20230808 Q&A

Q&A

• Q&A/Support: The speaker thanks Brad Stewart, Filippo Denodo, Daryl Scott, and Dan Howard for their support and donations.
• Suggested Lecture Topics: Filippo Denodo suggested lectures on Proto-Indo-European stuff, swastikas and other symbols found in multiple cultures, and common God connections.
• Arianism and Polytheism (Nicholas Surges's Question):
  • Could Arianism be an attempt to reconcile Christianity with previous polytheistic religions? Possibly, but monotheists often overstate the difference from paganism.
  • The difference isn't as great if the tradition is monist (one source), even with many subordinate gods/emanations (like in Hinduism or with angels in Judaism/Christianity).
  • The speaker thinks Arianism was more an attempt to fix the logical contradiction at the heart of Trinitarianism, which is mathematically false.
• Arianism as a Threat (Nicholas Surges's Question):
  • Arianism caused division but was a minority position and was crushed quickly once the Emperor got involved (about 50 years).
  • It had a "second life" because the Germanic peoples (Goths, etc.) were converted by an Arian, Ulfilas.
• Arianism Popularity with Germanic Subjects:
  • Ulfilas translated the Bible into Gothic, allowing illiterate Germanic peoples to understand Christianity without learning Latin/Greek.
  • Since Ulfilas was an Arian, he taught them Arianism.
  • It continued to be popular with Germanic military leaders as a way to maintain a distinct identity and assert superiority over the culturally higher, conquered Roman populace, who were Orthodox Catholics (viewed as heretics by the Arian Goths).
• Partialism and Orthodoxy (Zellini Sock's Comment):
  • The speaker's prior explanation of partialism doesn't entirely agree with the coherent Orthodox view: "Jesus is a hundred percent God but not a hundred percent of God."
  • Partialism is only a heresy in Catholicism since the late Middle Ages; Eastern councils don't condemn it, and Protestants aren't bound by later Latin councils.
  • The speaker acknowledges his Latin outlook and thanks the commenter.
• Importance of Correct Views (Normative's Question):
  • Why did early Christians care about the correct view when Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, didn't seem concerned?
  • Christianity developed before the Gospels were written.
  • Being overly concerned with what Jesus did in the Gospels is a modern Protestant focus on the biblical text.
  • Understanding the cosmos, the truth about God, and the universe was a central concern for contemporary Greco-Roman philosophers (Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists, etc.), and thus for early Christians.
• Father-Son Relationship in the Trinity (Videos for Stuff's Question):
  • The relationship should not be understood as literal; the Divine realm is alien from the Mortal.
  • It is an analogy; everything is understood by analogy.
  • The "Father" is the unseeable, unknowable Source. "Christ" is the wisdom, word, image, logos, and glory—the image attached to the source (Hypostatic Union).
  • The analogy is a "Heavenly parent and Heavenly son," not a literal or actual father-son relationship.
• Low Christology in the Synoptics (Winston Barquez's Question):
  • Why do the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew, Luke) have a low christology (emphasizing the human Jesus)?
  • It might be a reaction against other Christian groups emphasizing a much higher (fully spiritual/Divine) christology. The author of Mark might be stressing Jesus's full humanity.
  • High christology (e.g., Paul) emerged very fast, so the Synoptics could be a reaction back to a high christology that was already existing.
• Joseph Smith and the Trinity (Raymond Ortiz's Question):
  • Joseph Smith was initially confused by the paradox of the Trinity.
  • The Book of Mormon is modalist (not Trinitarian), claiming the Father and Son are the same being/mode (e.g., Jesus says, "I am the father," which is anti-Trinitarian).
  • Later in his ministry, Joseph Smith rejected monotheism, asserting that God and Jesus are different gods and that God was merely a man who progressed to that state (Exaltation Theology, which is a rejection of monotheism).
• Source of Medieval Arian Image (Nicholas Surges's Question): The speaker needs to look it up but estimates it was 11th or 12th century, Western, and written in Latin.
• Muslim Conquerors and Arianism (Nathan Gale's Question):
  • Muslims arrived after Arianism had largely been wiped out in the kingdoms they conquered (Vandals in Tunisia, Visigoths in Spain had become Orthodox Catholic).
  • They would have tolerated both types of Christians, not persecuting one over the other.
• Surviving Arianism (Andre Moray's Question):
  • The speaker believes modern-day Christians have effectively become Aryans again.
  • Many Christians only mean God the Father (the Source) when they say "God" and do not think of Jesus as God, seeing him as a limited, lower divine being.
  • This lack of a fully human/fully divine Christ (a bridge) leads people to seek an Unseen God who feels for them (Liberation Theology) or a God who was once human (Mormon Exaltation Theology).
• What If Arius Had Won (Darth Rama's Question):
  • Constantine didn't care about the theology; he cared about unity.
  • If Arius had won the argument, Constantine would have put the full power of the Roman Empire behind Arianism, and that would be "mainline Christianity."
• Survival of Arianism as a World Religion (Miguel Angela's Question):
  • Yes, it could have easily been the state religion.
  • It might be more understandable than the Trinity.
  • Arianism acknowledges layers of hierarchy in the divine, getting closer conceptually to Hinduism or Greco-Roman paganism.
• Godhead (Lisa Rugerello's Question):
  • "Godhead" is an English synonym for the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit).
  • The speaker believes in one Godhead in the sense that there is a Source, and the Trinity/Godhead is the traditional Christian prism through which that source is understood, but does not limit God to that conception.
• God as Creator (Normative's Comment):
  • A logical contradiction in Nicene formulation: If God eternally creates, creation must be eternal, but Creation in the Nicene view is not eternal. (Counter-argument to the speaker's prior point about the Father.)
• Ulfilas, Goths, and Arianism (Michelangelo's Question):
  • Ulfilas explicitly taught Arianism.
  • The Goths did care about the difference; they used it to escape the hierarchy of the local Catholic Roman Church hierarchy and asserted control over their subjects.
• Rebirth of Arianism in the Middle Ages:
  • The speaker is unaware of a rebirth of Arianism in Western Europe but suggests the user might be thinking of Manichaeism/Catharism (spiritual dualism).
• Jehovah's Witnesses and Arianism (Mike Rogers's Question):
  • JW doctrine (Christ as a divine, God-like being, but less than and not of the same substance as the Source God) is a Neo-Aryanism. It's an idea that can be reached independently, not necessarily a direct inheritance.
• Condemnation at Nicaea (Normative's Question):
  • Yes, other Aryans, like Eusebius of Caesarea and the bishop of Nicomedia, were also condemned at the council.
• Peter and Paul on the Doctrine (Tyson's Question):
  • Peter: Hard to know. Likely would have been an Adoptionist (believing Jesus was a wonderful prophet adopted as Divine at his death/resurrection), which was a common early Christian understanding.
  • Paul: His high christology (Christ is Lord, Logos) is hard to categorize as Paul's doctrine wasn't fully formulated yet, but he might have been closer to Aryan.
• The Holy Spirit (Rayne Weber's Question):
  • The Holy Spirit was barely mentioned in the original Nicene Creed ("and the Holy Ghost").
  • There is biblical precedence for the Spirit (Creation story, three angels visiting Abraham, Jesus's baptism, gift of the spirit).
  • It is less focused on and less worried about than the relationship between Christ and the Source.
• What is the Holy Spirit? (Leia Delano's Question):
  • The speaker cannot answer in brief; it requires a whole lecture.
  • It is understood as a source of inspiration or comfort.
  • Saint Augustine described it as the moment of epiphany when, after intense study, a difficult concept suddenly breaks forth and is understood.