Historical ramifications and events that led to the Babylonian Exile

     The events that led to the Babylonian Exile were wars that cried out power and control.  The historical ramifications are the captivity of a people who for the first time in their history were separated.  This paper will demonstrate that what defines the Jewish people to this day is their unity as one, strengthened by their faith and oppression.  Though separated for the first time in their history, their temple destroyed, this people strong in faith rebuilt their temple and are recognized as one by the world.

     In the second quarter of the seventh century the Assyrian empire had reached its greatest dimensions.[1]    Assyria had enemies within and outside her empire and a serious threat lay in various Indo-Aryan people who were pressing upon the northern frontier (ibid. p 313).  In 652, a rebellion broke out in Babylon.  At the same time, Arab tribes of the Syrian desert overran Assyrian vassal states in eastern Palestine and Syria, from Edom and Moab, northbound to the area of Zobah.   In 648, Babylon was taken, after a two year siege.  In Oct 626, Nabopolassar (626-605) the Chaldean prince who led the Babylonians, defeated the Assyrians outside the Babylonian empire and took the throne there a month later (ibid. p 315).  In 612, the Babylonians and the Medes “brought Assyria to the ground” (ibid, 324).  Pagan practices returned and the public morality descended.  Prophets who tried to alter this practice were harassed, persecuted or killed.  In the end of 604, the Babylonian army in the Philistine plain took and destroyed Ashkelon deporting leading elements of its population to Babylon.  In Dec 598, the Babylonian army marched and within three months the city surrendered.  The king, the queen mother, the high officials and leading citizens were taken to Babylon.  Within ten years, the kingdom of Judah ended (ibid. 327).  In 597, Judah experienced humiliation such as she had never experienced before.  Yahweh’s temple was looted of its treasures, and the legitimate Davidide was removed from his throne and taken captive to a faraway land (ibid. p 332).  Though the temple was burned to the ground it remained a holy spot to which pilgrims continued to journey and to offer sacrifice among the blackened ruins (ibid. p 344).

     The actual number of people deported is unknown (ibid. 328).  In 595/4 there was a rebellion in Babylon presumed to be deported Jews, prompted by their prophets’ promises of a speedy release.  The Jews living in Babylon represented the best of their country’s political, ecclesiastical and intellectual leadership which is why they were selected for deportation.   There had been three deportations, 597, 587 and 582 consisting of 4,600 Jews.  These numbers perhaps consist of the males only and actual numbers may be increased three or four times that figure.  There has been an estimate of over 20,000 Jews deported.  These exiles would shape Israel’s future, giving faith her new direction and providing the impulse for the ultimate restoration of the Jewish community in Palestine (ibid. p 345).  Aside from those Jews forcibly removed to Babylon, others voluntarily left their homeland to seek safety.  A considerable amount went to Egypt (ibid, 346).  It is presumed that thousands also died in battle or of starvation and disease (cf. Lam. 2:11f., 19-21; 4:f.).  There were also those who were executed (ibid. p 344).   

Israel began to be scattered among the nations.  There would be no full return to the patterns of her past (ibid. p 347).  Their faith was also threatened as state and national theology collapsed under the control of a pagan power.  But Israel’s faith met “an astounding tenacity and vitality” (ibid. pp 348-349).  During the exile, the records and traditions of the past were preserved where both the recollection of Yahweh’s past deeds towards his people held hope for the future.  The exiles felt their present status was provisional rather than a true resettlement.  Their prophets continued to assure them that Yahweh’s objective was the ultimate restoration of his people in the promised land (ibid, p 350). Hopes were probably raised by the extreme instability of the Babylonian Empire which was short-lived (ibid, p 351).  Just before this happened, a voice of a great prophet, whose name is unknown but is referred to as the Second Isaiah provided comfort to his “beaten people” (ibid. p 355).  Second Isaiah had heard (c. 40:1-11) celestial heralds announcing Yahweh’s decision that the penance of Israel had been accepted and that Yahweh would soon gather his flock and lead them home.  The prophet assured his people that Yahweh was in control of history (ibid. p 355).  This prophet, adapted Israel’s faith to the horizons of world history, and offered the explanation of her sufferings (ibid. p 359).  In Oct 539, Babylon was taken over.  A few weeks later Cyrus entered the city in triumph.  Babylon was not harmed.  Persian soldiers were ordered to respect the religions of the population and to refrain from terrorizing them (ibid. p 360).  Cyrus issued a decree ordering the restoration of the Jewish community and cult in Palestine.  The decree also provided that the Temple be rebuilt and funded by the royal treasury and Cyrus permitted Jews to return to their homeland if they so desired (ibid. p 361).             

     The Jews have a history of persecution, oppression and suffering.  This history is what defines them as special to God.  Their strong faith in God is what unites these people wherever they may live.  Their beloved temple, destroyed but rebuilt is the home where they wait for God to return to them.  And temple or not, it will always remain their holy ground.   Though tempted by other gods and culture, these people remained true to themselves and to God.  It is this strong determination and wisdom that their history reflects that makes the Jew what he and she is, God’s special child.  Though the Jews have been scattered throughout the world,

they remain connected and strong as one people.      

---

[1] Bright, John.  A History of Israel. 4^th edition.  Philadelphia: Westminster, 2001. P 310.

Homosexuality and other tid bits (psychology notes)

     When I was selling my book last month  “Hey Guy By Me” quite a few men at Queens Park told me that they were gay and that my book was probably not suited to them.  Of course they were handsome.  I argued at first indicating that anyone can read a book, but then I realized by the approach of the second man, that they were right.  Who is the audience is always kept in the back of the mind for selling, but is it for writing?  Do we write for others or do we write for ourselves?

       As I look at my psychology notes, I see reference to tid bits about homosexuality without references.  Should I post them or not, I wonder and I decide to do so.  As I write in my blog, I think that perhaps one day I shall break down and buy my own blogs in book form so I can throw away all my notes and have something more clean in my limited book stand.  I say limited because I am taking the time to go through all my books and decide what I need to keep and what I can give away and to whom.  Why am I doing this?  I have decided to paint my walls and refresh everything in my free time, which includes decreasing the volumes of my books.

       I used to use lots of colour when I painted my rooms, but I now prefer a more spa like, neutral classic, probably due from all the shows I like to watch such as Property Brothers,  Candice and Hillary.  I am bad with names but I have the designer’s first name right.  Right?  Anyhow, as I watch these people perform magic, I want to try to perform my own, which is more cost effective.  In the living room I am removing all things from it and deciding what I shall keep and what I will transfer to another room.  This is where I am at.  One of the designers (Peloso) I saw at the exhibition recommended a particular shade which is his favorite colour.  I wrote the name down and that is what I will buy, once I remove the bold loud colour I have now.  I have travelled and picked up lovely souvenirs but my tastes have changed and so what I am doing once again is deciding who would like this or that and then offer it to them.  But am I getting away from homosexuality?  In my book, I make reference to the excellent taste of homosexual men.

     I never assume a man is a homosexual.  Too many people assume and what does that mean?  When you assume you make an ass of u and me (ass/u/me).  Bullies like to pick on homosexuals and bullies like to label heterosexual people as homosexuals as a ploy to degrade them.  And of course there are those who are hidden homosexuals who like to condemn others because they do not like it in themselves.  Bullies are too popular, so I will leave them alone for the moment.  Society is starting to look at the bully and deciding that something needs to be done.  It is about time.  I like to think that in today’s society we can respect others for who they are.  I understand homophobia.  Many people grow up in homes where the idea of homosexuality is worse than death.  I once had someone tell me (not in counselling.  I never talk about clients) “Do you think this is the life I would have chosen?”  It was not until I studied psychology that I examined homosexuality.  It was removed from the DSM as a disorder because of pressure from the homosexual community.  This is what I was taught.  When I studied the biology portion I was told that homosexual men, like women use both portions of the brain, while heterosexual men usually use one.  Of course we all laughed.  At least the women did.  I can go deeper there, but maybe you should do a bit of work to examine this more closely yourself.  I never thought of the biological differences.  When I hear of someone being bullied to the point that they kill themselves for whatever reason, my heart bleeds for them.  I like the changes in education where we learn to embrace others who may not think like ourselves.  I remember taking a taxi once and the man behind the wheel was telling me how in his country people kill homosexuals and that this was one thing that he did not like about Canada.  I mentioned to him that Canada is a free country.  Canada is a place where people can feel free and are protected by law.  We need to educate, to enhance the self esteem of ourselves and others while educating the bullies who unfortunately have most likely been bullied themselves.  Prejudice is prejudging and there have been studies to indicate that if one is living and working with a segment of the population who one thinks is inferior to him or her due to race, religion, orientation etc….than one’s prejudice decreases and can be eliminated.  You actually discover that the person you hated is not so bad after all.  This person is just like you who suffers and bleeds and is happy and cries.  Imagine that?  It is time for all bullying to stop.  When bullying happens, it may be time for institutions to examine the home life of the bully at large and implement more positive change.  Who is teaching the bully to bully?  We are always learning and changing because of what we learn.

Now my tid bits:

(1999)

If one identical twin is homosexual, there is a 50% chance of the other.  Fraternal – 20%, adopted – 10%.

Male homosexuality may run in some families and there are differences in the male brain antonomy in response to hormones and in psychological abilities such as spatial skills.

Fewer than 2% of sexually active men and women say they had a homosexual encounter and fewer than 19% report it.

Only 17% of heterosexual men with multiple partners and 13% of high risk, use condoms.

8-10 million American children are living with homosexual parents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More tid bits in general:

One half of the population in their early 30’s have cohabitated, 4% are at any given time.

1992 -  Sweden has twice as many new marriages.

9 out of 10 Americans and 3 out of 4 African American women will eventually marry, down 95% before the late 70’s.

Conventional marriage -  Women work and both participate in house chores and child care.

Modern Pattern  -  Husband and wife share parenting but wife does more housework.

Role sharing -  most equalitarian.

About 1/3 of mothers find parenting enjoyable and meaningful.

1/3 find it neither

And 1/3 have mixed feelings.

Empty nest may be harder on fathers who may regret that they did not spend more time with their children when they were younger.

About 1 in 5 marriages last 50 years.

----------

     One of my favourite professors in my undergrad, was an Anthropologist, Carol Yawney.  If she had not died I would have probably followed in her footsteps.  She was also an expert witness in court for issues of racism.  I believe I posted a published poem that I wrote for her, when I heard of her death.  I remember her bringing us brochures regarding racism and I was surprised that some of what was written, I never considered racism.  She also taught me humility by her own example of teaching and living life to its fullest. 

------------

     Maybe it is time to sit back, reflect and ask yourself are you happy being who you are?  Are you being bullied?  What can you do about it?  Please do something.  Tell someone and get someone to help you.  Are you a bully?  Why? Are you suffering at home?  Take a look at yourself?  Do you really want to do to others what may be happening to you?  Why not break the cycle?  Why not break the silence?   Are you homophobic?  Why?  Do you really think that you are better than anyone else?  Where did you learn this?  Do you consider yourself prejudice?  Have you prejudged others?  Why not decide to take some responsibility of making this world a better place?  Why not start with ourselves as individuals?  Why not reach out to someone who may be different than ourselves today and accept them as a fellow human being?   What do you think?

     I have taken a one day work shop for counselling Catholic homosexuals in the Catholic Church.  Our Lady of Lourdes at Sherbourne and Wellesley area has mass for homosexuals, I believe once a month. 

     If I have used the wrong terminology here at any time, please forgive me.    Also please forgive  all the underlines.  That was done in error and I cannot seem to erase it.

Wisdom (psychology notes)

     Wisdom as seen by theorists:

Wisdom – cognitive ability, integration of intellect and emotion, spiritual domain.

Erikson - Wisdom is a virtue that results from successful resolution of integrity vs. despair.

Wisdom means accepting the life one has lived without major regrets.  Accepting parents as people who did the best they could.

Cognitive researcher – Vivian Clayton

Intelligence - ability to think logically and abstractly.

Wisdom - ability to grasp paradoxes, reconcile contradictions and make and accept compromise.

Whereas intelligence can figure out how to do something, wisdom asks whether it should be done.

John A. Meacham - wisdom more attribution of youth because older people know too much and are too sure of their knowledge.  Wise people balance their acquisition of knowledge with recognition of its inherent fallibility.  Wise people do not know more than unwise people, they just use their information differently.

Baltes – Wisdom

-          Part of pragmatics of intelligence:  a cognitive domain that remains stable and may even continue to improve into late adulthood.

-          Can be rare

-          Wisdom may develop at any period of life; aging would seem to provide fertile soil for its’ growth.

 Labouvie- Vief

-integration of two basic modes of knowing Logos (provides experimental richness and fluidity) [objective, analytic, and rational] and Mythos (subjective, experimental and emotional) legal cohesion and stability.

Baltes-

A component of intelligence

(achenbaum and Orwall, 91) intrapersonal wisdom – self examination, knowledge, integrity, and maturity.

                                                Intranspersonal wisdom - capacity to transcend the self and strive for spiritual growth.

Interiority – introspection and concern with the inner life which has been associated with aging.

Kohlberg has a Defining Issues Test (DIT) composed of 12 questions about each of six moral dilemmas.

Coping with retirement and change?

     I was recently asked at a retirees’ association function how I managed my retirement.  This question came from a man who sat opposite me, while we were dining.  I was not surprised by that question because I have been asked before.  I was also asked last year if I would be a speaker to a group of retirees about my own story of retirement.  I was surprised because I advertise mostly that I provide my services as a speaker about stress and managing stress. I had never been asked to talk about my own story.

     I wonder who the audience of retirees is?  I believe it is normally people who have waited until retirement age to retire or who have been so ill that they have been forced to retire.  Some who are younger when they retire, are perhaps more open to retirement as an option of opportunity and discovery.  Prior to my own initial retirement, what I heard at a lecture for a specific group of  young retirees was that a surprising percentage would die within two years of retirement.  At the time I heard this I was alarmed.  I did not want this to happen to me and I wondered if I had taken enough precautions with my life that it would not.  I am still alive after retiring twice and beginning another career.  I was not part of that statistic. 

     We are living longer.  There are people living up to 100 plus still enjoying life.  How do they do it?  It would be interesting to interview them all, to hear their words of wisdom from their perspective and try to find the common denominator. 

     There are stages of development which I have written and mentioned before, basically if you are around this age, you will probably feel this.  If you have accomplished this at this stage you will feel this and if you feel you have not accomplished whatever, than you will feel that.  It is not too difficult to deduce that if you are not happy living the life you wanted to live than perhaps you will reflect what could have been.  But what happens when we are stuck in a stage that we cannot move away from?  What does it prevent?  I would suggest that it prevents growth.  Do you forget about it?  I would say, no.  You need to look at it, examine it, and perhaps make peace with it.  There is so much beyond one’s control.  We cannot change others but we are always free to change ourselves, our behaviours; our concepts.  What happens when we remain stuck and unhappy with our lives?  We have a choice.  No matter what is happening we really do have choices.

     You may think I am moving away from retirement, but I am not.  It is how you view retirement and how you view yourself.  When we work, we define who we are by what work we are doing.   Think about it.  If you have lived as a homemaker all your life and suddenly your children have moved away and your husband has left you for another younger woman, who are you now?  If you have worked in a power position and people feared you, who are you when you no longer have this power over others?  Do you get stuck?  Do you grieve and then move on?  Why not take a bit of time this week to acquaint you with yourself.   Who are you?  What defines you?

     When I retired the first time, I went to a place I had wanted to go for a long time but never had the opportunity.  It was during this trip that I realized I am not defined by my work.  I discovered that my home is where ever I am. 

     Retirement can be viewed as a nightmare and a feeling that one is no longer considered worthy in the work force.  I suggest that you explore the possibilities.  What have you always wanted to do but did not?  Have you done it all?  Why not try something new?  For seniors, there are doors that open.  You may want to go to university for the first time in your life?  You may want to complete that high school, you never did.  You may want to take an art course, to discover that you may just have found another hobby.  The list is endless.

     What I would have said if I had been invited to speak and if I could return to the dinner table when that man asked how I coped with retiring is Live.   I would have tried to stimulate the audience to let me know what it was it that they wanted to do with their lives, what was still left undone and what they could examine as possibilities – new beginnings. 

     We need balance.  Take a look at yourself today and ask yourself who are you?  Get acquainted with yourself.  Step away from the business or loneliness and ask yourself who am I?  What defines me?  Where am I?  Is this where I want to be?  What can I change? 

     Suicide is greater among elderly men in Canada than any other group.  Why?    

If you are retiring, why not continue to live life or start to and learn perhaps to love it all over again or for the first time?   What do you think?    

Theology Outline-Summary of the Development of Trinitarian Dogma

Summary of the Development of Trinitarian Dogma

Silva Redigonda                                                                       Part One

     Providing an outline this particular way was due to my review of classnotes, readingings and some of the tape recording in class to date.  It fulfills instructions 1a in helping me pull it all together so that I can fulfill the task of the second portion.  This may be considered a blend of your request for my way of helping me pull it together and your request of the latter portion of a chart from scripture to Dogma.   

Outline

Who is God?  Not, what is God?

Three in one and one in three = Trinity

Tasks - Understanding and notion of Doctrines (gradually developing)

             Research – data – interpretation – some canons; some rules – meaning

                           Dialectics – differences are contradictory

                                        Conversion or not

Problem of relating to Trinity -  Thinking modern thoughts - therefore, do not think modern

1^st century Judaism – God             > therefore, if not God, created by God- eschatology –monotheism/               Not God             

  Two dogmas –   1. Mystery   2. God acts on behalf of God’s people.

 Shift 

-  over time Israel provides a shift - spirit and word.  Spirit only given to Kings and prophets.  King mediates to the nation.  Prophets guide and announce something new.    

-Duality -  Wright  (more than one divine).  Hebrew accepts other religion but it is not God.

Easter – Resurrection – we see Jesus who was dead and is now alive (reason) - Spirit poured out onto us.  Jesus is God – recognition and reconciliation of Jesus – scriptures open to us – mission.

Easter changes everything -  Jesus is God and God is Jesus – The Holy Spirit acts and God is one and one in three.  God as Father, God as Son and God as Holy Spirit.

Scripture -John to the Philippians – proposes a shift.  High Christianity vs. low Christianity

John – will not find human Jesus Christ. (word about, work of :Cross; word of:Ministry, word of human origins,  the word. Revelation – starts giving names of the Holy Spirit.  Holy Spirit has personal name.  God is on trial at a certain point.  God makes a judgement. Communion of God.  Father giving to son and the son giving to the father and Holy Spirit receives everything from the father and the son and the spirit bears witness and gives back. Obedience of Jesus, the Father and Son work together because one is obedient to the other (two can do the work of one).

Mark – (behavior) only human Jesus. The word of Jesus: Ministry – how Jesus got to the cross; Jesus performs that belong to God alone. (claim authority over law, forgives sins and drives out demons). Jesus speaks own authority.  Messianic secret. Depicts Jesus before Easter.  Who Jesus is and who God is. All things lead to Son of God. Development – mutual neutrality of Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit.

Paul -   Jesus is raised.

Luke – goes further: human origins.  Stops at Adam. One humanity in Christ. Interested in overshadowing Mary. Spirit at conception.

Mathew – interested in origins of Jesus. Focus on Israel. Jesus is Israel and reveals God. Spirit at conception. Obedience of Jesus, the Father and Son work together because one is obedient to the other (two can do the work of one).

Early Christians – story of Jesus as story of God’s own obedience.  There was no issue that Jesus was human.  The pivot  is the revelation of who God is.

1^st movement – a WAY

2^nd movement – ascribing agency (spirit becomes the subject – a verb)

3^rd movement – Luke – exploring depths of this agency. Mutuality between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Things need to be clarified  so – Dogma

Pray text, Pray 3 in one and one and three

MOVEMENT FROM SCRIPTURE TO DOGMA

GK philosophy and culture cannot accept a suffering God.  God is abstract.  Proclamation of Christ as God is a scandal.  How to proclaim the gospel through new meaning?

Church Theologians 2^nd century   

Martyr Justin (executed in Romo circa 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons, bishop of Gk speaking Gaul (180-190)          ^                                                                         -traces of all four gospels and other NT writings. Tatian Pupil 170 created harmony of the gospels – Diatessaron

Gospel of Ebionites  - on the day of his bapism Jesus is begotten as Son of God, by the Spirit entering him (adoptionism).  Accepted by Byzantium, Theodotus the Younger and Artemon (end of the 2^nd century).

-^ rejected by mainstream church and considered heretical.   

Later second and third centuries

Monarchian school at the beginning of third century. He himself made himself a son to himself.  A Father makes a son and a son makes a father thus reciprocally related out of each other to each other cannot in any way by themselves simply become so related to themselves, that the Father can make himself a Son to Himself, and the Son render Himself a Father to Himself.

                                                                                                                           ^(argument) with God anything is possible.

 Tertullian (IN THE WEST) -  Father and Son – two different entities are needed.  I cannot be my own father or my own son.  Trinitarian counter position – God the Father implements the salvation of human beings with the help of the son and the Holy Spirit.  The Father is distinct from the son, being greater than the son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another

Demonstrates in Praxis 11, that Monarchians have no scriptural proof

Origen (IN THE EAST)  [died 253/4} (most educated in his time [probably]) Put forward Logos theology grounded in both the Bible and philosophy – decisive attacks on Monarchians.  Like other Logos theologians, more concerned about distinction rather than unity in God.  Origen described Father, Son and Spirit as three distinct hypostasis.  Therefore, three entities with their own existence and real presence, and their distinction is expressed. He designated these three as being one. No other beings are good in themselves.  God is first and only.  All that is spiritual is eternal and only the material is transitory.  God is the creator of all.

Arius – born circa 260 – theology from the Alexandrian milieu strongly shaped by theology of Origen before him.  Dispute over Arius occurred circa 318.  If the pre existent son of God had a beginning, then he did not exist before he was begotten, created and set up.  God is therefore, true God. The Son of God is not true God, he only bears the title God.  The Son belongs more on the side of the creatures, who also came into being from nothing.  The son is so radically subordinate to the Father that in Arius’s view he cannot know the nature of the Father.  Therefore, Christology no longer a threat to monotheism. Excommunicated circa 318.  Bishops of Nicomedia and Caesarea supported teachings

Bishop Alexander of Alexandria warned fellow bishops against intrigues of Arius and followers.  Also counters Arian doctrine that the Son has a beginning.

Council of Nicaea (325) deliberations began and held in Gk. Eusebius was offered the opportunity to justify himself with a creed.  It had become customary in the dispute over Arius for opposing parties to sum up their theological views in creed.  Council fathers to work out a creed chose the theology from earlier creeds which were undisputed, namely pre-existenacne of the Arian dispute.  The term homoousios belongs in the anti-Arian repertoire of the Council of Nicaea.  Council Fathers also condemned the core thesis of Arius including that Son of God had once not existed.  Fathers also used the terms hypostasis and substance (ousia) as synonyms and did not distinguish them (poses a problem in the future).

Question  :  Are Father, Son and Spirit three distinct entities or only one was not answered at Nicaea.                       

Banished dignitaries such as Arius and Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia were rehabilitated and had to adhere formally to the official church.

Years after Nicaea, in the east of the empire, a witch hunt against Nicene Bishops began.

Marcellus – like the Monarchians at the beginning of the third century central concern was the unity of God.  Creator God of the OT and the savior are not two Gods but one and the same God.  Moves further in the field of pre-existence Christology and confirms (against Arian thesis) that the Son really is God’s own and true Logos.  Emphasizes that the divinity of the Father and of the Son is indivisible. 

 Athanasius and Marcellus were banished to the west of the empire so that peace could come to the east.  In 337 Constantine dies there and empire is divided between his three sons.  Son Constantine allowed banished bishops to return but in due to unrest in  339 they leave.

341 – a synod took place in Rome without Eastern participation.  Verdict – rehabilitated Marcellus and Athanasius and at the same time accused the theologians of the East of being Arians.    4 different formule are associated with the Synod of Antioch.

East and West divided in church politics and theology and incapable of union on their own.  For this reason political support was seeked from Ermperor Constans, ruler of the western half of the empire.

Circa 342  council met – none of the disputants reached the theological stage which would be the binding tradition of the church decades later.  However, problems not discussed at Nicaea were now openly on the table.

351 a synod in Sirmium

350’s revival of Arianism.  This new version is also called Neo-Arianism.  Used concept of begetting to express the difference in substance between the unbegotten Father and the begotten Son.  The son is like or similar to the Father in substance.

In reaction there was a counter-movement in the East.  Emperor Constantius also anxious of Neo-Arianism rise.

357 Constantius organized a small synod in Sirmium to give discussion on a new direction.  Result: Rivals agreed on a joint text, fourth formula of Sirmium, dated 22 May 359.

New Years Eve 359/360 all present bishops in Constantinople finally signed a creed (synods 30.2-10)

362 – negotiations in Alexandria – the orthodox content of the different theologies was established.

381 – second ecumenical council – a   Synod of the bishops of the East (orientated on Neo – Nicene theology). Pope not invited.  Only one Western participant Bishop Acholius of Thessalonica.  Canon 1 which the council passed proves the bishops still recognized the Nicene Creed.  With the council of Constantinople the crises that the theology of Arius had sparked was overcome, in the East of the empire.  Canon laws. 

Part 2

    This paper will examine the dogmatic development from the end of Nicea to Constantinople II pastoral application of reflection reaching out to the spirituality within each person.

    The Council of Nicaea deliberations began in 325 and were held in the Greek language.    Council Fathers condemned the core thesis of Arius including that the Son of God had once not existed.  Fathers also used the terms hypostasis and substance (ousia) as synonyms and did not distinguish them which would become a problem in the future.  Subsequently, what was not answered is the question, are Father, Son and Spirit three distinct entities or one?[1]  We may examine the differences of  two Creeds, the Creed of Jerusalem indicates the Son of God as the only “begotten Son of God”, while the Nicene Creed” … from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made”[2]  The difference being created and not made.  What is basic at Nicaea is what you can say about the father you can say about the son.[3] The statement that“ ‘true God from true God is also anti-Arian’ ”(Dunzl, p 56).

     Circa  342  Serdica council met and problems not discussed at Nicaea were now being dealt with.  This could have been an ecumenical council as intended but the Bishops of the East refused to take part in joint sessions with Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria were present (Dunzl, p 79).   The Eastern bishops also once again condemned,

          doctrine of there being three Gods or that Christ is not God; that neither Christ nor  

          the Son of God existed before the ages or that one and the same is Father,

          Son and Holy Spirit, that the Son; that the son is unbegotten or that one and

          the same is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that the Son is unbegotten or that

          the Father did not beget the Son by decision and will”

                                                            (Dunzl, p80)

     The Western assembly continued to meet in Serdica.  It had two tasks, to safeguard the rehabilitation of Athanasius (had been banished to the West of the empire so that peace could come to the East) and other deposed bishops legally (Canon 3 of Serdica).  The Bishops of the West wanted to give binding expression to their faith and to publish it in an encyclical (Dunzl, p 80) .  Questions raised are: Is there only one divine hypostasis as the West taught or are there three as the East taught?  Neither the West nor East could provide a convincing answer.

     In the 350’s an unexpectant revival of Arianism also called Neo-Arianism, occurred which did not meet with undivided approval among the Bishops (Dunzl, p 89).  In reaction there was a theological counter-movement in the East which maintained the Eastern doctrine of the three divine hypostases but at the same time wanted to separate itself clearly from Arianism.  Neo-Arianism  believed that “the Son is like or similar to the Father in substance (Gk. homios Kat’ousian) One can also express the relation of the Son to the Father with the adjective homoiousiso, so in history of dogma the representatives of this doctrine are designated Homoeousians.  The two Greek adjectives homos and homoios have the same meaning and express likeness but with different nuances.  Homos can mean “like” as indentical; homoios “like” as similar.  Since two things that are like each are not identical, this is the problem.  The traditional East taught that God, the Father and God the son cannot be identical with each other, since that would be modalistic thinking, they are therefore two distinct hypostasis, each with his own ousia, individual substance.  A breakthrough  to a conception of the Trinity which would pave the way to the future and ultimately overcome the dispute over Arianism is the pioneer work by Basil the Great.  Both supporters and opponents of the Nicene Creed had used the terms hypostasis and substance (ousia) as corresponding to each other. The West and the Old Nicenes around Ahanasius of Alexandria had always started from one divine substance and at the same ti8me one divine hypostasis to safeguard monotheism.  The East spoke of three divine hypostases (three existing realities).  The two terms “substance and hypostasis” was also customary for Basil.  However, Basil learned to keep the two concepts apart due to the controversy with Arian (Dunzl, p 106).  The key basic insight that Basil has is that the Spirit has his own divine operation.  The Spirit is God.  God works the difference.[4]                

     A great moment in Church history is the negotiations in Alexandria in 362.  Here there was an understanding of opposing parties and a clarification of terminological differences.  The orthodox content of the different theologies was established (Dunzl, 106.   

 Here in pastoral terms one might be able to recognize and respect the language, difference of opinion 

---

[1] Dunzl, Franz.  A Brief History of the Doctrine Of the Trinity in the Early Church.  Trans. John Bowden. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Page 61.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by author’s name followed by page number.

[2] Handout, Class B.  Prof  Mongeau, Gilles, Regis College.

[3] Prof Mongeau, Gilles, Classroom B, Regis College, 2 Nov 10 (class instruction)

[4] St Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto, Chapt 16 – 26.  Hand out  (all info unknown). Chapt 16.  Further reference will be indicated by St Basil and Chapter.