|
|
Post by david2011 on Sept 13, 2011 1:11:37 GMT
I just joined this forum, but, I've been reading Bede's Library for awhile now, and enjoying the articles. I wouldn't call myself religious (although, I don't consider myself an Atheist either), but, I've always been interested in learning about them.
Anyway, one of the reasons why I joined is, I'd like to get some views on Charles Freeman's book 'A New History of Early Christianity', I've seen it in Foyles bookshop, and it seems to get some good endorsements, but, I know that his work is controversial, and isn't the greatest, or, at least, some of his books anyway.
I was just wondering, what are your thoughts on this book?, and, if you don't recommend it, are there any better books on the history of early Christianity that you'd recommend?.
Thanks for any help.
David.
|
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Sept 13, 2011 10:02:29 GMT
I too would like to hear about this latest piece from Charlie. =)
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Sept 16, 2011 8:49:23 GMT
I am not a historian so my observations are those of an interested layman in this field. Freeman's view of Christianity is a secular one. Jesus was an ordinary human being, allbeit a gifted spiritual teacher. Among the various groups of Christians that grew up after his death, it was those who were most influenced by St Paul who eventually became dominant. The Council of Nicea in 325 laid the foundations of a trinitarian theology, although other points of view continued to exist -at least until the next council in 381 convened by the emperor Theodosius, who banned any dissent in favour of a fully divine Jesus.
This is of course contentious stuff, and I suppose that you will either approve of it or not dependent on your own views.
However, it is a rollicking good read, and I would recommend it. Just bear in mind though that the writing of history is never neutral or value free, so if you are looking for complete objectivity in this field then you simply won't find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Sept 17, 2011 3:49:38 GMT
With Charlie, that's definitely the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by roelf1234 on Oct 23, 2011 15:01:42 GMT
Did the council of Nicea lay the foundations for later Christian antisemitism? How serious was Christian antisemitism? I look for answers to these questions. Apologies for being a bit 'off topic'. I did not manage to find a way to start a new topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Oct 24, 2011 10:35:53 GMT
Did the council of Nicea lay the foundations for later Christian antisemitism? How serious was Christian antisemitism? I look for answers to these questions. Apologies for being a bit 'off topic'. I did not manage to find a way to start a new topic. Roelf, try clicking the [New Thread] at the top right hand corner of the "History" page to get started. jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=history |
|
|
|
Post by himself on Oct 26, 2011 18:29:20 GMT
All the Council of Nicaea did was to settle the Arian controversy and maybe a handful of other minor issues. The vote was nearly unanimous in favor of established belief, but there are some today who think the council instituted the beliefs. Afterward, the Constantinid emperors, who favored Arianism, persecuted the orthodox bishops. The Roman patriarchate was relatively immune to these wrangles, being insulated by distance and barbarians.
|
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Nov 4, 2011 1:04:17 GMT
Since we're asking questions on early Christianity....
...what exactly was Arius's view on Jesus vis-a-vis being a deity?
Did Arius view Jesus as a lesser form of God between the Father and Holy Spirit or was Jesus merely a mortal man to Arius?
|
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Nov 4, 2011 9:51:52 GMT
Since we're asking questions on early Christianity.... ...what exactly was Arius's view on Jesus vis-a-vis being a deity? Did Arius view Jesus as a lesser form of God between the Father and Holy Spirit or was Jesus merely a mortal man to Arius? Arius believed Jesus was a divine being created by God before time, and that the world was created by Jesus on God's behalf. The divine hierarchy was understood as follows: God -> Jesus -> Holy Spirit -> angels. Arians had no qualms about referring to Jesus as 'god', but only in a lesser sense (i.e. divine, yet not deity). Some Arians believed Jesus could be worshipped and prayed to; others did not. |
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Nov 4, 2011 16:56:18 GMT
Do you happen to know if Arius worshiped and prayed to Jesus?
Why did some Arians believe Jesus could not be worshiped and prayed to (whereas other Arians did)?
Thanks for your response.
|
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Nov 4, 2011 23:52:33 GMT
Do you happen to know if Arius worshiped and prayed to Jesus? He did not. Had he done so, his opponents would have mentioned it, yet this is the one accusation they never raise against him. Arianism began as an idiosyncratic Christology confessed by Arius (albeit combining ideas from earlier Christians such as Lucian), but as it grew it ceased to be homogeneous and accommodated a range of views. By the mid 4th Century there were two main streams of Arianism, both of which rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit but held differing opinions on the nature of Jesus Christ. 'Pure' Arians (for want of a better term) believed Jesus was a divine being, created by God before time. Jesus therefore fell into the category of 'creature' and thus could not receive worship or prayer, since this would be blasphemous. 'Semi'-Arians believed Jesus was a divine being, 'begotten' by the Father in some way but not created. Jesus therefore fell into some sort of obscure category between 'deity' and 'creature' and thus could receive worship and prayer. The 'pure' Arians and semi-Arians both believed the Holy Spirit was a divine being distinct from the Godhead, but the semi-Arians' Christology was closer to Nicene Christology, which provided a basis for negotiation with Athanasius of Alexandria and other hardcore Nicenes. Most semi-Arians came to accept the Nicene Creed, which did not identify the Holy Spirit as God. This allowed them to enjoy legitimacy for some decades. They were later known as the Pneumatomachi ('Spirit Fighters', since they rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit) and played a significant part in the disputes which led to the council of Constantinople (AD 381). |
|
