Arain Christian influence on Islam

Sun Apr 1 00:33:02 UTC 2007

Hi Ualarauans!

It seems as a lot of people mistake the late Arianism in the time of
Wulfila with the original Arianism. Wulfila is after the Nicean
compromise and Wulfila just rejects the Teodosian interdict but is
influencved by the agreement in Constantinople 381-82. I have earlier
written an article in this matter from which I give you a slightly
revised excerpt:

'215 AD in Rome Sabellius declared as his opinion that the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost were only different manifestations of God. He
was part of the modalistic school. Immideately he was classified as
heretic. Hundred years later the presbyterian Arius in Alexandria
launched what later was called Arianism. The modern definition of this
faith says shortly that the Son, the pre-existent Christ, is not of
the same divine character as the Father but the first created entity.
This is however a  rude simplification of the complete story. Arius
himself claimed the Son had both a human and a divine nature. He was
born human and raised to divinity through a righteous life, like a
boddisathva or deva being given a divine status. This implies that
even other humans could have the chance being devinated in this way.
Regarding the above mentioned Sabellianism you could even interpret
Arius saying Jesus was a human but the reincarnated Christ was an
incarnation of God, but in the visual shape of Jesus. In this way both
Sabellius and Arius succeed to give a picture of a monoteistic God in
opposition to the later in Nicea created trinity God, which was
understood as three different  Gods by the Arians. A great majority of
the Eastern bishops sympatized with Arius and the leading were the two
Eusebius’s in Caesarea and Nicomedia-the Eastern residential city of
the emperor.  They had however a formidable opposer in Alexander,
pontiff of Alexandria and later this position was taken by his deacon
Athanasius, one of the most ruthless clergymen ever known in history
and fully comparable with e.g. Al Capone using the same criminal
methods to control the Alexandrian economy and the church. He was
several times abolished by the joint bishops, both Nicaenan and Arian,
because of his methods. Nota bene that all bishops used rough methods
but this was too much to take even for them. Athanasius and his,
mostly Western, followers claimed that the Father and the Son were of
the same nature, and hence they were regarded as polyteistic from
Arian wiew. The traditional Eastern wiew includes a god who is an
abstract entity and a single God. This goes as well for the Mosaic
religion.
 In 325 the dubious meeting in Nicea was held. Emperor Constantine had
engaged the old bishop Hosius of Spain who sided with Athanasius and
the Westerners but because of the strong opposition there was a
compromise. The Arian bishops agreed  that Father and Son were of the
same nature but interpreted it as being of a similar nature, not same.
The  Father was in command of the Son and the Son was created. This
compromise resulted in almost total victory for the Arians for a
considerable time. In spite of the compromise they fundamentally
claimed there was but one real God. Arianism dominates until the death
of emperor Valens and the Visigoths accept the Arian faith in his
time, and the Goths also   send missionaries converting all the other
Germanic continental tribes of major importance to Arianism except the
Franks......
Theodosius then calls a meeting in Constantinople in 381 forcing the
assembly to accept a dictate saying that the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost are of the same essence and that the  Son existed together
with the Father before all ages. To get the Arian bishops to sign that
decision an amandment was issued, saying that the Father worked
through the Son and the Spirit and so  stressing the unicum of the
Father. As soon as the Western delegates had returned home they
rejected this  amandment. Soon after this Teodosius issued an edict
banning Arianism by law, and so it ceased in the empire but flourished
in the Germanic states. The united church was still in reality divided
and now the divison focused on the amandment which finally resulted in
the split 1054 because of the Filiocque-question. 
Within the Eastern half of the pro-forma united church the old Arian
fight continued but now disguised as the Theotokos-debate. There were
two centrals, Antioc arguing the Arian wiew and Alexandria the
Nicaenan. The question was wether God could be born by a human woman.
The Antiocenes meant Jesus was both human and divine and hence could
be borne by a woman, but this was rejected by the Alexandrians
claiming Jesus Christ was wholly divine. In the long run this gives
Mary a similar position of type Boddisathva as Arius had given Jesus
and she is, as the first ever, made a saint. Her saintly background is
of course also closely connected with Isis and Harpokrates in the Late
Antique cult of Serapion and further back to the different
Mother-goddesses. Here we touch also a connection to the Tree of Life.
The council of Efesos in 431 aknowledged the position of Mary as
Theotokos. Jean Damascène writes in the 7th c. that Mary was the
tabernacle in which  logos was incarnated into Jesus, finally  making
him Christ. Also in James’s protevangelium 4:1 and in Photius is
stressed, that Marys mother, Anna, had a vision that her daughter
should be the instrument delivering human blood to Christ, to be let
out for the salvation of the world. There is accordingly no doubt that
Jesus is described as born with human blood. After death Theotokos
raised to heaven, now residing  with the Father and the Son. This is
illustrated in the grave-chapel of  Chora church, where Mary wears the
imperial purple mantle.
Here we are, accordingly, the old Orientalic trinity  with father,
mother and son. Adding  also the Gnostics we have a unification of
male and female-spirit and matter - both leading to the single
allmighty God, the result of both the forces like O and H becames OH2.
The female power is connected to the  Earth and the growing things and
the male is the spiritual force. Hence, also in Christian context Mary
is connected with plants and fertility. Very early the Tree of Life is
connected with her and so is the heart-palmette. The Tree of Life, in
combination with the hearts,on the Byzantine,Armenian and Vestgautic
Tree of Life Slabs indicates indeed Mary and her son, the Tree,
growing out of the soil but on a divine foundation of a zikkurate, and
thereby stressing that Jesus is born human, by a human mother, and is
indeed the Son, not the Father.'

According to the above it is quite possible also that Islam could be
influenced by early Arianism. The reason  Egypt later turned into
Islam is just the monoteistic question and Arius worked in Alexandria
and had a tremendous support of the local population. That is one of
the reasons the opposition as well centered in Alexandria and used any
force to fight Arius and his followers.

Best regards
Ingemar

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> Hailai,
> 
> How would you explain the fragment Skeir. 7:7
> 
> akei nauh us þamma filu mais siponjans fullafahida jah anþarans 
> gamaudida gaumjan, þatei is was sa sama, saei in auþidai •m• jere 
> attans ize fodida...
> 
> "but much more from this (five loaves and two fishes) he (Jesus) had 
> satisfied the disciples and reminded the others to see that he was 
> THE SAME WHO FED THEIR FATHERS IN THE DESERT FOUR HUNDRED YEARS".
> 
> As you see Jesus is literally identified with God Father. Is this 
> view really Arian? If not, how did it get here?
> 
> Ualarauans

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070401/74f1ff35/attachment.htm>