h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So you're saying that Arius taught that the Logos, Jesus, was fully man but not fully God? A created being rather than a person of the Trinity?

Also, how does Hebrews 1 state that Jesus was created? Couldn't the Sonship be eternal and the recognition be of a earthly birth? Is this what you're referring to when you say that Arius was defeated?

Just curious.
Hermi

PS. Typo paragraph 2 testiment

Arius taught that the Logos was created and not fully God. The incarnation was still special, but in the sense of God's chief angel being incarnated. The line in the creed "begotton and not created" was there to address this point.

You are right to question my reading of Hebrews 1 - I double checked it last night (in a modern translation) and it didn't say what I recalled it saying in the Authorised Version. I will look up the proper references used by Arius in the next day or two and include them here.

He was basically a monotheist and thought that the (embryonic) trinitarian ideas being formulated fundamentally violated monotheism. Of course he was right and of course he was wrong. Hence the arguments that followed him.

PT

I have edited out the reference to Hebrews. Forgot to get the typo.

Hi PT. Sorry it took me so long to reply to you. I've been Disneying.

What is the book of Wisdom?

Can you point to a reference in the OT that indicates that the Word was created? I can't think of any off the top of my head and I want to get an idea of where Arius was coming from.

So is the failing of Arius' teaching that Christ really couldn't be a Savior because he was a created being? If so, why not? Is it the idea that the OT Logos was a messenger rather than an active Savior? Did Arius have an answer to the crucifixion/resurrection requirement?

Also, you changed the last paragraphs, right? I think they are helpful for understading the whole article in context.

Are you going to eventually tackle the concept of the Trinity?
(evil laugh... I wouldn't want to tackle it but I'll read and chime in if you do.)

I presume you were accompanied to Disney. I believe that they do not like cats on their own as they tend to chase the mice and ducks...

The Book of Wisdom is also known as The Wisdom of Solomon - some bibles print it in the Apocrypha and others in the OT.

I don't recall any particular biblical bits that Arius claimed supported his view except that the OT is very monotheistic (actually at in the early historical books it permits any number of God's but only one true God of Israel). The Byzantines developed a view of the trinity that defined of God (from memory):

substance
action
will
knowledge

Substance was shared between all of the trinity and the others were all separate. Because the Father's action and will created everything, the phrase begotten (not created) was coined to describe the appearance of the Son and the Spirit from the Father alone (and not from the Father and the Son as the Roman creed says). Since they were never created they were coeternal.

Arius, although he died before nearly any of this was properly worked through, claimed that this theological direction necessarily was not monotheistic and hence was not compatible with the OT.

The church claimed that the Christ had to be God, but their reasons were not (in some ways) totally convincing, since:

Firstly, the Jews had not expected God made man - they expected a souped up David. Secondly, the Gospels use only indirect language to support the incarnated God idea. Thirdly, Wisdom contains passages that are intensely problematic about the Logos (they didn't worry that the Word is female!) in terms of creation, formation of the world and other stuff.

However, given that God had chosen not to heal the world by fiat (which, for an omnipotent God, would be possible), WHY bother with the crucifixion/resurrection at all.

Which would get us onto Christology which would be too hard for me right now. The Roman Church didn't bother with Christology for a long time, it was the Greeks. It was from their arguments on this subject that the term for infinitely subtle and complex became byzatine.

I am in awe of your knowledge of church history. I'm going to have to start researching it more. It's much more interesting that I gave it credit.

NT indirectly points to Christ as God... One of the passages that I was taught to be Christ clearly claiming to be God was Mark 14:62. The words Christ used for "I Am" were the same Hebrew words God used when Moses asked his name back in Exodus, 'I Am Who I Am." It was Christ's use of those precise words that meant that he was blaspheming and upset the officials of that day. I wouldn't consider that an indirect reference to Christ as God. But that's probably because I've grown up believing in the triune nature of a single God and so have not been challenged to look at it differently.

So do you consider the Apocryphal books inspired? Frankly, I've never studied them and don't have them in the seven or so versions/translation of Bibles that I have. Are they referenced in concordances like Strongs?

Finally, I was unaccompanied at Disney. Cats feel right at home in Animal Kingdom and that's the only park I had time to visit. Besides I'm not interested in 5 foot tall foam encased mice. They however, wanted their photograph taken with me so there you have it. Cats have all the allure.

I find it hard to read the NT and not see Christ as the Son of God. However, the books in the NT don't go out of their way to make it explicit either.

The Apocryphal books are, well you know, like ummmm... books. I find it difficult to read much as inspired. The people whose lives are narrated are inspired but the text itself is informative.

As you may have picked up - I tend to de-emphasise the text but emphasise the relationship with God and creation aspect of it all. I think of Christianity as a living relationship not textually defined one. However, one must master the text before commenting on it.

I think some of the Apocrypha was considered to be legit, like the Wisdom of Solomon, but other texts, like Bell and the Dragon, were not part of the Jewish cannon either but simple folk tales.

> I find it difficult to read much as inspired.

Should be

"I find it difficult to read much of the bible as inspired."

As for concordances - any Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Episcopalian bible/concordance will deal with the Apocrypha.

Now I'm totally intrigued. Bell and the Dragon sounds like it might be as entertaining as my usual reading. I asked my husband (he's the Bible scholar) if he has an Apocrypha and he said only in his 1611 KJV. I think we might be purchasing one because I don't want to slog through that.

How do you define inspired? I view scripture as God-directed. God didn't actually pen the words but he directed them so that everything that is in scripture is there because God wanted it to be and nothing is there that God didn't want. Whether I can get anything out of a passage doesn't make it any less inspired. Clearly the words of Christ (in their original language) are truly God-breathed but I guess I try to take all scripture as being so.

Then, I apply all of my filters to it, context, cultural influences, translation nuances, authors stated intent, etc, until I get it to say something that I can live with (there's a bit of sarcasm in that last part). That way I don't have to wear hats to church and am allowed to speak out loud (but not preach). Did you ever see a cat in a hat anyway? Dr. Seuss was a cruel man...

Really though, I can understand how some would call me hypocritical if I say that I believe the Bible in its entirety is God breathed and yet don't follow every letter literally. But I think that is where your emphasis on relationship comes into play. The relationship is the cornerstone to the understanding we draw from scriptures. When the relationship falters so too does understanding. I think scripture along with a relationship is the best way to develop an understanding of God as he chooses to be revealed. I don't think it's possible to go it alone with either relationship or scripture and have an understanding because I would be missing one of the key ways that God chooses to reveal himself.

Whew, sorry about the long missive. You got me thinking...

I suspect my key problem with treating the text of the bible as "inspired" is that you get stuck with arguments over translation etc and end up in bible studies where some old duck as an edition with eight translations in parallel and you can't get home before midnight and you only looked at one verse...

The bible and the tradition of the church are the basis of all Christian scholarship: there are no other (useful) starting places. They cover different turf and are (in general) complimentary because the bible must be the considered supreme authority.

However the bible is the servant of the church, because the church is the body of Christ revealed to the world. The bible is not the master. The church in its earliest statutes ruled (i.e. cannonised - put under rule) the bible as the key text. They did so to make a life of private devotion easier and to allow a sensible basis for theological discussion. The cannonised text is the product of the church at prayer with the grace of the Holy Spirit. I would be happy to talk about the grace of God inspiring the authors to write the text and thereby remove any hint of determinism. Inspired means imbued with living breath but I suspect some people mean precisely the opposite when they describe the bible as inspired. But despite their efforts, the bible ain't dead yet.



PS: have you seen Thing One or Thing Two recently? How are they getting on? Are they still living in a "odd couple" relationship or did they finally get together? I hear that Thing One's prostate was giving him trouble. You don't have to answer these questions since you and hats these days... did you hear the one about the fish?

Argh! I keep running out of time and I really want to give this reply thought. It's coming. Oh and regarding Things, they're yummy, like fish.

You know, I've been in that exact same Bible study. It's the one where someone (usually the duck) brings stale brownies and cold coffee and you sit in folding chairs.

I agree with what you wrote but I still have the impression that we're looking at the Bible from different angles. I look to scripture first and then look for expansion and clarification from extra-biblical sources. Church history is less emphasized in protestant religions so it isn't in the core of my knowledge.

You wrote, "Inspired means imbued with living breath but I suspect some people mean precisely the opposite when they describe the bible as inspired." What did you mean by this? I was confused.

Lastly, I think I've posted several responses to various entries of yours. I really appreciate the wisdom in your writing. I'm learning a lot and you've given me much to think about. Thanks.

I am glad you like my writing - I am thinking as hard as I can but it is a really interesting subject.

Many (although not all) of the Protestant traditions have made a very detailed study of early church practices and where things went wrong from there. Many are created as an attempt to get back to the best practices of the early church. One scholar, perhaps the best ever to look at liturgy holistically (Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy), makes the points

- the gospels weren't in wide circulation for the first 80 years of the church's life
- the gospels don't tell people how to be Christian
- the NT clearly depends on a taught tradition of the Eucharist and baptism (the first letter of Peter's is probably a baptismal sermon with added top and tail) but doesn't go into useful detail about how it is done.

The art in looking at church tradition is to work out what the apostles taught and what has been added (by the Holy Spirit, people with good ideas or, possibly, idiots). It can be done (apparently).

Anyway this all colours my view of the bible. My definition of the "inspired" comes from the dictionary (more or less). What I was trying to say (with humour and somewhat cryptically) was that the inspiration of the bible comes from the breathing needed to read it (out loud) and the breath of the Holy Spirit needed to understand what is read. Mind you this allows you to come up with all sorts of crazy ideas about what is in there but you may no longer to hit other people over the head with them.

I find more troubling to treat the bible as inspired separate to the act of reading it. Provided it is breathed over then it is the reader who is inspired. Treating the book with reverence is great only if the reverence reflects a living relationship with God. If the inspiration is assumed to be only in the writing and not in the reading then there is no inspiration and the text is dead (and can be the subject of petty quibbling with ducks). The book can be subject to the same idolatry as statues of saints.

OK - it is a fair cop - I did get a dose of French post-structuralism in a post-grad English course at Uni. As penance I shall review my (new) essay on iconoclasm. I touched on this stuff in there because of our conversations but I haven't reread it since I typed in the first draft.

Just glanced at the iconoclasm entry - it needs a serious rewrite, not a quick tidy up. I must have been quite ill last week!

You know my eight translation interlinear works great for smacking things upside the head. (I usually reserve it for dogs and little kids with sticky fingers -- messes up my fur.)

I totally agree that a little reading of the word comes in handy. You're absolutely right that understanding comes from a living relationship.

I was thinking church history was separate from the writings immediately following the gospels. It isn't. (Duh.) Church history began at Pentacost. With that rearranging of thought things make more sense.

You know, if I knew what French Post-structuralism was I could relate to that last paragraph. I read the Iconoclasm entry. I'll wait for your rewrite.

I'm from one of those churches that has no (strong emphasis) graven images. Some churches even refuse to have crosses lest we accidentally worship the wrong thing. (Like I'm that stupid. Cats aren't total idiots -- usually.) I try to take opportunity to visit basilicas and cathedrals in my travels because I find their artwork so stunning. The basilica at Notre Dame (US) has a sculpture of Christ that is incredible. It inspires me to pray. (Obviously not to it.) So that point of your entry I can definitely relate to.

One book I read pointed out that Christianity spread really quickly (it was in England by 45 AD - that is 17 years after Pentecost) but beyond the writings of Paul and the others it was all oral tradition. Which is fine becuase everything pretty much was oral and fairly reliable.

Imagine when in 100/120 the key groups in Jeruselem and Antioch started to propogate the gospels! The book makes the point that their impact was enormous but it was complementary to the apostolic tradition. There is relatively little overlap, this guy argues, because things like church services, the eucharist and baptisms were already universal.

He then goes on to argue that you can delve back through the Eastern and Roman Catholic liturgies and work out a lot about what when on in that upper room.

I was talking to Sue's husband about this and he gave me a huge book to read about the origins of the church. Bleech! But I think I'll at least give it a try. It makes sense that the traditions were already established long before anything was written down. Paul's writings point to established traditions (some errant) that were in place before Paul ever arrived there to preach and teach.

I looked up post-structuralism... In a nutshell does it mean "throw out your preconceived notions about how something is and look at it as if you were an alien and knew nothing about anything"? -Sort of a question every relationship/assumption?

Post structuralism and deconstruction are related. A deconstruction argues that if you have an author, a text and a reader, then the author relates to the text and the text relates to the reader. There is no direct relationship between the author and the reader. Therefore it makes no sense for the reader to argue that "this is what the author intended" since the reader only has access to the text. Even if the reader and the author talk, the conversational text is still both spoken and heard - it is not direct.

The upshot is that if the author cannot compel a single meaning for the text, different readers may get different readings. Further since each reader is an individual in a unique environment (if the environment changes so does the reader), no two readings CAN be the same. This is not to say that all readings are right (some readings can definitely be wrong) but it does say that no single fair reading can be privileged over another.

The emphasis lies with the reader, then the text and lastly the author. Modern theology has followed this methodology: God being the author, creation the text and the faithful the reader. It's now all about the individual, creation and lastly God.

Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism all got a bad name though primary school English teachers telling their seven year old students that "there is no such thing as a wrong answer". This whole model of thinking is not that wishy-washy and it is definitely atheistic in motivation: hence Bathes classic work "The Death of the Author" where he argues that author of a work is totally irrelevant to the reader. He failed to account why John Grisham's name is a more important marketing tool on a novel than the novel's actual name. The same could be argued about God.

That makes much more sense than what I read. I don't think God can be categorized with any other author though. I'm pretty sure that He has the ability to compel a single meaning from the text. At the least I think God does give direction through the text. (Although if someone claims that they have a direct link to God, I'm very suspicious. I must be a bit of a deconstructuralist.)

Speaking of Grisham, I just finished The Summons. I hate it when I guess the ending ahead of time.

Opinion is divided on God's ability to direct readings of the text (creation). However, it is interesting to take a simple philosophical position and say that experience is the sole basis for further thought. In that case, a deconstructualist reading appears to be the only option. I don't have a problem with that provided you define experience widely enough.

I was reading a Freudian psychologist's book of "Sex and Orgasm" on Sunday (someone lent it to me). It was very interesting (unfortunately the title was a little misleading) especially as I haven't had much exposure to any sort of psychology before. It appeared, though, to have a fairly strict view of what was normal behaviour and argued for therapy for anyone who wasn't normal. Successful treatment would bring the therapee back into the bounds defined as normal.

I think that deconstruction is fine with a finite text, such as a book, film, web-site or conference. I suspect that with very large texts, such as life experience, it looses a lot of value as a technique. Combined with a desire to limit what is acceptable in the text (a la our Freudian), the whole approach then comes a cropper. Like a lot of intellectual models, it exposes key problems with previous models but it still has a fair few problems of its own.

Maybe, to be fair, the post-structuralist model runs (less to more diversity):

single author -> finite text -> multitude of readers -> personal experiences -> final reading

God spoils this

infinite author -> very large creation -> all created beings -> personal experiences -> final reading

And so the model doesn't apply.

However, I think that we cannot be prescriptive of other people's reading of God through the "text" because a single reading is going to limit the infinity that is God. And that would be real Hubris!



PS: There are a lot of Arians on H2G2 - I found a few of the more vociferous JWs yesterday and followed their discussions with the Christians.