St. Paul was the only human who lived in the first and second centuries AD

[crazy canuck]

I always imagined him as some early hippy.  The ideas of the Popes in Rome were such a drag, man. 

edit: Wait... I think the missionary was another guy, Arius was just like a guru who lived in Antioch or someplace.

You were right the first time Arius was the missionary who went to convert the Goths.  But he was no hippy antiestablishment type.  There was no Roman Pope then either.  In fact the Roman Biship was relatively weak compared to the other Bishops around the med at the time.  When Arius set out on his mission he was in fact preaching the prevailing view.  It is just one of those quirks of history that by the time the Goths started to be converted in numbers that view had become heresy.

[saskganesh]

I guess the political function of Arianism with regards to the Goths was it allowed them to be alike but not like the Romans they conquered. At first they were feudatori, so the heresy helped them keep their own identity in a Roman world; later, when they ruled, The "not alikeness" helped support stuff like seperate legal codes for Goth elites and Roman subjects.

This was Good for the Goths, but not to necessarily Good for the Gothic successor states. One of the genius moves of Clovis was to convert to the Roman church in the beginning, setting up a special respect for the Franks from the Pope, eventually leading up to the coronation of Frankish Charlemagne as "Roman" Emperor a few centuries later.

[crazy canuck]

I guess the political function of Arianism with regards to the Goths was it allowed them to be alike but not like the Romans they conquered. At first they were feudatori, so the heresy helped them keep their own identity in a Roman world; later, when they ruled, The "not alikeness" helped support stuff like seperate legal codes for Goth elites and Roman subjects.

This was Good for the Goths, but not to necessarily Good for the Gothic successor states. One of the genius moves of Clovis was to convert to the Roman church in the beginning, setting up a special respect for the Franks from the Pope, eventually leading up to the coronation of Frankish Charlemagne as "Roman" Emperor a few centuries later.

You are correct but as noted above the Gothic adoption of a heresy was by accident.  Not by design.

[saskganesh]

You are correct but as noted above the Gothic adoption of a heresy was by accident.  Not by design.

are you sure of the randomness? were the Arians the first preachers the Goths ever encountered, or were they the first ones who made sense to them?

I think that Arianism was politically useful to them, otherwise they would have converted to Romanism pretty quickly, especially after Arianism was branded a heresy.

[crazy canuck]

are you sure of the randomness? were the Arians the first preachers the Goths ever encountered, or were they the first ones who made sense to them?

I think that Arianism was politically useful to them, otherwise they would have converted to Romanism pretty quickly, especially after Arianism was branded a heresy.

Arius was the first, by tradition, to convert them.  As I said when he set out on his mission he was in fact preaching orthodoxy so there was no distinction between when what Arius was teaching and what the Church was teaching.

Also there was no such thing as Romanism at that time.  The Roman Church was actually quite weak.  All the religious authority was centred in the Eastern diocese.  Rome was considered an intellectual backwater populated by priests who could barely understand Greek (the language of Christianity in the early years).

The other mistake being made is viewing the rest of the empire as holding a view different from the Goths when in fact the rest of the Empire was embroiled with this very debate.  If anything it is a bit surprising the Arian view did not eventually win out - as it almost did - because of the Gothic support. 

[Valmy]

are you sure of the randomness? were the Arians the first preachers the Goths ever encountered, or were they the first ones who made sense to them?

I think that Arianism was politically useful to them, otherwise they would have converted to Romanism pretty quickly, especially after Arianism was branded a heresy.

Well we don't know exactly but there is no evidence to suggest that they adopted Arianism out of some political calculation.  I don't see how they could have possibly known at the time of adoption.

[jimmy olsen]

Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?

INQUISITOR: Physicial aspects?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Human and divine intent?
ALFRED: Distinct.

What exactly do you mean by distinct there?

[Caliga]

The other mistake being made is viewing the rest of the empire as holding a view different from the Goths when in fact the rest of the Empire was embroiled with this very debate.  If anything it is a bit surprising the Arian view did not eventually win out - as it almost did - because of the Gothic support.

I used to think this too, until I learned that the Goths were not universally Arian.  I just checked Wikipedia (yes I know, not a reliable source) and it states that Arianism vs. Catholicism among the Goths was actually a class discinction.  The Gothic elites were Arians, but the underclasses were orthodox Catholic.  Thus it makes sense why the Arians would not have eliminated the Pope, and ultimately why Arianism might have gone away, since the Arian-believing peoples ended up settling in areas where Catholics were the majority, and the majority of their own people were already Catholics.

[Valmy]

I used to think this too, until I learned that the Goths were not universally Arian.  I just checked Wikipedia (yes I know, not a reliable source) and it states that Arianism vs. Catholicism among the Goths was actually a class discinction.  The Gothic elites were Arians, but the underclasses were orthodox Catholic.  Thus it makes sense why the Arians would not have eliminated the Pope, and ultimately why Arianism might have gone away, since the Arian-believing peoples ended up settling in areas where Catholics were the majority, and the majority of their own people were already Catholics.

I know things were different back then but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept that common every day people, who were likely illiterate and without any formal schooling, could really have classified themselves based on such tiny and trivial differences in Christian doctrine.  Did the average everyday Goth really reject Arianism in favor of Orthodoxy?  Could he even explain what exactly the difference was?

[Caliga]

Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?

INQUISITOR: Physicial aspects?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Human and divine intent?
ALFRED: Distinct.

What exactly do you mean by distinct there?

If memory serves, the first question is: were the divine and physical aspects of Jesus merged into some unique form while he existed on Earth, or do they remain distinct from one another while both inhabiting the same space?

The second question is: Does Jesus the mortal have a distinct will from Jesus the aspect of God inhabiting the vessel that was Jesus, or is Jesus the mortal's personality/will/whatever fused with the personality/will of God?  It's a question of whether Jesus was merely an avatar of God or not.

The most distinct group in this debate was the Donatists, who felt that Jesus's mortal form was merely an illusion (i.e. a ghost, basically) and that he never died because he was never alive in the first place.  So the crucifixion, resurrection, etc. was merely a laser light show of sorts and never had any basis in reality.  The mainstream Church was not pleased with this view and greatly enjoyed torturing and killing these people.

[Caliga]

I know things were different back then but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept that common every day people, who were likely illiterate and without any formal schooling, could really have classified themselves based on such tiny and trivial differences in Christian doctrine.  Did the average everyday Goth really reject Arianism in favor of Orthodoxy?  Could he even explain what exactly the difference was?

While I am skeptical about the veracity of this stuff like you are, all we have to go on are the writings left to us, most of which were preserved (selectively?) by the Catholic Church.

[Valmy]

The most distinct group in this debate was the Donatists, who felt that Jesus's mortal form was merely an illusion (i.e. a ghost, basically) and that he never died because he was never alive in the first place.  So the crucifixion, resurrection, etc. was merely a laser light show of sorts and never had any basis in reality.  The mainstream Church was not pleased with this view and greatly enjoyed torturing and killing these people.

Well Jesus did say: kill thine enemies after torturing them.

[Razgovory]

A-ha!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG

Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?

People very rarely got burned for being a heretic as that was not the punishment for the crime.  You would get executed for "relapsed heresy". 

[jimmy olsen]

Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?

INQUISITOR: Physicial aspects?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Human and divine intent?
ALFRED: Distinct.

What exactly do you mean by distinct there?

The second question is: Does Jesus the mortal have a distinct will from Jesus the aspect of God inhabiting the vessel that was Jesus, or is Jesus the mortal's personality/will/whatever fused with the personality/will of God?  It's a question of whether Jesus was merely an avatar of God or not.

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that answer then.

[Caliga]

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that answer then.

As I recall the impetus for this question was:

"Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") - Mark 15:34