Princeton in Europe Lecture, Diarmaid MacCulloch "What if Arianism had won?"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 เม.ย. 2014
- The fourth annual Princeton in Europe Lecture -- Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch asks 'What if Arianism had won?'
The most noticeable and remarkable thing about Western Europe in what we call the Middle Ages is its cultural and religious unity, united by a common alignment with the Pope in Rome, and a common language for worship and scholarship. Western Europeans tend to take this united medieval phase of their history for granted, but it is unique in human history for a region to be so dominated by a single form of monotheistic religion and its accompanying culture for a thousand-year period. The dominance of the Church which looked to the Bishop of Rome was a freak in human experience, albeit a freak with profound consequences for the present day.
With this exercise in counterfactual history, Diarmaid MacCulloch draws on his experience of writing and filming an overview history of Christianity to consider how easily matters might have been different in the Christian West. He identifies Martin of Tours as a key figure, but also speculates on the perfectly plausible event of an Arian outcome to Western Christianity's emergence from the ruins of the Western Roman Empire.
For more information about this Lecture Series: press.princeton.edu/europe/con...
You know it's a university seminar when every question in the Q&A is a dissertation
Sir Diarmaid is fast becoming one of my favourite historians to listen to. Thanks for the lecture
A very interesting and well presented corrective/alternative to the received narrative of the Roman Catholic church regarding the Arians and their standing in the history of Christianity.
I love Professer MacCullogh! Delightful lecturer and a wonderful historian!
Great lecture. A pity the questions were not miked. I could barely hear them.
This was a superb lecture, thanks for posting.
Brilliant Lecture. Thank you.
The title should be "What if Arianism won in Europe"because the Arians in Syria,Egypt,North africa an Spain for a period of time won by accepting a similar faith(Islam)
Alhamdulillah, and Islam will win in the west eventually
@@microcosm1957
Islam will never win because Muhammad can never be an example of morality like Christ. Muhammad had sex with a nine year old
it was not steamrollered through the Nicene counsel by Constantine. that is a factual error. The Bishops, many of whom had been tortured for their faith were independent of the Emperor. He presided but didn't make theological decisions.
@Caroline C not at all. You clearly know nothing of Christian history. All major councils were presided over by the Emperors--who were the heads (on earth) of both church and state.
@Caroline C well several popes were ousted by Emperors so obviously the Church wasn't all that independant
Can't hear the questions....
If the Son and the Father were equal, then the words "Father" and "Son" would have no meaning at all and could not be seperate persons at all but rather seperate manifestations of One God.
Life in the Christian world would've been much better if Arianism would've won.
it did win..btw the keys to Heaven haven't change:Christ is God son of Our Lady & The Holy Ghost & not the ''son'' of a talking fire
That heresy? not a chance!
Yes.. the three Abrahamic faiths: Jews, Muslims and Christian Arians: “One God the Father”
--------
Trinitarian Christendom : “One God: Father, [Son and Holy Spirit]”
@@InvestigadorTJ the term son and father were non religious terms. they were invented and introduced to win a social challenge in early time ~900 bc.
@@realdeal510 citation ?
Cliffs Notes, please. Would we have been better off or worse?
EDIT: I tried, but couldn't get past the middle. Honestly, delivery is as important as content. If you lose your audience, you're just congratulating yourself on how "smart" you are.
Quite childish. If you don't enjoy serious academic lectures, then why watch one? This is just your failure of character.
i don't agree Jews had a better position in the orthodox countries or under orthodox monarchs.
i still seeking the answer on the question what would happen if Arianism had won.
I think nothing would have changed in the structure of the church nor society.
It would have. It leads partly to the Masonic style of thought: that humans are a kind of god, or functional gods.
@@clarekuehn4372 would it though? Consider John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?". This verse alone can already lead there.
First, I do not agree with that Catholics are obliterated by Arianism. In fact, Catholics were trying to keep the faith in the trinity. That is why they fought against Arianism.
Second, although Luther was trying to take example in St Augustine, his later followers diverted away from St Augustine in order to separate their faith away from Catholics.
Oh, well, I thought it was fab.
If decentralisation is a barrier to persecution, how do you explain Islam, probably the most decentralised religion on earth, and also indisputably the most viciously intolerant? Their persecutions were so successful that unlike Christian heresies Islamic 'ghulaut' (ironically meaning
extremist') sects (which differed from orthodox Islam in only the most trivial ways) survive only as names. At least the Catholics attempted to persuade their heretics to recant and Christian heresies were able to survive for centuries.
The Arian belief concerning the 'Trinity' is still preached by the doctrine of Jehovah Witnesses!
Awesome! At least they are preaching some sort of truth.
Only when it comes to the Father and Son. They are not truly Arians, but Semi-Arians. They believe that there will be no Hell and Heaven and Earth won't pass away, that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael, that Satan and fallen angels (whom they believe to be demons) fell down to Earth on October 1914, among other unfounded scriptural lies.
One truth does not redeem them for a multitude of lies.
@@MsMayaxo they are one of the best proponents of Arianism.. which is awesome
@@InvestigadorTJ except that they reject this notion and vehemently deny it saying they are nothing like Arianism, I know, I've discussed it with them and it gets pretty heated when one of the more knowledgeable Witnesses gets involved. Most just blindly follow what they are told like most religions though. Some say it more closely related to Anabaptist theology
@@knawl in what way is it more closely to anabaptist?
God (Allah)say:
Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allâh is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no Ilâh (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilâh (God -Allâh). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them.
Quran
Alhamdulillah, it’s amazing how the truth of God prevails and shines through
Sometimes I am such a dummy, I originally thought the topic was "what if Arminianism had won" !
The Title of the lecture is "what if the Arians won", and then he calles Islam "the elephant in the room".
No sir. Islam is the WHOLE ROOM. Because islam IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED when Arians won in the east (against the Bizantine persecution of the non catholics).
Alhamdulillah
Interesting hypothetical ... But i rather doubt that Christianity itself would have been much different beyond the theological framework of arianism itself. I just am not convinced that what drives religion and religious institutions is theology. Yes, theology can consume religious institutions. It can yield and sometimes resolve conflicts. But it's the matrix of power, social and economic forces that drives the desire for religion, adherence to it, and the force it has in history.
I disagree, we saw distinct cultural differences expressed in various denominations of faith. Protestantism, for example, had much stronger personal liberty and personal responsibility leanings, that went on to impact the societies in which it proliferated.
We can see similar divergences and distinctions between the varying denominations of Islam and even Buddhism.
While in isolation, these variations in thought, would seem to have little impact, when taken on a grander scale, religious theology and the socio-political ideologies that are intertwined with it, can create stark differences on outlook, attitudes, choices and outcomes.
@@toffeecrisp2146 "personal responsibility" to build up wealth for themselves, but complete abandonment of any responsibility to give to the poor.
@@nicholasm7822 The point at hand is that, different doctrines in theology can lead to different outcomes that find expression in cultural tendencies and attitudes.
As to your assertion that protestantism leads to abnegation of personal responsibility to those in need, in favour of personal wealth... in comparison to what?
Catholicism? It is a matter of record that, 37% of US respondents and 36% of UK respondents, when asked if giving money to the poor is a good way to tackle poverty, said that it was the right choice. This compared to 29% of French respondents. The French are primarily Catholic in cultural heritage, where as both the US and UK are predominantly protestant culturally.
When asked if individuals should donate their personal wealth to aid developing countries, 22% of both US and UK citizens said that this approach was the best, compared to 16% in France.
48% of French people asked, believed it was not their responsibility to pay for the poor, at home or abroad, while only 42% of Americans thought the same.
It's would seem that a number of studies bare out that your statement is incorrect.
@@toffeecrisp2146 France is the most secular country in the world and catholicism is the largest religious denomination in the United States so those statistics don't mean what you imply. There is no protestant version of the st Vincent de Paul society. Instead, protestants have Calvinism which sacralized wealth and the so-called prosperity gospel.
@@nicholasm7822 France has historically been one of the most Catholic countries in the world. While it may be politically secular, it is culturally Catholic. The culture of France, along with attitudes towards charity, have been shaped by Catholic concepts of morality.
As for the US. As of 2020, around 40% of the population is Protestant, to the 21% that identify as Catholic.
When your wrong about something, it's usually beneficial to acknowledge your error, rather than double down with lies and misdirection. It seems however, that you demonstrate behaviours that are denounced in all branches of Christianity, such as pride, envy and I'd venture to say wrath aswell since you have a bee in your bonnet, about protestantism.
You do realise that the various branches of Christianity made peace decades ago and it's only in backwards sectarian states and communities, that such rivalries persist?
can some one please ask this guy to change his presentation style. good for putting you to sleep but not to listen to and educate oneself.....................
David Collier cool well ask him to add colorful pictures of cartoons and add cool music in the background just for "adults" like you.
Sajid, This is not really your scene, is it?? You will not find many. to agree with you.
You are wrong; his oratory is quite good.
It seems that having an illustrious career at Oxford does not make one immune from weak arguments. I doubt that if the Arians had won, the western churches would have taken the same route as the Orthodox. Orthodoxy was dominated by one power - the emperor. After the fall of Constantinople, much of Orthodoxy was imprisoned in Muslim controlled territories, while the Russian church was dominated by the Third Rome, and the Tsar (a Russified version of Caesar) - this froze Orthodoxy theologically and ritually like a paelolithic fly caught in amber. A Western Christianity based on Arianism would have resembled the Church of England - all over the map theologically and in terms of ritual practices - and controlled by each state. Methinks Prof. MacCulloch is somewhat anti-Catholic....
What an odd analogy... how does a Paleolithic fly get trapped in amber?
@@tripp8833 that deals succinctly with my comments.
@Caroline C He's an historian and one at the top of the profession and should be at least objective. But i watched this so long ago, I wonder if I would still react the same way? BTW, he was raised Anglican and even considered holy orders, but describes himself now as a friendly outside observer
@@notlimey he's a homosexual
Islam won with the eastern Roman Empire because of the pure monotheism that they believed for centuries from the apostles and later from the arians. Eventually, Islam will win in the West for the same reason and because the religion better preserves morality than the modern political tradition.
I was interested until Arians were described as those who "refused to sign on to the deal steamrolled through at the Council of Nicea." Adolescent style of trying to curry favor with a pomo audience.
I have no idea what that means.
Well, it revealed your monomaniacal mind.
Allah says
They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
Quran
why are these things, that were well known to the church history literate for centuries, always presented as conspiracies. Perhaps the Arians were just wrong. Thank God for Europe's sake that the single and correct faith prevailed. It is exactly why Europe survived the onslaught of Islam and became what it is the greatest blessing to mankind. It gave us the modern world.
It is unlikely we would have had Islam had the Arians won. The raison d'etre of Islam is anti-trinitarianism.
@@enricoindiogine868 That same raison d'etre that both the Arians and Islam shared would have resulted in great peace between Europe and the Middle East. This means no Crusade would have needed to happen, and no Andalusia.
@@enricoindiogine868 I think Islam would still exist. They would be much more friendly to Christians, but contrary to Christians, they would still keep much more things of the torah (like forbidden pork meat), and believe Muhammad's final message
The onslaught was done by the Catholic Church,Europe became modern when they got rid of this Church,Catholics delayed Europe renaissance by 1000years!!!
Perhaps, I'll be able to fully watch the video, but in the meantime here is my view- as a fellow believer in the Son of God, as my brother Arius believed.
If Arianism had won, then there would have been no wars or senseless persecution and murder of so-called heretics because we would have abided by the commandment to not kill anyone, living as pacifists in the manner of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Stephen, reformed Paul, and the other holy disciples.
Arianism claims that there is ONE Father (an invisible, masculine Spirit, that is everywhere and whom no man has heard His voice or stood in His presence) and ONE Son (God's first creation, the Word of God, an unnamed angel through which we were all made; made into a human to die for our sins and conquer Death so we may all become holy again), that the Father is greater than the Son, that the Son is both human and divine (given he was once an angel made into a human prophet), that the Son will call the dead to rise and rule New Earth for a millennium before relinquishing the Kingdom and his power back to the Father.
Abraham and Isaac are the perfect example of the Father and His Son. The Servant who procured Rebekah is the perfect example of the Holy Ghost, a servant owned by both Father and Son and sent out on the son's behalf to secure his wife. Rebekah represents Christ's Bride: the Church. The Covenant between God and the Children of Israel was a marriage between the Father and the Old Testament Congregation, Samaria was a mistress like Hagar. Abraham has surely become like a Father to the believers because of his example. Arius (and others like him) understood this. Trinitarians and Modalists have no scriptural basis or context for their beliefs yet have co-opted Christ's name, rehashing and syncretizing pagan and antichristian doctrine.
Trinitarians (Catholics and Protesting Catholics) killed and persecuted Arians who did not believe in violence and murder, claiming they were heretics. So-called Oneness Modalists (Islam and Pentecostals) are also responsible for much bloodshed and deceit.
But, what can we say? Arianism is always attacked, as it should be, for this is what happened to Jesus, Stephen, Paul, John, Justin Martyr, Arius, Eusebius, and many more who believed the same thing. When have Trinitarians or Modalists ever been persecuted, tortured, murdered, or forced into exile?
These false teachers may have their reign on Earth now, for they operate under Satan (the god of this world). However, when Jesus returns and ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth all who believed these heresies will have to pay for their lies and denial of the truth.
Trinitarians have tortured and persecuted each others though, in the Reformation, Counter-Reformation and the 30 years war. Trinitarians get really cross when you disagree with any aspect of their doctrine!
@@MGHarris Yes, trinitarians turn on each other. However, we still know of their religion. Catholics and Protesting Catholics have a working agreement and most of their bloodshed of each other was based on greed- not necessarily religious doctrine.
Meanwhile, Arianism has virtually been wiped out and erased from history altogether. In fact, Arianism is still considered a heresy by both Catholics and Protestants alike. Most people know who the pope is, who King Henry VIII, and Martin Luther were, but who can tell you of Arius or those who believed like him.
Do people know that members of the Free Bible Student Associations were persecuted, tortured, and killed in the holocaust, along with the Jehovah's Witnesses- believers of Arianism? Or that these people were killed and persecuted during the Cold War? That both groups believe in the Father and the Son. While both may have originally come from the Watchtower Society, the Free Bible Student Associations do not believe in false prophecy or in much of the JWs' doctrine. However, no one hardly knows who they are. If that's not a holocaust, then I don't know what is.
Ms. Maya Gaines - in response to your 3rd paragraph, God's son (Jesus) was begotten, not created; otherwise, nicely stated article!
@@lb6110 Begotten literally means created. lol
@@MsMayaxo I thank you for bringing up these facts about the persecutions.
The reason why Arianism had lost in the first place was that it was not Orthodox! The Majority of the Bishops and Christians had always believed that Jesus was God. Because He is God therefore all the attributes of God was in him since eternity! This is the majority view of the whole Christendom.
Well I just like alternate-histories and religions in general so I find this and interesting scenario.
Arians didn't lose they accepted a similar faith(Islam),it's European Arians who lost