After WWII ended in 1945, victorious Russian and American intelligence teams began a treasure hunt throughout occupied Germany for military and scientific booty. They were looking for things like new rocket and aircraft designs, medicines, and electronics. But they were also hunting down the most precious “spoils” of all: the scientists whose work had nearly won the war for Germany. The engineers and intelligence officers of the Nazi War Machine.
The U.S. Military rounded up Nazi scientists and brought them to America. It had originally intended merely to debrief them and send them back to Germany. But when it realized the extent of the scientists knowledge and expertise, the War Department decided it would be a waste to send the scientists home. Following the discovery of flying discs (foo fighters), particle/laser beam weaponry in German military bases, the War Department decided that NASA and the CIA must control this technology, and the Nazi engineers that had worked on this technology.
There was only one problem: it was illegal. U.S. law explicitly prohibited Nazi officials from immigrating to America–and as many as three-quarters of the scientists in question had been committed Nazis.
Data-Points:
Convinced that German scientists could help America’s postwar efforts, President Harry Truman agreed in September 1946 to authorize “Project Paperclip,” a program to bring selected German scientists to work on America’s behalf during the “Cold War“
However, Truman expressly excluded anyone found “to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Naziism or militarism.”
The War Department’s Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) conducted background investigations of the scientists. In February 1947, JIOA Director Bosquet Wev submitted the first set of scientists’ dossiers to the State and Justice Departments for review.
The Dossiers were damning. Samauel Klaus, the State Departments representative on the JIOA board, claimed that all the scientists in this first batch were “ardent Nazis.” Their visa requests were denied.
Wev was furious. He wrote a memo warning that “the best interests of the United States have been subjugated to the efforts expended in ‘beating a dead Nazi horse.’” He also declared that the return of these scientists to Germany, where they could be exploited by America’s enemies, presented a “far greater security threat to this country than any former Nazi affiliations which they may have had or even any Nazi sympathies that they may still have.”
When the JIOA formed to investigate the backgrounds and form dossiers on the Nazis, the Nazi Intelligence leader Reinhard Gehlen met with the CIA director Allen Dulles. Dulles and Gehlen hit it off immediatly. Gehlen was a master spy for the Nazis and had infiltrated Russia with his vast Nazi Intelligence network. Dulles promised Gehlen that his Intelligence unit was safe in the CIA.
Apparently, Wev decided to sidestep the problem. Dulles had the scientists dossier’s re-written to eliminate incriminating evidence. As promised, Allen Dulles delivered the Nazi Intelligence unit to the CIA, which later opened many umbrella projects stemming from Nazi mad research. (MK-ULTRA / ARTICHOKE, OPERATION MIDNIGHT CLIMAX)
Military Intelligence “cleansed” the files of Nazi references. By 1955, more than 760 German scientists had been granted citizenship in the U.S. and given prominent positions in the American scientific community. Many had been longtime members of the Nazi party and the Gestapo, had conducted experiments on humans at concentration camps, had used slave labor, and had committed other war crimes.
In a 1985 expose in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Linda Hunt wrote that she had examined more than 130 reports on Project Paperclip subjects–and every one “had been changed to eliminate the security threat classification.”
President Truman, who had explicitly ordered no committed Nazis to be admitted under Project Paperclip, was evidently never aware that his directive had been violated. State Department archives and the memoirs of officials from that era confirm this. In fact, according to Clare[nce] Lasby’s book [Project] Paperclip, project officials “covered their designs with such secrecy that it bedeviled their own President; at Potsdam he denied their activities and undoubtedly enhanced Russian suspicion and distrust,” quite possibly fueling the Cold War even further.
A good example of how these dossiers were changed is the case of Wernher von Braun. A September 18, 1947, report on the German rocket scientist stated, “Subject is regarded as a potential security threat by the Military Governor.”
The following February, a new security evaluation of Von Braun said, “No derogatory information is available on the subject…It is the opinion of the Military Governor that he may not constitute a security threat to the United States.”
Here are a few of the 700 suspicious characters who were allowed to immigrate through Project Paperclip.
ARTHUR RUDOLPH
During the war, Rudolph was operations director of the Mittelwerk factory at the Dora-Nordhausen concentration camps, where 20,000 workers died from beatings, hangings, and starvation. Rudolph had been a member of the Nazi party since 1931; a 1945 military file on him said simply: “100% Nazi, dangerous type, security threat..!! Suggest internment.”
But the JIOA’s final dossier on him said there was “nothing in his records indicating that he was a war criminal or and ardent Nazi or otherwise objectionable.” Rudolph became a US citizen and later designed the Saturn 5 rocket used in the Apollo moon landings. In 1984, when his war record was finally investigated, he fled to West Germany.
From 1937 to 1945, von Braun was the technical director of the Peenemunde rocket research center, where the V-2 rocket –which devastated England–was developed. As noted previously, his dossier was rewritten so he didn’t appear to have been an enthusiastic Nazi.
Von Braun worked on guided missiles for the U.S. Army and was later director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He became a celebrity in the 1950s and early 1960s, as one of Walt Disney’s experts on the “World of Tomorrow.” In 1970, he became NASA’s associate administrator.
KURT BLOME
A high-ranking Nazi scientist, Blome told U.S. military interrogators in 1945 that he had been ordered 1943 to experiment with plague vaccines on concentration camp prisoners. He was tried at Nuremberg in 1947 on charges of practicing euthanasia (extermination of sick prisoners), and conducting experiments on humans. Although acquitted, his earlier admissions were well known, and it was generally accepted that he had indeed participated in the gruesome experiments.
Two months after his Nuremberg acquittal, Blome was interviewed at Camp David, Maryland, about biological warfare. In 1951, he was hired by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps to work on chemical warfare. His file neglected to mention Nuremberg.
MAJOR GENERAL WALTER SCHREIBER
According to Linda Hunt’s article, the US military tribunal at Nuremberg heard evidence that “Schreiber had assigned doctors to experiment on concentration camp prisoners and had made funds available for such experimentation.” The assistant prosecutor said the evidence would have convicted Schreiber if the Soviets, who held him from 1945 to 1948, had made him available for trial.
Again, Schreiber’s Paperclip file made no mention of this evidence; the project found work for him at the Air Force School of Medicine at Randolph Field in Texas. When columnist Drew Pearson publicized the Nuremberg evidence in 1952, the negative publicity led the JIOA, says Hunt, to arrange “a visa and a job for Schreiber in Argentina, where his daughter was living.” On May 22, 1952, he was flown to Buenos Aires.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSING and SIEGFRIED RUFF
These two, along with Blome, were among the 23 defendants in the Nuremberg War Trials “Medical Case.” Becker-Freysing was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for conducting experiments on Dachau inmates, such as starving them, then force-feeding them sea water that had been chemically altered to make it drinkable. Ruff was acquitted (in a close decision) on charges that he had killed as many as 80 Dachau inmates in a low-pressure chamber designed to simulate altitudes in excess of 60,000 feet. Before their trial, Becker-Freysing and Ruff were paid by the Army Air Force to write reports about their grotesque experiments.
GENERAL REINHARD GEHLEN
It was five years after the end of WWII but one of Hitler’s chief intelligence officers was still on the job. From a walled-in compound in Bavaria, General Reinhard Gehlen oversaw a vast network of intelligence agents spying on Russia. His top aides were Nazi zealots who had committed some of the most notorious crimes of the war. Gehlen and his SS united were hired, and swiftly became agents of the CIA when they revealed their massive records on the Soviet Union to the US.
Gehlen derived much of his information from his role in one of the most terrible atrocities of the war: the torture, interrogation and murder by starvation of some four million Soviet prisoners. Prisoners who refused to cooperate were often tortured or summarily executed. May were executed even after they had given information, while others were simply left to starve to death. As a result, Gehlend and members of his organization maneuvered to make sure they were captured by advancing American troops rather than Russians, who would have executed them immediatly.
Two months before Germany surrendered in 1945, the Gehlen organization made its move. “Gehlen and a small group of his most senior officers carefully microfilmed the vast holding on the USSR in the military section of the German army’s general staff. They packed the film in watertight steel drums and secretly buried it in a remote mountain meadow scattered throughout the Austrian Alps.
General William Donovan and Allen Dulles of the CIA were tipped off about Gehlen’s surrender and his offer of Russian intelligence in exchange for a job. The CIA was soon jockeying with military intelligence for authority over Gehlen’s microfilmed records–and control of the German spymaster. Dulles arranged for a private intelligence facility in West Germany to be established, and named it the Geheln Organization. Gehlen promised not to hire any former SS, SD, or Gestapo members; he hired them anyway, and the CIA did not stop him. Two of Gehlen’s early recruits were Emil Augsburg and Dr. Franz Six, who had been part of mobile killing squads, which killed Jews, intellectuals, and Soviet partisans wherever they found them. Other early recruits included Willi Krichbaum, senior Gestapo leader for southeastern Europe, and the Gestapo chiefs of Paris and Kiel, Germany.
With the encouragement of the CIA, Gehlen Org (Licio Gelli) set up “rat lines” to get Nazi war criminals out of Europe so they wouldn’t be prosecuted. By setting up transit camps and issuing phony passports, the Gehlen Org helped more than 5,000 Nazis leave Europe and relocate around the world, especially in South and Central America. There, mass murderers like Klaus Barbie (the butcher of Lyons) helped governments set up death squads in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and elsewhere.
KLAUS BARBIE
Known as the Nazi butcher of Lyons, France during World War II, Barbie was part of the SS which was responsible for the and death of thousands of French people under the Germany occupation.
HEINRICH RUPP
Some of Rupp’s best work was done for the CIA, after he was imported in Operation Paperclip. Rupp has been convicted of bank fraud. He was an operative for the CIA and is deeply involved in the Savings and Loan scandals. A federal jury has indicated they believe testimony that Rupp, the late CIA Director William Casey – then Reagan’s campaign manager, and Donald Gregg, now U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, flew with George Bush to Paris in 1980, during the election in which Bush was on the ticket with Ronald Reagan. The testimony states that three meetings were held on October 19 and 20 at the Hotel Florida and Hotel Crillion. The subject? According to the court testimony, the meetings were to sabotage President Jimmy Carter’s reelection campaign by delaying the release of American hostages in Iran. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, right after Reagan and Bush were sworn into office. Iran was promised return of its frozen assets in the United States and the foundation for the Iran- Contra deal was set into motion.
LICIO GELLI
Head of a 2400 member secret Masonic Lodge, P2, a neo-fascist organization, in Italy that catered to only the elite, Gelli had high connections in the Vatican, even though he was not a Catholic. P2′s membership is totally secret and not even available to its Mother Lodge in England. Gelli was responsible for providing Argentina with the Exocet missile. He was a double agent for the CIA and the KGB. He assisted many former Nazi high officials in their escape from Europe to Central America. He had close ties with the Italian Mafia. Gelli was a close associate of Benito Mussolini. He was also closely affiliated with Roberto Calvi, head of the scandal-ridden Vatican Bank. Calvi was murdered. Gelli’s secret lodge consisted of extremely important people, including armed forces commanders, secret service chiefs, head of Italy’s financial police, 30 generals, eight admirals, newspaper editors, television and top business executives and key bankers – including Calvi. Licio Gelli and others in P2 were behind the assasination of Pope John Paul I.
The central figure in Europe and South America that linked the CIA, Masonic Lodge, Vatican, ex-Nazis and several South American governments, the Italian government and several international banks was Licio Gelli. He, with Klaus Barbie and Heinrich Rupp, met with Ronald R. Rewald in Uruguay to arrange for the Argentine purchase of the French-made Exocet missile, used in the Falkland Island attack to kill british soldiers.
Who is Gelli and why was he so important?
To understand Gelli, one must understand the complex post war years of Europe. The biggest threat to Europe in pre-war times was Communism – it was the great fear of Communism that gave birth to the Fascists and the Nazis. Though both sides were dreaded, the Fascists represented right-wing government, while the Communist represent left-wing government. It was the right-wing that the United States and the Catholic Church desired over Communism – because Communism would destroy the capitalistic system. This is why the CIA and the Vatican had go through with Operation Paperclip. The Nazis had massive amounts of Soviet intelligence, had infiltrated Communist partisans, and were in no way going to be given up to the Soviet Union.
Gelli worked both sides. He helped to found the Red Brigade, spied on Communist partisans and worked for the Nazis at the same time, a double agent. He helped establish the Rat Line, which assisted the flight of high ranking Nazi officials from Europe to South America, with passports supplied by the Vatican and with the full acknowledgment and blessing of the United States intelligence community. While on one hand, the U.S. participated in the war crime tribunals of key Nazi officials and maintained an alliance with the Communist Soviet Union, secretly, the U.S. was preparing for the cold war and needed the help of Nazis in the eventual struggle the U.S. would have with the Soviet Union. Gelli’s agreement with U.S. intelligence to spy on the Communists after the war was instrumental in saving his life. He was responsible for the murder and torture of hundreds of Yugoslavian partisans.
The Vatican provided support to Nazis and Fascists because the Communists were the real threat to the Church’s survival. The Italian Communists would have taxed the Church’s vast holdings and the Church has had a dismal experience with Communist governments throughout the world – where religious freedom was stamped out.
Gelli was well connected with the Vatican from the days of the Rat Line and he worked for American intelligence, as well. Gelli formed the P-2 Masonic Lodge-which did not follow the direction of any Grand Lodge-and it was supplied with a sum of $10 million a month by the CIA. Its membership was a Who’s Who in the intelligence, military and Italian community. So prominent was Gelli’s influence, that he was even a guest of honor at the 1981 inauguration of President Ronald Reagan.
Gelli used blackmail in order to gain prominent members of his P-2 lodge, its membership is estimated at 2400 members, including 300 of the most powerful men in the Western World.. He was a close friend of Pope Paul VI, Juan Peron of Argentina, Libyan Dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi, and many high officials in the Italian and American governments – he is also reported to have had some financial dealings with the George Bush for President campaign.
Gelli and his P-2 lodge had staggering connections to banking, intelligence and diplomatic passports. The CIA poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Italy in the form of secret subsidies for political parties, labor unions and communications businesses. At the same time the Agency continued its relationship with far- right and violent elements as a back-up should a coup be needed to oust a possible Communist government. This covert financing was exposed by the Prime Minister of Italy in a speech to Parliament. He indicates that more than 600 people in Italy still remain on the payroll of the CIA. Licio Gelli was an ardent Nazi and a perfect asset of the CIA. As part of Reinhard Gehlen’s intelligence team, he had excellent contacts. Licio was the go between for the CIA and the Vatican through his P2 Lodge.
Project Paperclip was stopped in 1957, when West Germany protested to the U.S. that these efforts had stripped it of “scientific skills.” There was no comment about supporting Nazis. Paperclip may have ended in 1957, but as you can see from Licio Gelli and his international dealings with the CIA in Italy/P2, and Heinrich Rupp with his involvement in October Surprise, the ramifications of Paperclip are world-wide. The Nazis became employed CIA agents, engaging in clandestine work with the likes of George Bush, the CIA, Henry Kissinger, and the Masonic P2 lodge. This is but one of the results of Operation Paperclip. Another umbrella project that was spawned from Paperclip was MK-ULTRA.
A secret laboratory was established and funded by CIA director, Allen Dulles in Montreal, Canada at McGill University in the Allen Memorial Institute headed by psychiatrist Dr. Ewen Cameron. For the next several years Dr. Ewen Cameron waged his private war in Canada. What is ironic about Dr. Cameron is that he served as a member of the Nuremberg tribunal who heard the cases against the Nazi doctors.
When it was at its height in drug experiments, operation MK-ULTRA was formed. This was the brainchild of Richard Helms who later came to be a CIA director. It was designed to defeat the “enemy” in its brain-washing techniques. MK-ULTRA had another arm involved in Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) known as MK-DELTA. The “doctors” who participated in these experiments used some of the same techniques as the Nazi “doctors”. Techniques used by Dr. Cameron and previous Nazi scientists include electro shock, sleep deprivation, memory implantation, memory erasure, sensory modification, psychoactive drug experiments, and many more cruel practices.
Project Paperclip brought us MK-ULTRA. Paperclip ultimately brought in key players involved in the Assassination of Pope 1, October Surprise (sabotage of Carter’s peace talks), and a great many other things still classified to this day. The results of Project Paperclip were devastating, and very far reaching. I guess that is what you would expect from collaborating with Nazis.
This research shows that the OSS/CIA that was formed in the National Security Act, the same agency that employed hundreds of Nazis, has been in alliance with the Vatican through various Agency connections such as Licio Gelli. The CIA/Vatican alliance that Assassinated Pope John Paul 1, JFK, and hundreds of dictators of 3rd world countries is the Illuminati.
The Bavarian Illuminati has been around for centuries in one way or another. It’s presence in the 20th century is the direct result of the Nazis. The Nazi connections to the occult and the Bavarian Thule Society were parallel to the American members of 33rd degree Freemasonry. When the Operation Paperclip was successfully executed, the Nazi element of the Bavarian Thule society was fused with the American members of Freemasonry to create the Illuminati.
Operation Paperclip, MK-ULTRA, October Surprise, and George Bush are all facets of the Illuminati, a group whose ideals are rooted in the occult, and dedicated to world domination.
Soon after the American Revolution, John Robinson, a professor of rural philosophy at Edinburgh University in Scotland and member of a Freemason lodge, said that he was asked to join the Illuminati. After studying the group, he concluded that the purposes of the Illuminati were not compatible with his beliefs.
“An association has been formed for the express purpose of rooting out all the religious establishments and overturning all the existing governments…. The leaders would rule the World with uncontrollable power, while all the rest would be employed as tools of the ambition of their unknown superiors.”
The CIA and the Vatican have rooted out all the religious establishments in the world. The CIA has overthrown and set up dictators under their control all over the world. The CIA and the Vatican have fulfilled the purpose of the Illuminati. The CIA and the Vatican are the Illuminati.
Dossier Compiled by Agent Orange (Fri, 08 Aug 1997)
Police in India’s capital New Delhi have used tear gas and water cannons on people demonstrating in the wake of a brutal gang rape of a female student on a bus last weekend.
Some female protesters were injured after the police charged them when they tried to approach a key federal government building near the India Gate monument in the heart of the capital on Saturday.
Many of the protesters clashed with the police, pelting stones at them, local network NDTV reported.
On Sunday, police imposed orders prohibiting public assembly in the area, calling on protesters to demonstrate at alternate locations.
“Security has been tightened in the heart of New Delhi, with police in riot gear in every area of possible demonstration. Section 144, a criminal code that prohibits assembly of more than five people, has been imposed. The situation turned quite ugly on Saturday, after protesters clashed with police, and the police retaliated with water cannon and tear gas,” reported Al Jazeera’s Subina Shrestha from New Delhi.
The gang rape in New Delhi has sparked
public outrage across India [AFP]
Television footage of Saturday’s clashes showed several hundred protesters shouting, “We want justice”, as police struggled to stop the crowd from smashing flower pots and other symbols of the capital’s beautification drive.
The gang rape in New Delhi has sparked public outrage across India, bringing thousands of people onto city streets. Marches, demonstrations and candlelight vigils have spread during the last week.
A silent march was also organised in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad on Saturday.
In the northeastern state of Assam, hundreds of women and girls marched through the city of Guwahati, carrying placards and shouting “Hang Rapists” and “Stop Violence Against Women“.
On Friday, hundreds of students and activists blockaded roads in New Delhi and marched to the president’s palace, breaking through police barricades, despite the use of water cannons, to demand better safety across the country.
Last week’s case – covered intensively by TV news networks – provoked uproar in parliament earlier this week, prompting the authorities to announce measures to make the capital safer for women.
These include increased policing and fast-tracking court hearings for rape.
Stricter policing
The Indian government vowed on Friday to press for life sentences for her six attackers and promised stricter policing.
RK Singh, the home secretary, said the government would pay the medical bills of the 23-year-old victim, who is fighting for her life after suffering serious injuries to her intestines in the attack on Sunday night.
Six drunken men were joyriding on a bus when they picked up the physiotherapy student and her 28-year-old male companion and took turns raping her. Afterwards, they threw the pair off the speeding vehicle.
Police say the woman was attacked with an iron rod after being raped.
The public verbal and physical sexual harassment of women, known as “Eve-teasing“, is routine in New Delhi, which has come to be known as India’s “rape capital”.
New Delhi, home to about 16 million people, has the highest number of sex crimes among India’s cities.
Police figures show rape is reported on average every 18 hours and some other form of sexual attack every 14 hours in the capital.
Five of the suspects were arrested soon after the crime and a sixth was caught on Friday, the Press Trust of India reported.
Ranjana Kumari, the director of the Centre for Social Research, told Al Jazeera that activists wanted quick dispensation of justice in the case, but also changes in the way that police deal with such cases.
“We want more effective policing. We want police to be gender-sensitised so that a woman after being sexually assaulted or [being the victim of] any sexual crime, when she walks into the police station, the police must not start blaminig her,” she said.
You’re on a journey. The journey is life. The destination is Paradise or Hell. The path you take on your journey will determine your destination. The length of your journey is not fixed; it will vary for each individual with some arriving at their destination in their youth whereas other will reach old age before they arrive. Yet one thing for certain is that everyone WILL arrive at their destination.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said;
”What have I got to do with the material world. The example of the material world and I is that of a traveller. Travelling in the afternoon heat, he stopped to rest under the shade of a tree for some moments. Then, he rose and left it.”- (Ahmad, Tirmidhi. The hadith is Hasan.)Ibn Umar narrates: one day I was with the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) He then turned to me, held my shoulders with both of his blessed hands, and said:“”Be in this life as if you were a stranger or a traveller on a path.””And whenever Ibn Umar narrated this to his disciples he would add:“If you reach the evening, do not await (to be alive) by dawn, And if you reach dawn, do not await (to be alive) by evening. Take advantage of your Health before you fall sick. And take advantage of your life, before you die” (Bukhari)
Every day that goes by, you get nearer to your destination. Some people have understood – spending every minute preparing with the best of provisions. However many are ignorant and heedless and take with them only that which will burden them.
Ali (Radi Allah Anhu) once stood at the head of a grave and said to his companion,
“If he had a chance to return to this life, what do you think he would do?” His companion replied, “He would do nothing but good deeds.” Ali (Radi Allah Anhu) then said, “If it is not going to be him, then let it be you.”
Al Fudayl ibn Iyaadh (Radi Allah Anhu) once sat with a senior and asked him,
How old are you? The man replied, 60 years old.
Did you know, said Al Fudayl, that for 60 years you have been travelling towards your Lord, and that you have almost arrived. The man was reduced to silence.
He whispered, “Inna lillaahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raajioon” (To Allah we belong and to Him we return).
Al Fudayl asked, Do you know the meaning of that statement. You are saying that you are Allah’s slave and that to Him you are returning. Whoever knows that he is the slave of Allah, and that to Him he shall return, should know that he shall be stopped on the day of judgement. And whoever knows that he will be stopped, let him also know that he will be responsible for what he did in life. And whoever knows that he will be responsible for what he did, let him know that he will be questioned. And whoever knows that he will be questioned, let him prepare an answer now!
What then shall I do? asked the man.
It is simple, said Al Fudayl. Do good in what is left of your life, forgiven shall be your past. If not, you shall be taken to account for the past and what is to come.
Ibn Abbas (Radi Allah Anhu) heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) advising someone saying,
“Take advantage of five before five: Your youth before your old age, your health before your sickness, your wealth before your poverty, your free time before you become occupied, and your life before your death.”
What will our destination be?
Let us prepare while we are on the journey before we arrive and there is no turning back.
Anti-Trinitarians falsely portray Constantine as a pagan sun worshipper who had no faith in Christ and was practically the sole author of the Nicene creed. They paint the Nicene council as being run by a pagan with “no understanding” of Christian doctrine and then imply that Constantine drafted the final Nicene text and used his power to banish only those who opposed. These are all lies and deliberate misrepresentations of history!
In this document:
Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old TestamentKing of Judah Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian. Constantine’s had a good knowledge of Doctrine Where did the key Nicene term “homoousios” (of one substance) come from? Ossius‘ influence on Constantine Opposition to the Nicene creed Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther Constantine’s role as a Godly peacemaker Constantine’s impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius Constantius (Constantine’s son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.
Lies vs. Facts on the life of Constantine:
How Anti-trinitarians misrepresent facts of history
True facts of history
Constantine was a pagan who worshipped the sun until just before he died.
The fact is that Constantine stopped worshipping the sun at his conversion many years before Nicea.
Constantine’s anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah. He took major steps to rid his land of paganism.
Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was nothing more than a political move and was not genuine as evidenced by the fact he was not baptized until just before his death.
The facts of Constantine’s life refute this silly unscholarly notion. His anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah.
It was the practice of the day to delay one’s baptism until just before death. In other words, it was typical of Christianity of the day, to do what Constantine did. He was the norm, not the exception.
Constantine had no knowledge of Christian doctrine.
Constantine was personally involved in the “Donatus” controversy in 313 AD, 12 years before Nicea! The council of Nicea was Constantine’s, second major involvement in doctrinal disputes.
Constantine was preaching sermons on a regular basis.
We know for a fact, from letters Constantine wrote to “imperial officials and to Christian clergy” that he had open and clear views of Christian doctrine of good general knowledge.
Constantine, (a pagan sun worshipper who knew nothing about Christian Doctrine) was the author of the Nicene creed.
This is the impression anti-Trinitarians leave in the mind of readers.
Although Constantine did put forth the Nicene creed term “homoousios” (of one substance), it is universally recognized that Ossius (a bishop and Constantine’s spiritual adviser) was the one who told Constantine to suggest the term be in the creed.
Anti-Trinitarians irresponsibly portray Constantine as a faithless sun-god pagan idol worshipper with no understanding of Christianity who single-handedly introduces trinity to Christianity from the pagans and is almost the author of the Nicene creed.
Constantine was introduced to the trinity debates which existed before he became emperor.
To suggest that Constantine introduced trinity doctrine from pagan sources is as preposterous as it is false.
The majority opposed the Nicene creed because they viewed Jesus as a creature, not God.
We will grant, for argument sake that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. But the opposition was over the use of specific words that could be misunderstood, not the deity of Christ. (Even though the deity of Christ was the main purpose of the council)
The opposition was also from those who “misunderstood” what the creed was saying. In other words, they felt the creed could lend support to Sabellianism (modalism, as taught today by the United Pentecostal church UPCI) of which they were equally opposed, when in fact it did not! But again, although opposed to the creed, did not view Jesus as a creature.
You will notice that only a few bishops from the west (Ossius: Alexandrian party) were present and most of the bishops were from the east (Oregonian theology), but neither viewed Jesus as a creature! In addition to this there were a small number aligned with Arius who openly stated Jesus was a creature!
The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius! The “majority who disliked” firmly believed that Jesus was God, they didn’t like the Greek terms used to describe Jesus deity, not that they rejected the deity itself!
When Frend says “The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position” he tells us what that position is: “The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them “Semi-Arian.” In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church”
“The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of ‘consubstantial’ at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius’ contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing.” (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Constantine favoured Athanasius over Arius in the Nicene council.
The fact that Athanasius, who was in agreement with the creed, was personally banished by Constantine, should dispel that notion.
Constantine was quite impartial, but wanted peace. He was a peacemaker!
Even if this was true, Constantine’s son showed “equal bias” towards Arius for 50 years, yet in the end, Arius was refuted!
Detailed documentation:
When Constantine came upon the temple mount in Jerusalem, he destroyed the temple of Jupiter that had been built in 135 AD by Hadrian. In building the “Church of the Holy Sepulchre” in 325 AD, Eusebius records how Constantine even removed the soil on the site and dumped it far away. Hadrian had built a temple to Venus on the site and Constantine destroyed and removed every trace of this pagan idolatry. This evidence proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses deliberately misrepresent Constantine as a pagan. Eusebius wrote in 325 AD: “How Constantine Commanded the Materials of the Idol Temple, and the Soil Itself, to Be Removed at a Distance: Nor did the emperor’s zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place.” (Eusebius , The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, book 3, ch 27)
Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah
It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on Constantine’s coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive “Unconquered Sun” had been eliminated within little over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Nor was the visit to Rome a success. Constantine’s refusal to take part in a pagan procession offended the Romans; and when he left after a short visit, it was never to return. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
the accusation that his [Constantine's] generosity was only made possible by his looting of the treasures of the pagan temples (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
He showed marked favour to Christians, thereby causing a flood of interested conversions. At the same time his attitude to his pagan subjects became more severe. Shortly after his victory over Licinius be issued an edict urging all his subjects to adopt the Christian faith, but at the same time he confirmed his policy of toleration to paganism (although in contemptuous language) and forbade overzealous Christians to disturb the pagan cult. He nevertheless destroyed three famous temples, at Aegae in Cilicia and at Apheca and Heliopolis in Phoenicia, and in 331 confiscated all the temple treasures, even stripping the cult statues of their gold; he probably also seized the temple endowments. Before the end of his reign he may even have banned sacrifice.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith
Assessment. The reign of Constantine must be interpreted against the background of his clear and unambiguous personal commitment to Christianity. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Such pronouncements, expressed in letters to imperial officials and to Christian clergy, make untenable the view that Constantine’s religious attitudes were even in these early years either veiled, confused, or compromised. Openly expressed, his attitudes show a clear commitment. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on Constantine’s coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive “Unconquered Sun” had been eliminated within little over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Constantine the Great: later in life he was in the habit of delivering edifying sermons … It is even possible that members of Constantine’s family were Christians. Constantine himself was said to have converted his mother … Throughout his life, Constantine ascribed his success to his conversion to Christianity and the support of the Christian God. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Yet to suggest that Constantine’s conversion was “politically motivated” means little in an age in which every Greek or Roman expected that political success followed from religious piety. … What is far more remarkable is Constantine’s subsequent development of his new religious allegiance to a quite extreme personal commitment. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Commitment to Christianity. … As he said in a letter of, 313 to the proconsul of Africa, the Christian clergy should not be distracted by secular offices from their religious duties ” … Constantine’s personal “theology” emerges with particular clarity from a remarkable series of letters, extending from 313 to the early 320s, concerning the Donatist schism in North Africa. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
The reasons for Constantine’s conversion to Christianity have been much debated. Some believe that it was an astute stroke of policy, designed to win the support of the Christians, or a wise act of statesmanship aimed at buttressing the decaying fabric of the empire with the strength of the Christian church. Neither view is very likely (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Nor was the visit to Rome a success. Constantine’s refusal to take part in a pagan procession offended the Romans; and when he left after a short visit, it was never to return. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
The Emperor was always an earnest student of his religion and spent hours discussing it with bishops. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
He composed a special prayer for his troops and went on campaign equipped with a mobile chapel in a tent. He issued numerous laws relating to Christian practice and susceptibilities: for instance, abolishing the penalty of crucifixion and the practice of branding certain criminals, “so as not to disfigure the human face, which is formed in the image of divine beauty”; enjoining the observance of Sunday and saints’ days; extending privileges to the clergy while suppressing at least some of the more offensive pagan practices. Constantine had hoped to be baptized in the River Jordan, but perhaps because of the lack of opportunity to do so together no doubt with the reflection that his office necessarily involved responsibility for actions hardly compatible with the baptized state delayed the ceremony until the end of his life. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
During the decade following his conversion Constantine’s legislation shows many signs of Christian influence. For example, he repealed the legislation of Augustus that penalized celibates, legalized bequests to the church and gave full validity to manumission performed in a church. He even gave powers of jurisdiction to bishops, allowing either party to transfer a suit to the cognizance of a bishop, whose verdict should be final and executed by the civil authority. He also made Sunday a public holiday according to Christian practice (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Yet this was less an expression of religious megalomania than of Constantine’s literal conviction that he was, in a quite precise sense, the successor of the evangelists, having devoted his life and office to the spreading of Christianity. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
In later years, he wrote to Eusebius to commission new copies of the Bible for the use of the growing congregations at Constantinople. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
It was his [Constantine's] personal choice made in 312 that determined the emergence of the Roman Empire as a Christian state. It is not hard to see why Eusebius regarded his reign as the fulfillment of divine providence nor to concede the force of Constantine’s assessment of his own role as that of the thirteenth Apostle. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
“When he [Constantius] died at York on 25 July 305 the soldiers proclaimed his son Constantine as emperor. Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; But there was Christian influence in his houselhold since he had a half-sister named Anastasia (anastasis = resurrection). At the crisis of his career in the war of 312 to gain sole power in the West, Constantine invoked the might aid of the Christian God and was not disappointed. His rise to power in 306 AD made it certain that persecution would not affect provinces under his control. [page 122]… “The conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe.” … “But if his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians….He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one’s life, especially if one’s duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many religions of his subjects, but did not make it the official or ‘established’ religion of the empire.” (The Early Church, Chadwick, Henry. p 122,125,127)
The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.
We are not told why Constantine murdered his son. Anti-Trinitarians are basically trying to trash the genuineness of Constantine’s Christianity and his involvement in the Nicene creed. Britannica notes Constantine putting his son to death, but says it was for reasons unknown. What if his son committed murder himself, and Constantine, just like the USA today, executed him, being head of state! The fact that Constantine killed his own son, could be taken, should the facts ever be known, as a sign of his impartial intolerance of sin even in his own family! In this case the murder of his son could be viewed as an act of righteous faith!
Constantine’s had a good knowledge of Doctrine
Constantine was soon involved in ecclesiastical controversy, in particular that associated with Donatus. In 313 a group of African bishops led by Majorinus, who claimed to be bishop of Carthage, submitted to him charges against Caecilian, the rival bishop of Carthage, and asked him to appoint judges to decide the dispute. Constantine was already aware of the schism and on the suggestion of his ecclesiastical adviser, Ossius, bishop of Cordoba (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantine’s second involvement in an ecclesiastical issue followed the defeat of Licinius as promptly as the involvement in Donatism followed that of Maxentius; but the Arian heresy, with its intricate explorations, couched in difficult Greek, of the precise nature of the Trinity, was as remote from Constantine’s educational background as it was from his impatient, urgent temperament. The Council of Nicaea, which opened in May 325 with an address by the Emperor, had already been preceded by a letter to the chief protagonist, Arius of Alexandria, in which Constantine stated his opinion that the dispute was fostered only by excessive leisure and academic contention, that the point at issue was trivial and could be resolved without difficulty. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Not understanding the theological points at issue Constantine first sent a letter to the two parties rebuking them for quarreling about minute distinctions, as he believed them to be, about the nature of Christ (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantine had a good understanding of Christianity. What Lohse means and Britannica confirms: “the Arian heresy, with its intricate explorations, couched in difficult Greek, of the precise nature of the Trinity, was as remote from Constantine’s educational background as it was from his impatient, urgent temperament. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) is that the arguments between the Trinitarians and the Arians in council of Nicea, were based on complex etymology (precise Greek word definitions etc).
Let me illustrate: How many English speaking Jehovah’s Witnesses living in North America today could immediately identify and define complex sentence structure in English. (noun, verb, adverb, predicate, subject, past-participle, pronoun.) If we started arguing some doctrinal point because the of the nature of the past-participle in the English Bible, it could be truthfully said: “Jehovah’s Witnesses have basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in English theology”.
Now true, Constantine had also not grappled with the concepts of the Trinity discussion. But again the same is true of 99% of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If this author, for example, had a private audience with 100 different Jw’s, they would walk away saying of themselves, “I don’t understand the subject”. Whereas there are a tiny number of Jw’s who do understand Trinity doctrine who would be able to argue in an intelligent manner (unsuccessfully none the less).
“Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following.” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
Where did the key Nicene term “homoousios” (of one substance) come from?Ossius’ influence on Constantine
Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
Constantine was already aware of the schism and on the suggestion of his ecclesiastical adviser, Ossius, bishop of Cordoba (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantine was convinced, doubtless by Ossius, that dissension in his church was deeply displeasing to God. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed, no doubt on Ossius’ prompting, the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, “of one substance with the Father” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
The first emperor to become a Christian, Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology. … Even though he had a general antipathy to the controversies, and even though he himself had only a rudimentary “theology,” he was still not entirely without sympathy for the problems which arose. In any case, he permitted himself to be more fully instructed about many things by his episcopal counselors. The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, homoousios (“of one substance”), comes from no less a person than the emperor himself. To the present day no one has cleared up the problem of where the emperor got the term. It seems likely that it was suggested to him by his episcopal counselor, Bishop Hosius (Ossius) of Cordova, and it was probably nothing more than a Greek translation of a term already found in Tertullian (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53)
Opposition to the Nicene creed
The issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
Attempts to overthrow the Nicene Formulas: The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms [Greek] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, tending to Sabellianism (taking [Greek] in the sense of particular reality and erroneous metaphysically. Athanasius was twice exiled, and when ninety bishops assembled at Antioch for the dedication of Constantine’s ‘Golden Church’ a council was held and a ‘Creed of the Dedication’ put forward as a substitute for that of Nicaea, in spite of, or perhaps because of, a letter from Pope Julius urging Athanasius’ restoration. (Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41)
In June 325 a general council met at Nicea. The number of bishops was apparently somewhere between 250 and 300. The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented; the bishop of Rome did not attend but sent two presbyters in his place. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
In 325 a Council was convoked by Constantine the emperor at Nicea in Bithynia. The names of over 220 of those in attendance known. Most of these came from the East. Five or six came from the West, among these Hosius of Cordova and the priests Vitus and Vincent, who represented Pope Sylvester. (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
Most of the bishops who were present at the council signed this creed. Among the signers were those who, judging by their theological presuppositions, could not do so, or could hardly do so, such as Eusebius of Caesarea. What seemed especially objectionable to many bishops and theologians of the East was the concept put into the creed by Constantine himself, the homoousios, which in the subsequent strife between orthodoxy and heresy became the object of dissension. Even most of the Arians put their names to the creed. Only Arius and two of his friends refused to sign, for which they were excommunicated.” (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53)
The statement is significant both for what it affirmed and what it denied. The word homoousios, which was to carry such great significance in the years ahead, is especially interesting. There was some suspicion of this word on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata. This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father. The condemnations attached to the confession also spoke very emphatically to the Arian position, specifically rejecting its major affirmations. Arius refused to sign this statement and was apparently joined by only two other members of the council. The rest, including those supposedly supportive of Arius’s position, signed the creed. It is generally agreed that this was a triumph for the views of Alexander, and that the primary architect of it was Athanasius, strongly supported by Amphilocius and Didymus in the East and Ambrose and Hilary in the West. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of ‘consubstantial’ at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius’ contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing. (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther
Luther was uneasy with the term trinity, not the idea of Trinity, for Luther most certainly always was a trinitarian. Luther did not disagree with the Trinity, but was afraid of thewords, or theological terminology such as the Latin word “person” (persona), which might imply tritheism instead of trinity.
Luther’s hesitation is exactly that of many who signed the Nicene creed. It was not that they questioned if Jesus was a creature, but that they felt the words used to convey the ontological relationship between God and Jesus were inadequate.
“On the words persona, (etc. ). . . . Much has been said, about the time of the Reformation, concerning the tendency of these terms to lead to tritheism; and among the advocates for their expulsion from theological disquisition, might be mentioned a number of the first divines of the age, not excepting Minnius and even Luther himself.–Yet, to prevent the charge of Arianism or Socinianism, which he knew his enemies would eagerly seize the least pretext to prefer against them, Luther yielded to Melanchthon’s wishes, and in the Augsburg Confession, the doctrine of the Trinity is couched in the old scholastic terms. (G. C. Storr & Flatt’s , Biblical Theology. S. S. Schmucker, trans., p. 301)
Constantine’s role as a Godly peacemaker
The emperor’s cherished aim was to reconcile Arius with the church, but Athanasius stubbornly refused to accept Arius’ vaguely worded submission. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Schism, in Constantine’s view, was “insane, futile madness,” inspired by the Devil, the author of evil. Its partisans were acting in defiance of the clemency of Christ, for which they might expect eternal damnation at the Last Judgment (this was a Judgment whose rigours Constantine equally anticipated for himself). (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)
Constantine’s impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius
At last, in 335, Constantine summoned a council of bishops at Tyre to investigate various charges against Athanasius and ordered him to appear. The council condemned him; he appealed to Constantine himself, who banished him to Gaul. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)
Constantius (Constantine’s son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians
In 350 Constantius became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the Nicene party (orthodox Christians) was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then declared that the Son was “unlike” (anomoios) the Father. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Arianism, Vol. I, p.509)
Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.
“Politics and Theology: In 337, Constantine died and his three sons inherited the empire. Constantine II received the far western part: Britain, Gaul, and Spain. Constantius received the far eastern part: Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, and Egypt. Constans received the area lying in between:, Italy, North Africa, and Illyricum. Both Constantine II and Constans took the western position and supported Athanasius.Constantius supported the Arians. In 340, Constantine II was killed in battle with the forces of Constans, leaving the empire divided between Constans in the West and Constantius in the East. In 350, Constans was assassinated by the rebel German emperor Magnentius. Three years later Constantius defeated and killed the latter. Thus, by 353 the entire empire was in the hands of power of the empire, Constantius decided that the religious question should now be decided once and for all. In councils held in the West at Arles and Milan, he forced the western bishops to abandon Athanasius, and he exiled some of their leaders. In 357 a council held in Sirmium in Illyria forbade the use of ousia (nature) in speaking of the relationship between the Father and the Son. With this the homoousios of Nicaea became a dead confession. This was a complete victory [for the Arians].” (A Short History of the Early Church, Harry R. Boer, p117)
Other texts of interest:
“The Nicene Solution: In June 325 a general council met at Nicea. The number of bishops was apparently somewhere between 250 and 300. The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented; the bishop of Rome did not attend but sent two presbyters in his place. The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria. Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following. The Lucianists, who fully expected to prevail, without previously conferring with the Origenists, put forth a rather blunt statement of their beliefs. To their considerable surprise, this was summarily rejected. It was then their hope that the Eusebian position, which was something of a midpoint between the Arian and the Alexandrian parties, would prevail. Indeed, Eusebius put forth a creed, which was unanimously pronounced to be orthodox by those present. Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. The Alexandrian party then presented a carefully worked out statement, which they said was a revised form of the Creed of Caesarea, with certain steps taken to close loopholes that could be interpreted in Arian fashion. The Origenists had considerable reservation about some elements of the creed, fearing that phrases such as “out of the Father’s substance” and “of the same substance as the Father” could be interpreted in a material sense, could be understood as Sabellian, and were not of biblical origin. The emperor exerted considerable influence, saying that there was a desire to preserve the spirituality of the Godhead. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three members of the council. Even most of Arius’s allies abandoned him, and as Pelikan says, “saluted the emperor, signed the formula, and went right on teaching as they always had.” The creed read as follows: We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, [the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the HOLY GHOST. [But for those who say: "There was a time when he was not"; and, "He was not before he was made"; and "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence," or "The Son of God is created," or "changeable," or "alterable"-they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church .] The statement is significant both for what it affirmed and what it denied. The word homoousios, which was to carry such great significance in the years ahead, is especially interesting. There was some suspicion of this word on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata. This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father. The condemnations attached to the confession also spoke very emphatically to the Arian position, specifically rejecting its major affirmations. Arius refused to sign this statement and was apparently joined by only two other members of the council. The rest, including those supposedly supportive of Arius’s position, signed the creed. It is generally agreed that this was a triumph for the views of Alexander, and that the primary architect of it was Athanasius, strongly supported by Amphilocius and Didymus in the East and Ambrose and Hilary in the West. One question that then must be raised, however, pertains to just what the council meant by this statement. On the one hand, the usual meaning of the word homoousios, as used by Origen, for example, was generic, namely, “of the same nature.” In that sense, it could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, as would be true of a collection of humans, for example. On the other hand, it could connote an individual thing as such. While a large number of scholars have contended that the council used the term in this latter sense, there are good grounds for questioning such a conclusion. Both J. N. D. Kelly and G. L. Prestige argue that whether that is properly the terms meaning, it was this more modest version that they had in mind. Among their reasons are the fact that Arius, prior to the council, objected to the term homoousious, but it is apparent that he was repudiating the Son’s alleged divinity, rather than the unity of God. Further, the issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. In addition’ if Eusebius and his allies had thought that homoousios was being used to teach the doctrine of numerical unity of substance, they would have seen this as a concession to Sabellianism and would have vigorously resisted it. Finally, we know that later the most orthodox theologians continued to use the term in the sense of generic unity.” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
“THE COUNCIL OF NICEA: In 325 a Council was convoked by Constantine the emperor at Nicea in Bithynia. The names of over 220 of those in attendance known. Most of these came from the East. Five or six came from the West, among these Hosius of Cordova and the priests Vitus and Vincent, who represented Pope Sylvester. There is no record of the acts of the Council. Only its Creed, 20 canons, and a synodal letter condemning Arius are extant (Denz 125-130). The Nicene Creed says simply: We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth as well…. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. As for those who say: ‘There was a time when He did not exist’ and ‘before He was begotten, He did not exist’ and ‘He was made from nothing, or from another hypostasis or essence,’ alleging that the Son of God is mutable or subject to change such persons the Catholic and apostolic Church condemns (Denz 125-126). What the Creed rejected is clear enough. It was Arius’ doctrine that the Son is not true God but a creature, that He was not begotten of the substance of the Father but was made from nothing, that He was not eternal but rather that ‘there was a time when He did not exist.’ What was affirmed was a belief in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ. through whom all things were made and who is the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, born of the substance of the Father. true God from true God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the Father; and in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is merely mentioned together with the Son and the Father, to indicate belief in the Triad of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but He is given no further attention. All the conciliar stress was on the Son, His status, and His relation to the Father. Somewhat surprisingly the Council still used the words ousia and hypostasis as synonyms. Several points stand out. The Council Fathers did not use the term Logos for Christ but the more evangelical word Son. They stressed that He was not created but begotten, not made from nothing but born from the substance of the Father, thus indicating that His was not a metaphorical or adoptive sonship but a real, metaphysical sonship that entailed consubstantiality or community of divine nature between the Father and the Son. They emphasized His divinity by saying He was not only born of the Father and not created but also was eternal and was God from God, true God from true God. But the word that has continued to stand out most of all is the word consubstantial or homoousios. What does it mean in the Nicene Creed? Before Nicea it generally meant ‘of generically the same substance. For later Catholic theologians it means ‘of identically the same substance.’ For a long time it had been widely assumed that the specific teaching of Nicea was that the Son as consubstantial with the Father had identically the same substance as the Father, and that the Council had thus taught not only the divinity of the Son but also His numerical identity of substance with the Father. But in recent years there has developed a growing tendency to question and reject this assumption. It is clear that the Council did not explicitly affirm that the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father’ had the one same identical divine substance as the Father, and hence this was not its specific or formal teaching. But when it said the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father,’ it meant at least that He is ‘utterly like the Father in substance,’ ‘utterly unlike creatures in substance,’ that He is ‘of the Father’s substance’ and ‘of no other substance.”" But if the Council did not explicitly affirm numerical consubstantiality of Son and Father, was the idea of numerical consubstantiality prominent in the minds of the Nicene Fathers? Today there is a tendency to doubt or deny this also, and for a variety of reasons . It is urged that if the word consubstantial up to Nicea had only meant generic identity or likeness of substance, it would not suddenly be accepted as meaning numerical identity of substance. and if it had been so understood then the Eusebians would have cried out ‘Sabellanism.’ Further, it is argued that since the great issue at Nicea was the Son’s full divinity and coeternity and not the unity of the Godhead, the word consubstantial would have been understood to signify the Son’s full divinity, His total likeness in substance to the Father and total unlikeness to creatures in substance. It is pointed out also that later on when the numerical identity of substance was fully acknowledged, some orthodox theologians still used the word consubstantial in the sense of generic unity. All this seems to make an impressive case for the view that the Nicene Fathers generally understood ‘consubstantiality’ as likeness in substance. But perhaps an even stronger case can be made for the traditional view that they understood consubstantiality as identity of substance. Could they have failed to realize that if the Son was ‘of the Father’s substance,’ then He must be like the Father in substance? Why, then, would they add consubstantial if it merely meant ‘like the Father in substance’? Again, it would seem to be unnatural” for monotheists to admit two divine ousiai. And yet the Fathers must have realized that they would be doing just that if they said the Son was only ‘like the Father in ousia.’ Further, why is it logical to say that the Fathers used ‘consubstantial’ in its Origenist sense of ‘like the Father,’ when they must have known that for Origen it meant ‘like but inferior to the Father,’ while they were intent on affirming the Son’s equality with the Father? Again, why should the Fathers be unready to accept a new meaning instead of the traditional meaning of this term, if they were ready to use this ‘new’ term itself instead of a traditional Biblical term? Again, if Hosius of Cordova influenced the adoption of the term, would he have failed to indicate to the Nicene Fathers that for him and the West it signified ‘identity of substance’? Finally. to all this we might add Athanasius’ declaration that it was the intention of the Nicene decree to go beyond mere likeness and touch identity (De decr. nic. syn. 20). SUMMARY In the New Testament the eternity and divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit were indicated clearly enough but nowhere formally declared. There was no formal doctrine about Christ’s origin. nature, relation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There was no formal doctrine about a Triune God. But the elements for such a doctrine were there. In their somewhat infelicitous attempts to explain the Son’s divine status and His relation to the Father by a two-stage theory of a preexistent Logos, the Apologists obscured if they did not deny the eternal personality and the eternal generation of the Son. Clement and Origen rejected the two-stage theory of the Apologists and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But Origen, in his attempt to combine strict monotheism with a hierarchical order in the Trinity, ended up by making the Son and the Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but ‘diminished gods,’ inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense. The stage was set for Arius. He saw in Scripture, the Apologists, and especially Origen two interwoven ideas, one that the Son was God, the other that the Son was subordinate and inferior to the Father in divinity. He saw a tension between these two ideas that the Father alone was God in the strict sense and that the Son was a ‘diminished god’ but not a creature, and he was not satisfied with the tension. He felt it must be resolved, and so he put a blunt question: Is the Son God or creature? He answered his question just as bluntly: The Son is not God. He is a perfect creature, not eternal but made by the Father out of nothing. And thus the subordinationist tendency in the Apologists and in Origen had reached full term. The question that Arius put and answered so bluntly was a ‘live’ question, of vital importance to the Christian and trinitarian faith of the Church and one that was deeply disturbing. The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of ‘consubstantial’ at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius’ contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing. It firmly declared that He was begotten, not made, was born of the Father’s substance. was true God from true God, was consubstantial with the Father. It did more. In the New Testament affirmations about the Son were largely functional and soteriological, and stressed what the Son is to us. Arians willingly recited these affirmations but read into them their own meaning. To preclude this Arian abuse of the Scripture affirmations Nicea transposed these Biblical affirmations into ontological formulas, and gathered the multiplicity of scriptural affirmations, titles, symbols, images, and predicates about the Son into a single affirmation that the Son is not made but born of the Father, true God from true God, and consubstantial with the Father. A definitive answer was given to the question of Arius not in the empirical categories of experience, the relational category of presence, or even the dynamic categories of power and function but in the ontological category of substance, which is a category of being. Nicaea did not describe; it defined. It defined what the Son is, in himself and in his relation to the one God the Father. The Son is from the Father in a singular, unshared way, begotten as Son,, not made as a creature. The Son is all that the Father is. except for the Name of Father. This is what homoousion means. This is what the Son is. . . . The Nicene definition … formally established the statute of the ontological mentality within the Church. It was the precedent for the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which resolved the issue of the internal constitution of Christ, the Son Incarnate, in the ontological categories of nature and person. . . . By its passage from the historical-existential categories of Scripture to the ontological or explanatory categories exhibited in the homoousion Nicaea sanctioned the principle of the development of doctrine . . . of growth in understanding of the primitive affirmations contained in the New Testament revelation.” (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
A newly released video shows members of an al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgent group in Syria equipped with US-made weapons, Press TV reports.
The insurgents in uniform are reportedly based in the Jabal Turkmen mountains in northern Syria, along the Turkish border. They are shown carrying US M-16 rifles.
Another video also shows insurgents holding the Saudi flag in the eastern city of Deir al-Zour.
,,,
Damascus has repeatedly criticized the United States and its regional allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, over funding and arming insurgents fighting the government forces.
Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Damascus says the turmoil, which has killed many people, including large numbers of security forces, is being orchestrated from outside the country.
![[image]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VT969_1delhi_G_20121223045530.jpg)
