrew language.

A Syrian bid to resurrect Aramaic

2010-04-02T19:03:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0402/Easter-Sunday-A-Syrian-bid-to-resurrect-Aramaic-the-language-of-Jesus-Christ

Excerpt:

Speaking from his flat overlooking the village’s higgledy-piggledy hillside houses, Mr. Rezkallah says that while the two alphabets do have similarities, it is Aramaic which first began using square lettering around the 12th century BC. The Hebrew now used in Israel, he said, was formulated 700 years later after the restoration of the ancient kingdom of the Jews in the 5th century BC.

“The Persians adopted Aramaic. The Babylonians adopted it and so did the Jews. It then prevailed as the language of the Middle East until 700 AD.”

David Taylor, author of "The Hidden Pearl: Aramaic Heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church," adds that the Jewish people adopted the square Aramaic alphabet – which had become the lingua franca of the entire Middle East from about 700 BC – after they were exiled to Babylon in 587 BC, before which they had used a Palaeo-Hebrew script.

The fact that it has survived in Malula today is nothing short of a “miracle,” says Gene Gragg, professor of Near Eastern Languages at the University of Chicago.

“It would be something of a linguistic tragedy if this splendid survivor were allowed to disappear,” he added.

It would also be a travesty for Syria, says Dr. Taylor.

“Aramaic is a constant reminder of the international importance of Syria in the ancient world, when it was a beacon of learning and culture that had a profound impact worldwide,” he says. “It mirrors the cultural, linguistic and religious diversity that has always been of such great importance in Syria and is key to its long-term success.”

More Inauspicious April Dates

2010-03-28T17:57:00.000-07:00

I have previously written about an amazing series of coincidences that occur about April 20. Here are some more dates, which may or may not mean anything:

April 17, 1521 - Martin Luther refuses to recant his teachings at the Diet of Worms
April 20, 1653 - Oliver Cromwell dissolves the Rump Parliament
April 19, 1770 - Capt. James Cook discovers Australia
April 20, 1792 - France declares war on Austria, beginning the French Revolutionary Wars, which continue until 1802
April 21, 1836 - The Battle of San Jacinto won by the Texas army led by Gen. Sam Houston. It was the deciding battle in the Texas Revolution.
April 19, 1839 - Belgium independence is recognized by the Treaty of London
April 19, 1861 - riot in Baltimore between Confederate sympathizers and the Massachusetts militia
April 20, 1861 - Robert E. Lee resigns from the US Army in order to command the forces of Virginia
April 19, 1882 - death of Charles Darwin
April 18, 1881 - Billy the Kid escapes from jail in Mesilla County, NM
April 22, 1889 - Oklahoma land rush begins
April 18, 1906 - earthquake destroys much of San Francisco
April 14, 1907 - Haitian dictator Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier born in Port-au-Prince
April 21, 1910 - Mark Twain dies
April 20, 1912 - Bram Stoker, author of Dracula, dies
April 21, 1918 - Manfred von Richthofen aka the "Red Baron" was killed in action
April 21, 1926 - Birth of Elizabeth Windsor II, Queen of England
April 21, 1936 - Birth of James Dobson, American psychologist
April 16, 1945 - More than 6,000 die when the German refugee ship Goya is sunk by a Soviet submarine torpedo
April 17, 1946 - Syria becomes independent of France
April 16, 1947 - Texas City Disaster: An explosion on board a freighter in port causes the city of Texas City, Texas, to catch fire, killing almost 600.
April 18, 1949 - Republic of Ireland comes into force
April 17, 1970 - The ill-fated Apollo 13 spacecraft returns to Earth
April 21, 1970 - Principality of Hutt River declares its independence from Australia
April 22, 1970 - environmental activists celebrate Earth Day
April 21, 1971 - Haitian dictator Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies
April 21, 1975 - Battle of Xuan Loc. In the last major battle of the Vietnam war, the South Vietnamese army is defeated, allowing the North to advance on Saigon.
April 20, 1978 - Korean Airlines Flight 902 shot down by Soviet aircraft
April 18, 1980 - Zimbabwe comes into being. It was formerly known as Rhodesia
April 20, 1984 - during the Good Friday Massacre, the Montreal Canadiens and Quebec Nordiques get into a brawl that lasted for a full hour
April 21, 1987 - terrorist attack by Tamil Tigers in Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing 106
April 15, 1989 - Hu Yaobang, Chinese reformer, dies of a heart attack, and 100,000 gather to mourn, leading to the Tiananmen Square protests
April 18, 1996 - In Qana, Lebanon, Israeli forces shell a UN compound, killing at least 106 civilians
April 18, 1997 - Red River Flood begins with a dike breached in Grand Forks, ND
April 19, 2005 - Cardinal Ratzinger elected pope and becomes Pope Benedict XVI
April 20, 2007 - Johnson Space Center shooting in which the gunman killed one person before committing suicide
April 20, 2008 - more than 10,000 people gather at CU-Boulder to smoke marijuana and celebrate "420", a counterculture holiday

Psalm 2

2010-02-12T11:24:00.000-08:00

Here is some thoughts I have about Psalm 2. It obviously has two meanings, first as referring to the kings of Israel and second referring to Christ, but I am seeing a third meaning here as well.

The word "anointed" in Ps 2:2 is the same word as Christ. So every anointed king of Israel is a christ (small c). The coronation ceremony ("setting" v.6) involves adoption as a son ("begetting" v.7). The phrase "today I have begotten you" seems like it is spoken to an adult who is becoming king. The king is an adopted son who has the full power of the Lord, who has the earth as a possession and will punish the heathen.

The "coronation" of Jesus to become the Christ occurred when he was baptized by John and the Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove. However, the voice didn't say "today I have begotten thee" instead it said "thou art my beloved son" (Mk 1:11), a recognition that he was already the Son by nature.

Psalm 2 could also refer to the "coronation" of a Christian at baptism when he is anointed with the spirit and becomes a christ (small c) and a king and is begotten as an adult (i.e. adopted) by the Father and becomes a son of God (Jn 1:12). The only difference between a Christian and Jesus is that Jesus is the Son of God by nature, whereas a Christian is an adopted son.

Two distinct persons

2010-02-03T16:12:00.000-08:00

And now we are clearly told that the burning and unconsumed bush, i.e. the Virgin Mary has borne the Word, thus mingling God with a human image. God the Creator, the ineffable One, the incomprehensible One, the Infinite One, has deigned to be borne in the flesh, thus mingling the human with the divine. To call Him the God-man is a strange sounding term. But what other term describes what has come to pass tonight? A man-child has been borne, but he is still our God, remaining unchanged, that is remaining God even in this creature. He is God and man. Two distinct persons with two natures and two wills – divine and human – neither overwhelming or annihilating the other – perfect God, perfect man—the God-man.

-- Nativity Homily of Fr. Pimen Simon at http://oldbelieving.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/nativity-homily-of-fr-pimen-simon-old-rite-church-of-the-nativity-erie-pa/

Session 2: You are not your job

2010-01-13T22:27:00.000-08:00

What is your resume? Does it define who you are?

The Apostle Paul said a similar thing:

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. [Phil 3:4-7 ESV]

Session 1: Bonding

2010-01-13T21:41:00.000-08:00

I think any conversation about authenticity should begin with bonding - introducing the participants to each other and have then engage in an activity which would allow them to relate to each other and trust each other and open up. I have in mind specifically male bonding. Male-female bonding in a non-romantic way - that's another conversation for someone else to lead.

To start off, here is a speech by Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) in Fight Club.

And here is a scene of fighting at Fight Club, taken from the game, because I couldn't find any clips from the movie that show them fighting.

The reason these guys fight isn't because they are mad, or to train. It's because their lives are meaningless, and when you taste blood, you know you are alive in the moment, like never before.

Beginning Existentialist Terminology

2010-01-13T20:34:00.000-08:00

Here is Werner Erhard speaking about est

Most of this terminology comes from Landmark. The definitions are all my own and certainly can be improved upon.

Distinguish. To become more closely aware of something which has existed all along, but for which one did not have a word to describe. For example, learning the name of a shade of color.

Space. The word "Space" refers not to outer space, but to a domain in the hierarchy of Ontology, which is the philosophical study of the nature of being.

Conversation. The word "Conversation" refers much more than people talking. It occurs in a given Space, is ongoing, and includes background presuppositions.

Story. A story is a subjective interpretation of an objective event.

Racket. A racket is a persistent complaint for which there is a payoff, e.g., justifying the complainer. A racket also has hidden costs, e.g. dissatisfaction. A racket makes someone else wrong.

Possibility. The word "possibility" is just another term for a goal, but it means more than that. It can mean a way of being. One creates the space of a possibility by speaking it into existence, then by stepping into that space to claim it, and finally turns it into reality by living in the possibility and enrolling others.

Enrollment. This means the same as closing a sale or signing someone up, but includes the idea of agreement.

Contract. A contract is a possibility in which one has enrolled others, who will hold the contract maker responsible. Similar to an oath.

Completion. Similar to closure, but with the necessity of ending. Usually involves apologizing for rackets.

Integrity. Acting in accordance with one's word and values.

Authenticity. Synonym for Integrity. An authentic philosophy would be internally consistent.

Breakthrough. Receiving an insight which allows for a new possibility.

Repurposing Blog to Applied Christian Existentialism

2010-01-13T19:24:00.000-08:00

I have a new interest, and instead of creating a new blog for it, I will use this same blog. My interest is what I call "Applied Christian Existentialism".

Christian Existentialism, as I understand it, had its origins with Soren Kierkegaard, who said that truth had both objective and subjective aspects to it, with the subjective aspect being the more important part. The objective aspect is important, but irrelevant to how people live their lives, while the subjective aspect is how truth impacts people personally.

Existentialism, on the other hand, denies that there is an objective truth at all. The field of "Applied Existentialism", as I call it, is an attempt to provide a practical philosophy of life in the face of objective nothingness. The guru of Applied Existentialism was Werner Erhard, who taught est in the 1970's. I think that there is some validity to the est methods, and instead of flat-out condemning them, I would like to take what works, and to translate those concepts into a Christian context.

My goal here is at some point to develop my thoughts and create a seminar about these concepts. As I do this, there are some key concepts which need to be described. As I develop a concept which has a special meaning, I will start it with a capital letter and put it in italics, like This.

The result here is a totally different way of thinking about Christianity. I am not saying it is better, I am just saying that some people may relate to it better. As Paul said "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." [I Cor 9:22].

Christian Existentialism could be seen as saying that no ultimate reality exists, but in the face of this nothingness, I choose to have God exist, and church and so on. In this version, the result is that I create God, rather than vice versa. That is not what I am saying, instead I am saying that we should set aside the question of objective reality and focus instead on the transformational aspects. The result is that you have a powerful way of life that works and that, by the way, as an added bonus, is based on something solid.

Is English a spiritually suppressive language?

2010-01-04T13:23:00.000-08:00

At 5 minutes, 50 seconds, into this video Dr. Len Horowitz in Denver, CO., explains to us how English is the most spiritually suppressive language that has ever been invented in the history of this world. He goes on to say that it is a New-World language for the New World Order of indoctrinated slaves.

Disclaimer: This was recommended to me. I have not watched it.

Theodoret of Cyrus

2010-01-04T12:07:00.000-08:00

Theodoret of Cyrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saint Theodoret, known as Theodoret of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, (c. 393 – c. 457) was an influential author, theologian, and Christian bishop of Cyrrhus, Syria (423-457). He played a pivotal role in many early Byzantine church controversies that led to various ecumenical acts and schisms.

According to Tillemont, he was born at Antioch in 393, and died either at Cyrrhus ("about a two-days' journey east of Antioch" or eighty Roman miles), or at the monastery near Apamea (fifty-four miles southeast of Antioch) about 457.

The following facts about his life are gleaned mainly from his Epistles and his Religious History (Philotheos historia). His mother having been childless for twelve years, his birth was promised by a hermit named Macedonius on the condition of his dedication to God, whence the name Theodoret ("gift of God"). He was brought up under the care of the ascetics and acquired a very extensive classical knowledge, and, according to Photius, a style of Attic purity. That he was a personal disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia and heard the orations of John Chrysostom is improbable.

At a young age he became a lector among the clergy of Antioch, then resided a while in a monastery, was a cleric at Cyrrhus, and in 423 became bishop over a diocese about forty miles square and embracing 800 parishes, but with an insignificant town as its see city. Theodoret, supported only by the appeals of the intimate hermits, himself in personal danger, zealously guarded purity of the doctrine. He converted more than 1,000 Marcionites in his diocese, besides many Arians and Macedonians; more than 200 copies of Tatian's Diatessaron he retired from the churches; and he erected churches and supplied them with relics.

His philanthropic and economic interests were extensive and varied: he endeavored to secure relief for the people oppressed with taxation; he divided his inheritance among the poor; from his episcopal revenues he erected baths, bridges, halls, and aqueducts; he summoned rhetoricians and physicians, and reminded the officials of their duties. To the persecuted Christians of Persian Armenia he sent letters of encouragement, and to the Carthaginian Celestiacus, who had fled the rule of the Vandals, he gave refuge.

Theodoret stands out prominently in the christological controversies aroused by Cyril of Alexandria. Theodoret shared in the petition of John I of Antioch to Nestorius to approve of the term theotokos ("mother of God"), and upon the request of John wrote against Cyril's anathemas.

He may have prepared the Antiochian symbol which was to secure the emperor's true understanding of the Nicene Creed, and he was a member and spokesman of the deputation of eight from Antioch called by the emperor to Chalcedon. To the condemnation of Nestorius he could not assent. John, reconciled to Cyril by the emperor's order, sought to bring Theodoret to submission by entrenching upon his eparchy.

Theodoret was determined to preserve the peace of the Church by seeking the adoption of a formula avoiding the unconditional condemnation of Nestorius, and toward the close of 434 strove earnestly for the reconciliation between the Eastern churches. But Cyril refused to compromise and when he opened his attack (437) upon Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore, John sided with them and Theodoret assumed the defense of the Antiochian party (c. 439). Domnus II, the successor of John, took him as his counselor. After the death of Cyril, adherents of the Antiochian theology were appointed to bishoprics. Irenaeus the friend of Nestorius, with the cooperation of Theodoret, became bishop of Tyre, in spite of the protests of Dioscorus, Cyril's successor, who now turned specially against Theodoret; and, by preferring the charge that he taught two sons in Christ, he secured the order from the court confining Theodoret to Cyrrhus.

Theodoret now composed the Eranistes (see below). In vain were his efforts at court at self-justification against the charges of Dioscurus, as well as the countercharge of Domnus against Eutyches of Apollinarism. The court excluded Theodoret from the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 because of his antagonism to Cyril. Here, because of his Epistle 151 against Cyril and his defense of Diodorus and Theodore, he was condemned without a hearing and excommunicated and his writings were directed to be burned. Even Domnus gave his assent.

Theodoret was compelled to leave Cyrrhus and retire to his monastery at Apamea. He made an appeal to Leo the Great, but not until after the death of Theodosius II in 450 was his appeal for a revocation of the judgments against him granted by imperial edict. He was ordered to participate in the Council of Chalcedon, which created violent opposition. He was first to take part only as accuser, yet among the bishops. Then he was constrained (October 26, 451) by the friends of Dioscurus to pronounce the anathema over Nestorius. His conduct shows (though hindered from a statement to that effect) that he performed this with his previous reservation; namely, without application beyond the teaching of two sons in Christ and the denial of the theotokos. Upon this he was declared orthodox and rehabilitated.
The only thing known concerning him following the Council of Chalcedon is the letter of Leo charging him to guard the Chalcedonian victory (PG, lxxxiii. 1319 sqq.). With Diodorus and Theodore he was no less hated by the Monophysites than Nestorius himself, and held by them and their friends as a heretic. The Three-Chapter Controversy led to the condemnation of his writings against Cyril in the Second Council of Constantinople (553).

In literature Theodoret devoted himself first of all to exegesis. The Scripture was his only authority[citation needed], and his representation of orthodox doctrine consists of a collocation of Scripture passages. The genuineness and relative chronology of his commentaries is proven by references in the latter to the earlier. The commentary on the Song of Songs, written while he was a young bishop, though not before 430, precedes Psalms; the commentaries on the prophets were begun with Daniel, followed by Ezekiel, and then the Minor Prophets. Next that on the Psalms was completed before 436; and those on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), before 448. Theodoret's last exegetical works were the interpretations of difficult passages in the Octateuch and Quaestiones dealing with the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, written about 452 to 453.

Excepting the commentary on Isaiah (fragments preserved in the catenae) and on Galatians ii.6-13, the exegetical writings of Theodoret are extant. Exegetical material on the Gospels under his name in the catenae may have come from his other works, and foreign interpolations occur in his comments on the Octateuch.

The Biblical authors are, for Theodoret, merely the mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit, though they do not lose their individual peculiarities. By the unavoidable imperfection of the translations, he states, the understanding is encumbered. Not familiar with Hebrew, Theodoret uses the Syriac translation, the Greek versions, and the Septuagint.

In principle his exegesis is grammatical-historical; and he criticizes the intrusion of the author's own ideas. His aim is to avoid a one-sidedness of literalness as well as of allegory. Hence he protests against the attributing of The Song of Songs to Solomon and the like as degrading the Holy Spirit. Rather is it to be said that the Scripture speaks often "figuratively" and "in riddles." In the Old Testament everything has typological significance and prophetically it embodies already the Christian doctrine. The divine illumination affords the right understanding after the apostolic suggestion and the New Testament fulfilment. Valuable though not binding is the exegetical tradition of the ecclesiastical teachers. Theodoret likes to choose the best among various interpretations before him, preferably Theodore's, and supplements from his own. He is clear and simple in thought and statement; and his merit is to have rescued the exegetical heritage of the school of Antioch as a whole for the Christian Church.

Among apologetic writings was the Ad quaestiones magorum (429-436), now lost, in which he justified the Old Testament sacrifices as alternatives in opposition to the Egyptian idolatry (question 1, Lev., PG, lxxx. 297 sqq.), and exposed the fables of the Magi who worshiped the elements (Church History v. 38).

De providentia consists of apologetic discourses, proving the divine providence from the physical order (chapters i-iv), and from the moral and social order (chapters vi-x).

The "Graecarum Affectionum Curatio" or Cure of the Greek Maladies or Knowledge of the Gospel Truth from the Greek Philosophy, of twelve discourses, was an attempt to prove the truth of Christianity from Greek philosophy and in contrast with the pagan ideas and practises. The truth is self-consistent where it is not obscured with error and approves itself as the power of life; philosophy is only a presentiment of it. This work is distinguished for clearness of arrangement and style.

The Church History of Theodoret, which begins with the rise of Arianism and closes with the death of Theodore in 429, falls far behind those of Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen. It contains many sources otherwise lost, specially letters on the Arian controversy; but it is defective in historical sense and chronological accuracy, and on account of Theodoret's inclination to embellishment and miraculous narrative, and preference for the personal. Original material of Antiochian information appears chiefly in the latter books.

Theodoret's sources are in dispute. According to Valesius these were mainly Socrates and Sozomen; Albert Guldenpenning's thorough research placed Rufinus first, and next to him, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Sozomen, Sabinus, Philostorgius, Gregory Nazianzen, and, least of all, Socrates. N. Glubokovskij counts Eusebius, Rufinus, Philostorgius, and, perhaps, Sabinus.

The Religious History, with an appendix on divine love, contains the biographies of thirty (ten living) ascetics, held forth as religious models. It is a document of remarkable significance for understanding the complexities of the role of early monastics, both in society and in the church; it is also remarkable for presenting a model of ascetic authority which runs strongly against Athanasius's Life of Antony. Upon the request of a high official named Sporacius, Theodoret compiled a Compendium of Heretical Accounts (Haereticarum fabularum compendium), including a heresiology (books i-iv) and a "compendium of divine dogmas" (book v), which, apart from Origen's De principiis and the theological work of John of Damascus, is the only systematic representation of the theology of the Greek Fathers.

Theodoret's Correspondence (mentioned below) is a primary source for the development of Christological issues between the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and illuminates current administrative and social problems.

Among dogmatic treatises Theodoret mentions (Epist. cxiii, cxvi) having written against Arius and Eunomius, probably one work, to which were joined the three treatises against the Macedonians. There were, besides, two works against the Apollinarians, and of the Opus adversus Marcionem nothing has been preserved. The treatises On the Trinity and On the Divine Dispensation (cf. Peri theologias kai tes theias enanthropeseos; Epist. cxiii), assigned by A. Ehrhard to the work On the Holy and Life-giving Trinity and On the Incarnation of the Lord of Cyril of Alexandria, certainly belong to the Antiochian School and to Theodoret. To the same belong cap. xiii-xv, xvii, and brief parts of other chapters of the fragments which Jean Garnier (Auctarium) included under the title, Pentology of Theodoret on the Incarnation as well as three of the five fragments referred by Marius Mercator to the fifth book of some writing of Theodoret. They are polemics against Arianism and Apollinarianism.

Theodoret's Refutation of the twelve anathemas of Cyril is preserved in the antipolemic of Cyril (PG, cxxvi. 392 sqq.). He detects Apollinarianism in Cyril's teaching, and declines a "contracting into one" of two natures of the only begotten, as much as a separation into two sons (Epist. Cxliii). Instead of a "union according to hypostases," he would accept only one that "manifests the essential properties or modes of the natures." The man united to God was born of Mary; between God the Logos and the form of a servant a distinction must be drawn. Only minor fragments (cf. Epist. xvi) of Theodoret's defense of Diodorus and Theodore (438-444) have been preserved (Glubokovskij ii. 142).
His chief christological work is the Eranistes etoi polymorphos ("Beggar or Multiform") in three dialogues, describing the Monophysites as beggars passing off their doctrines gathered by scraps from diverse heretical sources and himself as the orthodox.

God is immutable also in becoming man, the two natures are separate in Christ, and God the Logos is ever immortal and impassive. Each nature remained "pure" after the union, retaining its properties to the exclusion of all transmutation and intermixture. Of the twenty-seven orations in defense of various propositions, the first six agree in their given content with Theodoret. A few extracts from the five orations on Chrysostom were preserved by Photius (codex 273). Most valuable are the numerous letters (Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., iii. 250-348).

Translations of some of Theodoret's writings can be found in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. A bilingual edition of the Eranistes was published by Oxford University Press in 1974

Bilingual editions (Greek text with parallel French translation) of several of the texts mentioned above have been published in recent years in Sources Chrétiennes.

Christianity among the Mongols

2010-01-04T11:50:00.000-08:00

Christianity among the Mongols

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overall, the Mongols were highly tolerant of most religions, and typically sponsored several at the same time. Though in modern times the Mongols are primarily Buddhist, during the time of the Mongol Empire they had a substantial number of Christians, many of whom were in positions of considerable power. Many Mongols had been proselytized by Christian Nestorians from the Assyrian Church of the East, since about the 7th century. When Genghis Khan, as the young Temüjin, swore allegiance with his men at the Baljuna Covenant, there were representatives of nine tribes among the 20 men. Temüjin was a shamanist, and the others included "several Christians, three Muslims, and several Buddhists."

Hulagu with his Christian queen Doquz Khatun.

The Nestorian Stele in China, erected in 781.

The Mongols had been proselytised by Christian Nestorians since about the 7th century and many of them were Christians. Many Mongol tribes, such as the Kerait, the Naiman, the Merkit, the Öngüd, and to a large extent the Kara Khitan, were Nestorian Christian. Under Mongka, the main religious influence was that of the Nestorians. Overall, Mongols were highly tolerant of most religions, and typically sponsored several at the same time.

Some of the major Christian figures among the Mongols were: Sorghaghtani Beki, daughter in law of Genghis Khan, and mother of the Great Khans Möngke, Kublai, Hulagu and Ariq Boke, who were also married to Christian princesses; Sorghaqtani, wife of Tului; Doquz Khatun, wife of Hulagu and mother of the ruler Abaqa; Kutuktai, the principal Empress of Mongka; the Mongolian Khan Sartaq; the Naiman Kitbuqa, general of Mongol forces in the Levant, who fought in alliance with Christians. Marital alliances with Western powers also occurred, as in the 1265 marriage of ethnic Greek and Orthodox Christian Maria Palaiologina, daughter of Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus, with Abaqa. An Ongud Mongol was the highest authority (Patriarch) of the Nestorian church from 1281 to 1317 under the name Mar Yaballaha III.

Gengis Khan, himself a shamanist, had many Christians among his relatives

Gengis Khan himself was a Shamanist, but was tolerant of other faiths. His sons were married to Christian princesses, of the Kerait clan, who held considerable influence at his court. The Nestorian Christians of Central Asia were generally highly favorable to him.

Rabban Bar Sauma testified to the importance of Christianity among the Mongols, during his visit in Rome in 1287:

"Know ye, O our Fathers, that many of our Fathers (Nestorian missionaries since the 7th century) have gone into the countries of the Mongols, and Turks, and Chinese and have taught them the Gospel, and at the present time there are many Mongols who are Christians. For many of the sons of the Mongol kings and queens have been baptized and confess Christ. And they have established churches in their military camps, and they pay honour to the Christians, and there are among them many who are believers."

—Travel of Rabban Bar Sauma

The Mongol expansion throughout the Asian continent from around 1215 to 1360 helped bring political stability and re-establish the Silk Road (via Karakorum). The 13th century saw attempts at a Franco-Mongol alliance with exchange of ambassadors and even some limited military collaboration in the Holy Land. The Christian Chinese Mongol Rabban Bar Sauma visited the courts of Europe in 1287-1288.

Other Mongols, such as the ruler of the Golden Horde Berke were on the contrary highly favourable to Islam, leading to conflicts between Mongol clans, as in the Berke-Hulagu war.

As the Mongols had a primarily nomadic culture, their practice of Christianity was different from what might have been recognized by most Western Christians. The Mongols had no churches or monasteries, but claimed a set of beliefs that descended from the Apostle Thomas, which relied on wandering monks. Further, their style was based more on practice than belief. The primary interest in Christianity for many, was the story that Jesus had healed the sick, and survived death, so the practice of Christianity became interwoven with the care of the sick. Jesus was considered to be a powerful shaman. The Mongols also adapted the Christian cross to their own belief system, making it sacred because it pointed to the four directions of the world. They had varied readings of the Scriptures, especially feeling an affinity to the wandering Hebrew tribes. Christianity also allowed the eating of meat (different from the vegetarianism of the Buddhists). And of particular interest to the hard-drinking Mongols, they enjoyed that the consuming of alcohol was a required part of church services. Another attraction was that the name Jesus, sounded like Yesu, the Mongol number "9". It was a sacred number to the Mongols, and was also the name of Genghis Khan's father, Yesugei.

Nestorian tombstone with inscriptions in Uyghur, found in Issyk Kul, dated 1312.

The Kerait clan of the Mongols were converted to Nestorianism, a sect of Christianity, early in the 11th century. Other tribes evangelized entirely or to a great extent during the 10th and 11th centuries were the Naiman and the Merkit.

Depiction of the Kerait ruler "Wang Khan" ("King and Khan") Toghrul as "Prester John" in "Le Livre des Merveilles", 15th century.

As early as 1223, Franciscans visited the prince of Damascus and the Caliph of Baghdad. In 1240, nine Dominicans led by Guichard of Cremone are known to have arrived in Tiflis by the orders of Pope Gregory IX. They lived for five years in the Georgian realm, in contact or in close proximity with the Mongols. Various letters were exchanged in 1245-1246 between the Pope and the Prince of Homs, the prince of Karak and the Sultan of Egypt.

In 1245, Pope Innocent IV sent a series of four missions to the Mongols. The first mission to the Mongols was led by André de Longjumeau (he had already been sent to Constantinople by Saint Louis to acquired the Crown of thorns from Baldwin II in 1328.). His travels are known by the reports of Mathew Paris. The second mission was led by Ascelin of Cremone (March 1245). He was accompanied by Simon de Saint-Quentin (who wrote the account of the mission in ‘’Historia Tartarorum’’), two unknown men (Alberic and Alexander), and the Domincan monk Guichard of Cremone, who had been living for five years in Tiflis. The third mission is known by a Papal letter dated March 5, 1245. It was led by Lawrence of Portugal. The fourth mission, led John of Plano Carpini left Lyon on April 16, 1245. An account of the conversion of the Kerait is given by the 13th century Jacobite historian, Gregory Bar Hebraeus. Bar Hebraeus documented a 1009 letter by bishop Abdisho of Merv to the catholicos John VI which announced the conversion of the Keraits to Christianity. According to Hebraeus, in early 11th century, a Kerait king lost his way while hunting in the high mountains. When he had abandoned all hope, a saint appeared in a vision and said, "If you will believe in Christ, I will lead you lest you perish." He returned home safely. When he met Christian merchants, he remembered the vision and asked them about their faith. At their suggestion, he sent a message to the Metropolitan of Merv for priests and deacons to baptize him and his tribe. As a result of the mission that followed, the king and 20000 of his people were baptized. The legend of Prester John, otherwise set in India or Ethiopia, was also brought in connection with the Nestorian rulers of the Kerait. In some versions of the legend, Prester John was explicitly identified with Toghrul. The Kara-Khitan Khanate also had a large proportion of Nestorian Christians, mingled with Muslims.

Niccolo and Maffeo Polo remitting a letter from Kubilai to Pope Gregory X in 1271.

“So shall I be baptized, and when I am baptized, all my barons and lords will be baptized, and their subjects will receive baptism and so there will be more Christians here than in your own countries”.

This came to nought due to the hostility of influential Nestorians within the largely Mongol court. When in 1253 the Franciscan William of Rubruck arrived at Karakorum, the western Mongol capital, and sought permission to serve its people in the name of Christ, he was forbidden to engage in missionary work or remain in the country, and he had to return home. Fortunately, the Eastern Court under the more immediate rule of Kublai Khan was eager to secure Western assistance in its rule over the Chinese. In 1289, Pope Nicholas IV sent the Franciscan John of Monte Corvino to China by way of India, thereby passing Karakorum. Although the great khan had already died by the time John arrived (1294), the court at Khanbaliq received him graciously and encouraged him to settle there. John was China’s first Roman Catholic missionary, and he was significantly successful. He laboured largely in the Mongol tongue, translated the New testament and Psalms, built a central church, and within a few years (by 1305) could report six thousand baptized converts. He also established a lay training school of 150 students. But the work was not easy. Although often opposed by the Nestorians who had over the years increasingly filtered back into China’s cities, the Franciscan mission continued to grow. Other priests joined him and centers were established in the coastal provinces of Kiangsu (Yangchow), Chekiang (Hangchow) and Fukien (Zaitun).

Odoric of Pordenone.

One of John’s most vigorous younger missionaries was Odorico da Pordenone (1265-1331), who arrived in Khanbaliq by way of India in 1326 and whose subsequent sixteen years of unremitting journeys throughout China, preaching the gospel in the vernacular, resulted in over twenty thousand converts. (Some scholars reported that by 1381 the total number of communicants exceeded a hundred thousand). Following the death of Monte Corvino, an embassy to the French Pope Benedict XII in Avignon was sent by Toghun Temür, the last Mongol emperor in China (Yuan dynasty), in 1336. The embassy was led by a Genoese in the service of the Mongol emperor, Andrea di Nascio, and accompanied by another Genoese, Andalò di Savignone. These letters from the Mongol ruler represented that they had been eight years (since Monte Corvino's death) without a spiritual guide, and earnestly desired one. The pope replied to the letters, and appointed four ecclesiastics as his legates to the khan's court. In 1338, a total of 50 ecclesiastics were sent by the Pope to Peking, among them John of Marignolli. In 1353 John returned to Avignon, and delivered a letter from the great khan to Pope Innocent VI. In the mid-14th century, the Chinese rose up and drove out the Mongols from China however, thereby launching the Ming Dynasty (1368). By 1369 all Christians, whether Roman Catholic or Syro-Oriental, were expelled by the Ming Dynasty. With the end of Mongol rule in the 14th century, Christianity almost disappeared in mainland Asia.

Hulagu conquered Muslim Syria, together with Armenian and Frankish allies.

Some military collaboration with Western Christian powers took place in 1259-1260 when the Franks under the ruler of Antioch Bohemond VI and his father-in-law Hetoum I allied with the Mongols under Hulagu. Hulagu was generally favourable to Christianity, and was himself the son of a Christian woman. The Mongols together with the Northern Franks of Antioch and the Armenian Christians conquered Muslim Syria, taking together the city of Aleppo, and later Damascus together with the Christian Mongol general Kitbuqa:

"The king of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch went to the military camp of the Tatars, and they all went off to take Damascus".

—Le Templier de Tyr

Various instances of military cooperations with the Crusaders, as well as numerous exchanges with the Pope would continue until around 1320.

Around the year 1300, there were numerous Dominican and Franciscan convents in the empire of the Il-Khan. About ten cities had such institutions: Tabriz, Maragha, Sultaniye, Tifflis, Erzurum and a few others. In order to coordinate their action, the Pope established an archibishop in the new capital of Sultaniye in 1318 in the person of Francon de Pérouse, assisted by six bishops, replaced in 1330 by archibishop Jean de Cor. Numerous Dominican missionaries to the Ilkhanate are known, such as Jacques d'Arles-sur-Tech, or Ricoldo of Montecroce. There was a bishop in the Ilkhanate capital of Maragha, who was at one time the Dominican Barthelemy of Bologna.

During the end of the 13th century, the Nestorians under Mongol rule also took numerous steps to unite with the Latin church. The Nestorian monk Rabban bar Sauma was sent to the Pope and to Western courts to explain the situation of the Nestorian faith in the East, and to offer an alliance with the Mongol Ilkhanate. Dominicans were also sent to the Ilkhanid Persian realm in order to further organize contacts and prozelitize Roman Catholicism.

In 1302, the Nestorian Catholicos Mar Yahballaha III sent a profession of faith to Pope, thereby formilizing his conversion to Roman Catholicism. His move was however strongly opposed by the local Nestorian clergy, as he recognized in a 1304 letter to the Pope. These efforts would end with the waning of Mongol power in Persia, its progressive adoption of Islam, and its disappearance as a political power in the 14th century.

In his letters to the Mongol ruler in 1321 and 1322, the Pope still expressed his hope that the Mongol ruler would convert to Christianity. Between 500 to 1000 converts in each city were numbered by Jean of Sultaniye.

John of Montecorvino.

In 1271, the Marco Polo brothers brought an invitation from Kublai Khan to the pope imploring him that a hundred teachers of science and religion be sent to reinforce the Nestorian Christianity already present in his vast empire.
In 1289, Pope Nicholas IV sent the Franciscan John of Monte Corvino to China by way of India, thus bypassing Karakorum. Although the great khan had already died by the time John arrived (1294), the court at Khanbaliq received him graciously and encouraged him to settle there. John was China’s first Roman Catholic missionary, and he was significantly successful. He laboured largely in the Mongol tongue, translated the New testament and Psalms, built a central church, and within a few years (by 1305) could report six thousand baptized converts.

But the Mission was of relatively short duration. Two massive political catastrophes also hastened the extinction of this second wave of missionaries to China. Firstly, the Black Death during the latter half of the fourteenth century in Europe so depleted Franciscan houses that they were unable to sustain the mission to China. Secondly, the Yuan Dynasty began to decline. In 1362 the last Catholic bishop of Quanzhou, Giacomo da Firenze, was killed by the Han Chinese who seized control of the city. The Chinese rose up and drove out the Mongols, thereby launching the Ming Dynasty (1368). By 1369 all Christians, whether Roman Catholic or Syro-Oriental, were expelled by the Ming Dynasty founded by the Han Chinese.

In 1370, following the ousting of the Mongols from China, and the establishment of the Chinese Ming dynasty, a new mission was sent by the Pope to China formed by the Parisian theologian Guillaume du Pré as the new archibishop and 50 Franciscans. This mission however disappeared without news, apparently eliminated.

Theodoret of Antioch

2010-01-04T11:45:00.000-08:00

Theodoret of Antioch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saint Theodoret (Greek: Θεοδώρητος, God given) (early 4th century - October 22, 362), was a Greek-speaking Syrian Christian Priest who died a Martyr in Antioch during the reign of Emperor Julian the Apostate.

Emperor Julian the Apostate, who was the nephew of the Emperor Constantine I, made his uncle Julian a count and governor of the East. Hearing that in the treasury of one of churches of Antioch there was much wealth, Count Julian was determined to seize it and published a proclamation banning the clergy. St Theodoret, a priest, who was keeper of the sacred vessels, refused to abandon his flock and continued publicly to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. Count Julian ordered that he should be arrested and brought before him, with his hands bound behind his back. Count Julian accused him of having destroyed the statues of the gods in a previous reign. St Theodoret retorted by reproaching the Count with his apostasy. Count Julian now ordered that Theodoret should be tortured, and in consequence, the most atrocious torments were heaped upon this heroic priest, who bore them all with courage for the sake of his Faith. It was said that St Theodoret spoke these words to Count Julian and to the magistrate: "O most wretched man," he said, "you know well that at the day of judgment the crucified God Whom you blaspheme will send you and the tyrant whom you serve to hell." He was later beheaded on October 22, 362.

Nestorianism in China

2010-01-04T11:31:00.000-08:00

Nestorianism in China

The Assyrian Church of the East sent missionaries east from its base in Mesopotamia into India, Tibet, Mongolia, and China, and then from China into Korea and Japan. Earliest records indicate this may have been as early as the first century to India, and the second or third centuries to Tibet, Mongoliaand China, and the eighth to ninth centuries into Korea and Japan.

Manichaeanism was also highly successful in its missionary endeavours along the Silk Routes into China from about the third century onwards. Although Mani and his followers held Jesus in high regard, they were not considered to be Christian by the Christian Churches in general.

Some Christian traditions suggest that St. Thomas, known as "the Apostle of India" or possibly St. Bartholomew was the first to spread the Christian gospel in China. The third century Christian writer Arnobius mentions in a text a people known as the "Seres" as being among the groups which had been evangelized at that time. While there is evidence that Christianity existed in Mesopotamia and Persia by the first century, at this time there is no extant documentation that Christianity had entered China before the Assyrian Church of the East sent a bishop there in the fifth century.

The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East is presently presided over by H.H. Mar Dinkha IV. It is a Christian Church, and one of the oldest. It traces its origins to the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Mesopotamia. Traditionally it is said to have been founded by the Apostle St-Thomas as well as the Saints Mari and Addai in 33 A.D., as reported in the Doctrine of Addai.

In 410 the Sassanid emperor summoned the Assyrian church leaders to the Synod of Seleucia. His purpose was to make the catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon minority leader of his people and personally responsible for their good conduct throughout Asia.

In 424 the bishops of Mesopotamia met in council under the leadership of Catholicos Dadisho and determined that there would be no reference of their disciplinary or theological problems to any other power, especially not to any church council in the Roman Empire The formal separation from the See of Antioch and the western Syrian Church under the Byzantine Emperors, occurred at this synod in 424, seven years before the Council of Ephesus was convened.

Detail of stone tablet erected at Xi'an in 781

Because of their independence, and their location within the Middle East, there were no representatives of the Assyrian Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and of course they did not feel bound in any way whatsoever by any decisions of that or any subsequent church councils within the rival Roman Empire.

It was the Council of Ephesus which decided the question of the title of the mother of Jesus and lead to the condemnation of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, capital of the Roman Empire. The theological nicety of 'Theotokos' as her title rather than 'Christotokos', was irrelevant to the Assyrian Christians and those even further east. Also these were Greek terms, and the Assyrian Church used Aramaic, not Greek. Plus the Assyrian Church was already autocephalous and was not bound by any decision of the Roman Empire's church councils.

Later European church historians decided to categorize the Assyrian Church as the "Nestorian Church", an historically inaccurate, theologically incorrect, and heresiologically motivated pejorative. The present head of the Assyrian Church of the East, Catholicos Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV, explicitly rejected the term Nestorian, on the occasion of his consecration in 1976.

Following Mar Dinkha's comments, Anglican Church leaders in 1988 publicly repudiated the use of this label for the Assyrian Church of the East.

The Stele erected in Chang'an 781.

Christianity is thought to have been introduced into China during the Tang Dynasty (618–907), but it has also been suggested that the Assyrian Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon created a metropolitan see in China in 411. It came through representatives of the Assyrian Church of the East. In China, the religion was known as Jingjiao (景教), or the Luminous Religion. They initially entered China more as traders than as professional missionaries. Eventually, the Assyrian Christians spread their faith throughout Turkestan, Mongolia, China and Japan. A stone stele commonly (incorrectly) called the Nestorian Stele, erected at the Tang capital of Chang'an in 781 and rediscovered in February 1625 describes flourishing communities of Christians throughout China, but beyond this and few other fragmentary records relatively little more was known of their history until the late 1900s.

The Assyrian Christians met the world's largest empire at the zenith of its cultural, intellectual and administrative attainment. Tang China possessed a sophisticated religious and ethical system. Its people had long lived in an environment of religious syncretism. When Tang forces conquered Turkestan (630) and reopened the ancient trade route to the West, Alopen, an Assyrian bishop, felt the time had come to evangelize this mighty empire.
In 635 he was received by the prime minister Duke Fang Hiuen-ling, at Chang-an (Hsian-Fu), in line with the emperor's broad policy of toleration and interest in fostering foreign religions. With scholars assigned to assist him, Bishop Alopen translated the holy book into Chinese, and in July 638 the emperor graciously issued a proclamation ordering the publication and dissemination of this translation of the Holy Bible. "Let it be preached freely in our empire."

The Sutra of Jesus the Messiah, sought to introduce the Chinese to the Christian faith and specifically pointed out that the gospel contained nothing subversive to China's ancient traditions, loyalty to the state and filial piety being of the essence of the law of Christ.

The following emperor, Kausung, was pleased to continue emperor Taitsung's policy of toleration towards Christianity. He was sufficiently pleased to permit the building of Assyrian Christian churches in every province of China, and to decree Bishop Alopen the title of "Great Conservator of Doctrine for the Protector of the Empire" (i.e., metropolitan Chang-an).

Unfazed by the challenge, the Assyrians built and staff monasteries in China's key cities. They were also quite aggressive in their proclamation of the Christian faith. They persevered in their efforts to phrase the Christian message in the philosophical language of the Confucian court in order to make it intellectually acceptable to the literati.
The Assyrians experienced a series of setbacks as a result of court intrigues among the Confucian bureaucrats, the jealousy of Taoist and Buddhist leaders, and the upheavals of civil war. By their medical knowledge and surgical skill the Assyrians gave a good name to their faith, but their top-heavy, non-Chinese leadership tended to lead them to be classed with Buddhism and Zoroastrianism as another "foreign religion". Although their monasteries were self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating entities, Chinese clergy were only permitted to fill the lower ranks. It has been suggested this implies the Assyrians gave high priority to serving the foreign trading community. At any event, they depended largely upon its representatives for initiative and leadership.

The vitality of the Assyrian church diminished with the passage of time. The major reason was the frequent disruption of its links to its centers in Mesopotamia. In their isolation, the Assyrian Church in China absorbed more Chinese culture, to the extent that some early 20th century historians thought it had fallen prey to syncretistic tendencies. Anachronistically applying Protestant thought to this ancient Church one historian also perpetuated the Nestorian misnomer saying:-

Their simplicity of faith and worship, their reverence for scripture, their abhorrence of image and picture worship, of the confessional and of the doctrine of purgatory, and their not adoring the Host in the Communion Supper constitute them the Protestants of Asia.

In 845, during a time of great political and economic unrest, Emperor Wuzong decreed that Buddhism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism, be banned and their very considerable assets forfeited to the state.

As for the Da-chin (Assyrian) and Muhu (Zoroastrian) temples, these heretical religions must not alone be left when the buddhists have been suppressed; they must all be compelled to return to lay life and resume their original callings and pay taxes, or if they are foreign they shall be sent back to their native places.

What began in opposition to Buddhist excesses, first among Confucian officials, was continued by a pro-Taoist emperor. Christian monks and nuns were evicted from their monasteries and forced to seek a secular living and their properties were confiscated. Books and artifacts were destroyed and leading figures — especially those of foreign extraction, whose continuing role is condemned in the decree — were forced to hide and hold underground services or to flee. Assyrian missions from Mesopotamia and Bactria in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, however, strengthened the churches in some provinces, but evidence for their condition or survival throughout Tang provinces is fragmentary.

In 986 a monk reported to the Assyrian Patriarch:

Christianity is extinct in China; the native Christians have perished in one way or another; the church has been destroyed and there is only one Christian left in the land.

Daqin Pagoda, May 2003

This may or may not have been true. but the Assyrian Church continued to flourish throughout Central Asia well into the fourteenth century among the northern tribes, such as Uyghurs, Turks, and Mongols. However, the record of the closing years of the Assyrians in China is replete with references to necrology, a Chinese-influenced practice not found in classical Christianity.

Under the emperors of the Yuan Dynasty Assyrian Christianity once again gained a foothold in China. Yet the centralizing policies of the Ming emperors meant that all things foreign were suspect, so Christianity was once again forced to go underground. One of last known monuments referring to Assyrian Christianity in China seems to be one dating to c. 1365 and found at Sanpen Mountain (三盆山) outside Chechang village near Zhoukoudian in the Fangshan District of Beijing. The monument relates the story of a Buddhist monk who visited the site of an old Christian monument and had a vision of a luminous cross. A nearby inscription reveals the presence of a Christian monk near the site as late as 1438.

The Assyrian presence in China was contingent upon retaining the favor of the Chinese Imperial Court. This made the Assyrians vulnerable when the traditional power of the Confucian scholars influenced the court to eliminate all foreigners and their religions. Also, their accumulation of land for monasteries and for the support of agricultural operations made them appear to the authorities as a state within a state, diverting people from their economic and political responsibilities to the Tang authorities. Naturally, this was also resented.

In February 1625 an inscribed stone, commonly (if incorrectly) call the Nestorian Stele, was found in Xi'an not far from His-an-fu. It is a quarried 2 tonne granite slab on which the story of the Assyrian missionaries coming to China was written in both Chinese and Syriac. The inscription says that the Stele was erected On 7 January 781 in the reign of Kienchung of the Tang dynasty to commemorate the diffusion of Christianity throughout China. It says, "The religion spread throughout the ten provinces ... monasteries abound in a hundred cities."

This discovery was of great importance to the Jesuits in China at the time, and they used it as an argument against those who were calling for the religion to be banned. They claimed it to be proof that Christianity had been introduced to China many years ago and was not a recent foreign incursion. They (the Jesuits) did not point out, however, that they disagreed with the Nestorian beliefs, or that the Nestorian Sect had become extinct many years before.

Dozens of Jingjiao texts have survived. Some of them are translations of biblical scriptures, including the Pentateuch (牟世法王经) - Genesis is known as 浑元经, Psalms (多惠圣王经), the Gospels (阿思翟利容经), Acts of the Apostles (传代经) and the Pauline epistles (宝路法王经).

Homily on the Nativity of Christ

2009-12-19T18:17:00.000-08:00

I behold a new and wondrous mystery! My ears resound to the Shepherd's song, piping no soft melody, but chanting full forth a heavenly hymn.

The Angels sing! The Archangels blend their voice in harmony! The Cherubim hymn their joyful praise! The Seraphim exalt His glory!

All join to praise this holy feast, beholding the Godhead here on earth, and man in heaven. He Who is above, now for our redemption dwells here below; and he that was lowly is by divine mercy raised.

Bethlehem this day resembles heaven; hearing from the stars the singing of angelic voices; and in place of the sun, enfolds within itself on every side, the Sun of justice. And ask not how: for where God wills, the order of nature yields. For He willed, He had the power, He descended, He redeemed; all things move in obedience to God. This day He Who is, is Born; and He Who is, becomes what He was not. For when He was God, He became man; yet not departing from the Godhead that is His. Nor yet by any loss of divinity became He man, nor through increase became He God from man; but being the Word He became flesh, His nature, because of impassability, remaining unchanged.

When He was born, the Jews denied His extraordinary birth; the Pharisees began to interpret falsely the Sacred Writings; the Scribes spoke in contradiction of that which they read. Herod sought Him out Who was born, not that he might adore, but to put Him to death. Today all things proclaim the opposite. For they have not been, that I may speak with the psalmist, hidden from their children, in another generation. (Ps. 77:4)

And so the kings have come, and they have seen the heavenly King that has come upon the earth, not bringing with Him Angels, nor Archangels, nor Thrones, nor Dominations, nor Powers, nor Principalities, but, treading a new and solitary path, He has come forth from a spotless womb.

Yet He has not forsaken His angels, nor left them deprived of His care, nor because of His incarnation has he departed from the Godhead. And behold kings have come, that they might adore the heavenly King of glory; soldiers, that they might serve the Leader of the Hosts of heaven; women, that they might adore Him Who was born of a woman so that He might change the pains of childbirth into joy; virgins, to the Son of the Virgin, beholding with joy, that He Who is Giver of milk, Who has decreed that the fountains of the breast pour forth in ready streams, receives from a Virgin Mother the food of infancy; infants, that they may adore Him Who became a little child, so that out of the mouth of infants and sucklings, He might perfect praise; children, to the Child Who raised up martyrs through the age of Herod; men, to Him Who became man, that He might heal the miseries of His servants; shepherds, to the Good Sheperd Who has laid down His life for His sheep; priests, to Him Who has become a High Priest according to the order of Melchisedech; servants, to Him Who took upon Himself the form of a servant that he might bless our servitude with the reward of freedom (Phil. 2:7); fishermen, to Him Who from amongst fishermen chose catchers of men; publicans, to Him Who from amongst them named a chose Evangelist; sinful women, to Him Who exposed His Feet to the tears of the repentant; and that I may embrace them all together, all sinners have come, that they may look upon the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.

Since therefore all rejoice, I too desire to rejoice. I too wish to share the choral dance, to celebrate the festival. But I take my part, not plucking the harp, not shaking the Thyrsian staff, not with the music of the pipes, nor holding a torch, but holding in my arms the cradle of Christ. For this is all my hope, this my life; this my salvation, this my pipe, my harp. And bearing it I come, and having from its power received the gift of speech, I too, with the angels, sing; Glory to God in the Highest; and with the shepherds, and on earth peace to men of good will.

Come, then, let us observe the Feast. Truly wondrous is the whole chronicle of the Nativity. For this day the ancient slavery is ended, the devil confounded, the demons take to flight, the power of death is broken, paradise is unlocked, the curse is taken away, sin is removed from us, error driven out, truth has been brought back, the speech of kindliness diffused, and spreads on every side, a heavenly way of life has been planted on the earth, angels communicate with men without fear, and men now hold speech with angels.

Why is this? Because God is now on earth, and man in heaven; on every side all things commingle. He became Flesh. He did not become God. He was God. Wherefore He became flesh, so that He Whom heaven did not contain, a manger would this day receive. He was placed in a manger, so that He, by whom all things are nourished, may receive an infant’s food from His Virgin Mother. So, the Father of all ages, as an infant at the breast, nestles in the virginal arms, that the Magi may more easily see Him. Since this day the Magi too have come, and made a beginning of withstanding tyranny; and the heavens give glory, as the Lord is revealed by a star.

--St. John Chrysostom

Rick Warren supports gay rights in Uganda

2009-12-11T14:17:00.000-08:00

See the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jmGu9o4fDE&
I don't want to embed it.