|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Links to The Northern World |
|
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Alaca |
 Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I.E_Johansson wrote in: wFJUd.18654$d5.143656@newsb.telia.net,
[quote:8935f63efd]"Alaca" skrev .
I.E_Johansson wrote
"Matti E Simonaho" skrev
Alacawrote:
Matti E Simonaho wrote
Tose who we today know as scandinavians are the
Tirigannians and they came to "scandinavia" after 500AD. They
split from the Goths who turned from aryan faith to christianity.
Very telling:
Arianism (with an 'i') was part of christianity and has nothing to
do with aryan and there never were aryans in Europe.
What you call christianity here is (Roman) Catholicism.
_________________________
If Alaca believes what he wrote he proven himself not to know
anything at all regarding Scandinavian history. Only those who
aren't familiar with the Prime sources from Tacitus, Dio, and on
forward via Cassiodorus on to Late Medieval Age can come up
with such fantasy tale.
Keep on dreaming but better still learn how to look for Prime
sources and how to read them!
Inger E
Please Inger, relief me from my ignorance
and tell me what is wrong in what I wrote.
And tell me also what is true in what Matti wrote
in the quote above.
--
- Peter Alaca -
What you missed is that one single part of the myth bears some kind of
truth - but first I have to say that the so called Arians neither
were a religious group nor an ethnic group. That's one of the things
that's good with the Sophists work, no matter that they didn't
especially like the Christians come to power they were very good
writing the caracteristics for groups. The Arians as we see it, there
you and I agree, are Christians who followed Arius/Arianus 250-336 AD
and the Arians stood for the belief that Jesu Christ wasn't over time
but was a creation of God. In other word the big issue that came to
turn the Christian Church in two halfs one western and one eastern
Church later in 4th century. There we agree.
But,
When we speak of Gothic Arians we almost always are dealing with
Ostrogoths not Wisigoths no matter that some scholars today aren't
aware of that. Now comes where you are wrong and it seems as if you
have listen to the myths,
Contrary to the Wisigoths who inside their
'group' had several different Gothic groups under cheiftains and only
had warleaders, the Ostrogoths as a group were more homogen. We can
follow their kings very well and while the group took many slaves on
their way down and up the Baltic and the Russian Rivers, made their
slaves do the hard work before they were sold downstreams, the
Ostrogoths had close contact with their origin area from Tjust/Teuste
in today's northern Smaland up to Nyköping in today's Södermanland
and from the Baltic Sea in towards Lake Vaettern. That group were the
group that came to be Arians at an early stage and they also are
described in a way that give them some resemblence with the picture
racists wants to be the true picture for they are described as long
blond or having hair that shined as the sun.... so there were two
things the Arian Ostrogoths had in common with the racists of today -
both thought themselves above many other groups of people the
Ostrogoths took slaves especially the leaders of the towns and areas
who wouldn't pay them tribut and the Ostrogoths looked according to
Eastern sources often the way the racists wants the 'Ariers' to look
like. Unfortunatly.
But what Matti missed is that there were no Finns what so ever among
the Goths. Neither among the Wisigoths or among the Ostrogoths.
People from the Baltic, Kvens, Estonians and also the group that
after they followed Hermaneric down Europe finally ended up in Old
Saxon.
Inger E
_____________________________________________________[/quote:8935f63efd]
Thank you for you answer Inger, although I am not sure it is the answer.
I was not commenting on Matties theories about the Finns or Goths,
and I have nothing to do with myths. I only tackled his views on
arian/aryan and christianity. And now it turns out that you are
confusing things too. That is to say: as far as I know.
Here some explanation:
*Arius and Arianus are not the same*
Arius (250 - 336) is the 'father' of arianism. He was an priest in
Alexandrie. [1,3,4]
Arianus (? - c. 311) was a Roman governor in Antinoee in Egypt.
Now venerated as a Martyr Saint by the Coptic Church.[2, 3]
*Arian(ism) is not the same as Aryan*
Aryan is an English word derived from the Vedic Sanskrit and Avestan
term arya, meaning "noble". In the 19th century, the term was used to
refer to what we now call the Proto-Indo-Europeans. More accurately, and
more modernly, Aryan refers to the Indo-Iranian language family, or to
its Indian sub-branch known as Indo-Aryan. The term may was also used to
refer to a "race", or more narrowly the Iranian people themselves. The
Aryan (Indo-Iranian) proto-language evolved into the family of
Indo-Iranian languages, of which the oldest known members are Sanskrit
and Avestan (and the fragmentary Mitanni language).To prevent confusion
because of its several meanings, and also due to the racist connotations
it has acquired during the 20th century, the term is often avoided
today, and replaced by the well-defined Proto-Indo-European,
Proto-Indo-Iranian, Indo-Iranian, Iranian or Indo-Aryan. [5]
The Proto-Indo-Europeans are the hypothetical speakers of the
reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, a prehistoric people of the
late Neolithic and early Bronze Age.[6]
Aryan (from Sanskrit ryaa, "noble"), a people who, in prehistoric
times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also
called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are ...
[7]
I think I made a mistake when writing:
there /never/ were aryans in Europe.
=======
Sources:
[1] L. Cohn-Sherbok (1998), Who,s Who in Christianity. London
[2]http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/index.htm?BiographienA/Arianus.html
[3] http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/bioa2/aria1.html
[4] P & L Murray (1996), Christian Art and Architecture. Oxford
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European
See also: http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/ieorigins/
and other sources given in Wikipedia
[7] http://www.britannica.com
--
- Peter Alaca - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alan Crozier |
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alaca" <P.Alaca@is.fake> wrote in message
news:42238fe7$0$9182$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...
[quote:1954619439]I.E_Johansson wrote in: wFJUd.18654$d5.143656@newsb.telia.net,
What you missed is that one single part of the myth bears some kind of
truth - but first I have to say that the so called Arians neither
were a religious group nor an ethnic group. That's one of the things
that's good with the Sophists work, no matter that they didn't
especially like the Christians come to power they were very good
writing the caracteristics for groups. The Arians as we see it, there
you and I agree, are Christians who followed Arius/Arianus 250-336 AD
and the Arians stood for the belief that Jesu Christ wasn't over time
but was a creation of God. In other word the big issue that came to
turn the Christian Church in two halfs one western and one eastern
Church later in 4th century. There we agree.
*Arius and Arianus are not the same*
Arius (250 - 336) is the 'father' of arianism. He was an priest in
Alexandrie. [1,3,4]
Arianus (? - c. 311) was a Roman governor in Antinoee in Egypt.
Now venerated as a Martyr Saint by the Coptic Church.[2, 3]
[/quote:1954619439]
Inger's attitude is that, if two names look rather similar, then they must
refer to the same person or place.
Thus Pelagius is really Palladius, the Alans are really the Alemanni,
Grenland in Norway is really Greenland, David Holiman is really David
Bradbury.
The examples of this creative application of dyslexia could be multiplied.
Alan (Aleman?)
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alaca |
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alan Crozier wrote in: nBMUd.131584$dP1.470609@newsc.telia.net,
[quote:65fa056514]"Alaca" <P.Alaca@is.fake> wrote in message
news:42238fe7$0$9182$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...
I.E_Johansson wrote in: wFJUd.18654$d5.143656@newsb.telia.net,
What you missed is that one single part of the myth bears some kind
of truth - but first I have to say that the so called Arians neither
were a religious group nor an ethnic group. That's one of the things
that's good with the Sophists work, no matter that they didn't
especially like the Christians come to power they were very good
writing the caracteristics for groups. The Arians as we see it,
there you and I agree, are Christians who followed Arius/Arianus
250-336 AD and the Arians stood for the belief that Jesu Christ
wasn't over time but was a creation of God. In other word the big
issue that came to turn the Christian Church in two halfs one
western and one eastern Church later in 4th century. There we agree.
*Arius and Arianus are not the same*
Arius (250 - 336) is the 'father' of arianism. He was an priest
in Alexandrie. [1,3,4]
Arianus (? - c. 311) was a Roman governor in Antinoee in Egypt.
Now venerated as a Martyr Saint by the Coptic Church.[2, 3]
Inger's attitude is that, if two names look rather similar, then they
must refer to the same person or place.
Thus Pelagius is really Palladius, the Alans are really the Alemanni,
Grenland in Norway is really Greenland, David Holiman is really David
Bradbury.
The examples of this creative application of dyslexia could be
multiplied.
Alan (Aleman?)
 [/quote:65fa056514]
But in this case it /is/ confusing that Arianism has nothing to do
with Arianus. Strange it isn't called Ariusm.
BTW. It seems that the famous Merovingian king Clovis was
an Arian before he was baptised with 3000 of his men in
496 or 508 and became a Christian.
--
- Peter Alaca - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Philip Deitiker |
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
info@suomalaiset-dot-org.no-spam.invalid (Matti E Simonaho) says
in news:4223aa48$1_1@127.0.0.1:
[quote:1e35e1766b]I.E_Johansson: "Matti, You try to steal other groups history.
That's the worst crime anyone who want's to be a scholar can do
"[/quote:1e35e1766b]
Congradulations Matti! I have been wandering how long it would
take before Inger officially defames you. You now have your rite
of passage into sci.arch. Unfortunately you are now off the short
list (getting shorter by day) of Inger supporters and will no longer
recieve super secret inside information by 3 AM email. Things like
a portrait of an 18th century cow when you wanted to see evidence
of the 14th century voyage by King Haakon VI. Most of us have gotten
over the painful rejection and loss by Inger's superb and pertinent
information machine, just as with the rest of us, it may take you a
few microseconds to mourn your loss. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:44 am |
|
|
|
|
In article <Xns960B6CB464B5Eprd@128.249.2.19>, Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam
(Philip Deitiker) wrote:
[quote:835acc1e2a]Arianism never died in the Roman Catholic church, it is an
subtone of belief that persists even today
[/quote:835acc1e2a]
Arianism was one of the first heresies it was condemned at IIRC the
Council of Niceia. While Arianism may survive I doubt that it persists
in the Roman Catholic church. Since the reformation it has been far
more popular with various Protestant sects. Newton was an Arian.
Ken Young
kenney@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:44 am |
|
|
|
|
In article <42231da1$1_1@127.0.0.1>,
info@suomalaiset-dot-org.no-spam.invalid (Matti E Simonaho) wrote:
[quote:67ad49e4b9]Arianism is a heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied
the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
[/quote:67ad49e4b9]
Arianism is a *Christian* heresy. Arians are heterodox Christians, in
the same way Nestorians are. Arians do not deny the basic tenet that
Christ was born to save mankind and saying that Arians deny the
divinity of Christ is a gross oversimplification.
Ken Young
kenney@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Kuettner |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alaca" <P.Alaca@is.fake> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4223b22f$0$67812$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl...
<snip>
[quote:18a98bcbfc]But in this case it /is/ confusing that Arianism has nothing to do
with Arianus. Strange it isn't called Ariusm.
BTW. It seems that the famous Merovingian king Clovis was
an Arian before he was baptised with 3000 of his men in
496 or 508 and became a Christian.
Most likely 498 (on Christmas day) as Gregory of Tours writes.[/quote:18a98bcbfc]
Whether Chlodevech was an Arian or a heathen isn't clear (although
heathen is more likely).
It seems that the Frankish royal house was missionized from both
sides; C.'s wife, Chrodechild, was Catholic and managed to have
the first sons, Ingomer and Chlodomer, baptized in Catholic faith.
Lantechild, a sister of Chlodevech, became an Arian.
Back to the sons : Both became ill; Ingomer died while Chlodomer
lived. So Chlodevech waited for an unambiguous sign (Zuelpich).
That story doesn't go well with neither Arianism nor Catholicism, but
points to Chlodevech being a heathen.
A little foot-note : Arianism and Catholicism co-existed peacefully
in C.'s days, as archaeological findings at Magdalensberg (Teurnia)
show churches of both faiths side-by-side.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Kuettner |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns960B6CB464B5Eprd@128.249.2.19...
[quote:129e49a8c9]
snip
Arianism never died in the Roman Catholic church,
snip[/quote:129e49a8c9]
Sorry, Philip, but this is nonsense.
Arianism doesn't have anything to do with Aryans.
The quarrel was about homoios/homoiousios, ie.,
whether JC was identical or only similar to god.
The Cath. Church went for homoios (equal) while the
Arians (who derive their name from Arius) went for homoiousios (similar).
Later Arianism was branded as a heresy by the Cath. church.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Philip Deitiker |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.archaeology, Michael Kuettner created a
message ID news:38k9ibF5pd023U2@individual.net:
[quote:a1de33b8ce]
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
news:Xns960B6CB464B5Eprd@128.249.2.19...
snip
Arianism never died in the Roman Catholic church,
snip
Sorry, Philip, but this is nonsense.
Arianism doesn't have anything to do with Aryans.
[/quote:a1de33b8ce]
Did I say it did, what I said is that it is a subtone in the
HRC.
[quote:a1de33b8ce]The quarrel was about homoios/homoiousios, ie.,
whether JC was identical or only similar to god.
The Cath. Church went for homoios (equal) while the
Arians (who derive their name from Arius) went for
homoiousios (similar).
Later Arianism was branded as a heresy by the Cath. church.
[/quote:a1de33b8ce]
But that line of thinking still exists and is/was discussed.
The point being is that intellectuals of the 19th and 20th
century look at many avenues to escape the authority of the
central churches within the context of largely HRC dominated
regions. We can also look at existentialism as examples, the
gestapo on the other extreme. I have had this discussion with
'scholars' from England bout why americans blindly accept the
trinity, whereas other christian entities, jewish and islam
accept only one god. In theological discourse the question
regarding the 'nature' of the trinity has been and continues
to be heavily debated. Particularly were east meets west.
I should also remind you that the gnostics were
exterminated, oddly gnostic thoughts and questions re-appear
in the various fraternal organizations. Again the basis of
many, if not most, of these organizations is the devinity of
the old testiment and the questioning of the new. Not to the
degree as in 'don't go to church' but . . . . .
These undertones in the HRC are and have been through the ages
declared heresy, a declaration of heresy does not mean that
the issue disappears, what it means is that it cannot be
formally taught within the church, many catholics, in fact
most of the catholics I know are so by tradition, not
especially by faith, and while they listen to the church they
do not neccesarily follow verbatum all of the churches
teachings. Thank god for that, if they had the population of
mexico and southern united states would be a billion people by
now.
The core thought of arianism, the question of the divinity
of christ as equal of that of god, still exists within the lay
and outside the lay of the HRC. If you accept the divinity of
christ as equal to god, it probably means you have a strong
allegiance to the vatican, and obeyance to the edicts of the
pope. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Kuettner |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns960CB28944A74prd@128.249.2.19...
[quote:2eaa14bce0]In sci.archaeology, Michael Kuettner created a
message ID news:38k9ibF5pd023U2@individual.net:
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
news:Xns960B6CB464B5Eprd@128.249.2.19...
snip
Arianism never died in the Roman Catholic church,
snip
Sorry, Philip, but this is nonsense.
Arianism doesn't have anything to do with Aryans.
Did I say it did, what I said is that it is a subtone in the
HRC.
Arianism ?[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
No, that's a heresy.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]The quarrel was about homoios/homoiousios, ie.,
whether JC was identical or only similar to god.
The Cath. Church went for homoios (equal) while the
Arians (who derive their name from Arius) went for
homoiousios (similar).
Later Arianism was branded as a heresy by the Cath. church.
But that line of thinking still exists and is/was discussed.
The point being is that intellectuals of the 19th and 20th
century look at many avenues to escape the authority of the
central churches within the context of largely HRC dominated
regions.
But never in the context of Arianism.[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
[quote:2eaa14bce0]We can also look at existentialism as examples, the
gestapo on the other extreme.
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Again :
Aryans (Arier) have nothing to do with Arians(Arianer).
You've simply misunderstood the context; happens to all of us.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]I have had this discussion with
'scholars' from England bout why americans blindly accept the
trinity, whereas other christian entities,
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Like Catholics, Russian and Greek Orthodox, etc. etc. ?
[quote:2eaa14bce0]jewish and islam
accept only one god.
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
The trinity _is_ one god in different aspects (Rom.Cath. doctrine).
[quote:2eaa14bce0]In theological discourse the question
regarding the 'nature' of the trinity has been and continues
to be heavily debated. Particularly were east meets west.
"Has been", yes. Continues ?[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Not really. There are more pressing problems nowadays
(the flock leaving the sinking ship, to mix metaphors) than
quarreling about obscure subtleties in dogma.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]I should also remind you that the gnostics were
exterminated,
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
They weren't Christians.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]oddly gnostic thoughts and questions re-appear
in the various fraternal organizations.
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
There were no "fraternal organizations".
After Mani (and with him the Manicheans) were extinguished,
there was no gnostic thought until the Bogomiles surfaced.
And that was a couple of hundred years later.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]Again the basis of
many, if not most, of these organizations is the devinity of
the old testiment and the questioning of the new. Not to the
degree as in 'don't go to church' but . . . . .
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Neither Manicheans nor Bogomiles nor Catars ever accepted
_any_ part of the old or new testament.
Does the term "demiourgos" ring a bell,eg ?
[quote:2eaa14bce0]These undertones in the HRC are and have been through the ages
declared heresy,
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Gnosticism wasn't an undertone in the HRC; it was a heresy.
Period.
The HRC god would be the gnostic demiourgos (the creator
of the world); a being which was flawed in the gnostic view.
See how that concept doesn't work with the HRC POV ?
[quote:2eaa14bce0]a declaration of heresy does not mean that
the issue disappears,
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Well, it disappeared after the Manicheans for several
centuries.
And while the Bogomiles and Catars might look like
Manichaens at first glance, they weren't.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]what it means is that it cannot be
formally taught within the church, many catholics, in fact
most of the catholics I know are so by tradition,
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Merkins.
The McChurch.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]not
especially by faith, and while they listen to the church they
do not neccesarily follow verbatum all of the churches
teachings.
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Yep; same here.
I'm a lapsed HRC; believe me, I know what I talk about.
Gnosis and HRC aren't compatible.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]Thank god for that, if they had the population of
mexico and southern united states would be a billion people by
now.
The core thought of arianism, the question of the divinity
of christ as equal of that of god, still exists within the lay
and outside the lay of the HRC.
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Within the HRC, no.
Outside ? Yes.
And you've missed the point again :
Christ can only be divine if he is equal (homoios) to god
and the spirit; that's the trinity (different aspects of one
god).
If he's only homoiousios (similar) he can't be part of the trinity;
Islam regards him as a prophet, eg.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]If you accept the divinity of christ as equal to god,
[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
I don't.
[quote:2eaa14bce0]it probably means you have a strong
allegiance to the vatican, and obeyance to the edicts of the
pope.
Nope; I'm trying to make you see what Arianism was about.[/quote:2eaa14bce0]
Or, to put it another way :
You're trying to judge from your (present days) POV; and you've
misread some things.
So calm down, relax and repeat with me :
Arians are _NOT_ Aryans.
Gnosticism is contrary to RC doctrine.
Arians were not Gnostics.
Clearer now ?
Or do you want to delve into the early Catholic apologets ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Seppo Renfors |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
[quote:6e554dff0a]
In article <Xns960B6CB464B5Eprd@128.249.2.19>, Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam
(Philip Deitiker) wrote:
Arianism never died in the Roman Catholic church, it is an
subtone of belief that persists even today
Arianism was one of the first heresies it was condemned at IIRC the
Council of Niceia. While Arianism may survive I doubt that it persists
in the Roman Catholic church. Since the reformation it has been far
more popular with various Protestant sects. Newton was an Arian.
[/quote:6e554dff0a]
The doctrine of Arianism was the mainstream doctrine, until soon
before the Council of Niceia. In fact it was heresy to claim the
trinity as one, as it is understood now. JC was merely a profit till
then among Christians. It was because the Arianists wouldn't change to
a NEW doctrine they were thrown out.
Or to put it another way, the christian religion was starting to
further splinter internally after the split with Judaism. The Catholic
church claims to be the "original church" in its own promotion - it
isn't but it was part of it. The splintering into distinct
denominations where the Catholics can be recognised didn't take place
till about 1100 AD. Aspects of Arianism does survive to this day in
various forms (eg Mormons), but as a distinct religion it died out in
about 700 AD.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
----------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Philip Deitiker |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Michael Kuettner" <miksbg@eunet.at> says in
news:38kimaF5l7l9mU1@individual.net:
[quote:ab4b9643e3]Arianism ?
No, that's a heresy.
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
Really, so that HRC knows what goes on in every laymans mind.
Arianism the Religion is gone, but the backbone of that religion,
the core belief, is still discussed, and if it is heresy I see few
being excommunicated for having that belief. I assure, having
talked to a number of european hispanics, it is rather popular
belief.
[quote:ab4b9643e3]But that line of thinking still exists and is/was discussed.
The point being is that intellectuals of the 19th and 20th
century look at many avenues to escape the authority of the
central churches within the context of largely HRC dominated
regions.
But never in the context of Arianism.
The core belief is what it is, whether or not you retain the name.[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
[quote:ab4b9643e3]We can also look at existentialism as examples, the
gestapo on the other extreme.
Again :
Aryans (Arier) have nothing to do with Arians(Arianer).
You've simply misunderstood the context; happens to all of us.
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
Again, Gestapo is an example of the plurality of belief that is
within the church or closely related churches in europe.
[quote:ab4b9643e3]"Has been", yes. Continues ?
Not really. There are more pressing problems nowadays
(the flock leaving the sinking ship, to mix metaphors) than
quarreling about obscure subtleties in dogma.
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
I have no idea if it is discussed in the Vatican, but it has been
discussed at religious universities and secular universities and
philosophy classes and all sorts of different venues.
[quote:ab4b9643e3]I should also remind you that the gnostics were
exterminated,
They weren't Christians.
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
The gnostics were certainly christians, they were no roman catholics
however, the celtic christian beleif predated roman catholicism,
and in some areas it was adsorbed into the church, and in other
areas it was eliminated. In some areas there were mixtures of pagan
and christian beliefs. In one such area there is a holiday that
became popular known as christmas, based on pagan holiday and another
called easter, also based on pagan holiday, all souls day, based on
pagan holiday.
[quote:ab4b9643e3]
oddly gnostic thoughts and questions re-appear
in the various fraternal organizations.
There were no "fraternal organizations".
After Mani (and with him the Manicheans) were extinguished,
there was no gnostic thought until the Bogomiles surfaced.
And that was a couple of hundred years later.
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
Thought does not disappear simply because the holy roman church wills
it to be.
[quote:ab4b9643e3]Or, to put it another way :
You're trying to judge from your (present days) POV; and you've
misread some things.
So calm down, relax and repeat with me :
Arians are _NOT_ Aryans.
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
So calm down and read carefully what I said. I did not say the
gestapo where arians, what I said that gestapo styled believe arose
from the same types of early 20th century rethinking of religion that
was going on all over the acedemic centers of europe. In that context
we can see that arianistic belief [note the 'istic'] also questioned
the moral authority of the roman church. Many intellectuals
(certainly Hitler was not an intellectual) questioned religion
and considered what Marx and others had to say about the role of
religion and society. That nazi were nationalist socialist and the
acute nationalism by its core value denies the authority of outside
bodies. Whereas with arianistic beliefs within the lay, not a formal
organization, but people who question whether only piety and
suffering is a ticket to heaven, being members of the industrial
class question christs authority in these matters. They don't share
the same beliefs as the peasants of the feild share.
[quote:ab4b9643e3]Gnosticism is contrary to RC doctrine.
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
No kidding, but gnostic christians predated the
constantine church, and for that they payed a severe price.
[quote:ab4b9643e3]Arians were not Gnostics.
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
No kidding. I didn't say they were, but there were probably a few
gnostics that had some similar beliefs.
[quote:ab4b9643e3]Clearer now ?
Or do you want to delve into the early Catholic apologets ?
[/quote:ab4b9643e3]
Here is a point, people followed their kings in loyalties, but they
followed their gods in house, the king would accept a new religion,
and the masses promptly followed in loyalty to the new gods, but in
the sanctity of their houses they retained their old beliefs, if
watered down. As those 'friday night Jews' still do so in Mexico.
The plurality of pre HRC beleifs I mentioned above, from druidism,
to gnosticism to arianism to Nestorianism, etc. The HRC comes into
power via force and alliance with kings, and for the large part
people do follow their kings into religion. But some families
maintained some ties to their past beliefs, from time to time these
resurfaced. People also traveled and were exposed to new beliefs, as
during the crusades. When corruption undermined the churches
authority one sees the rise of Martin Luther, but also these
fraternal organization. And whose land was Jacques Demolay promised
if he rid SW france of their presence? What about the skism in
switzerland, and the fission of the church into eastern and western
churches? But we are to believe that these breaks in the church were
not do to subtones of belief that differed from the churches
doctrine? How do propose whitewashing this history. The HRC, on that
matter of J d'M has still not decided whether it acted in corruption
or not on the matter of his execution. If they cannot even decide
what they were thinking in the inner walls of the Vatican, how in the
hell do you think they know what people 1/2 a world a way were
thinking. Or do you just want to argue on the matter.
- -
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:40 pm
|
|
