Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Cino, Feb 2, 2019.
- wikipedia -
..so .. a finite being .. NOT God!
Exactly. necessary so as to not get the wrong end of the stick.
No, not at all. For the Arians, Jesus was God, but a created God.
Really, if you're going to critique, at least try and get a grasp of what it is you're critiquing.
Is that your best defence? Arrogance
..much like the Roman bishops..
Your Orwellian positions seem to fit with the times. A "church in Rome" does not mean the Roman church. The Nicene Trinitarian church wasn't declared official until 380 AD. Apparently there was no one "Christian" church in Rome at the time of Nero, as apparently the trouble caused by the rift between the followers of Peter and the followers of Paul had the emperor throw out the Jews altogether. Paul's ties with Herod probably got him killed when Herod fell out of favor with Nero. Which is to say, Paul died, and this time his lord Caesar didn't send his cohorts to save him. Apparently Nero's common choice of killing his enemies was to have them strangled with a rope.
Sheol, death, destruction, and disease are also "strong Jewish" traditions, yet Paul, unlike what he taught, was saved from none of the above.
You seem to be confused. Paul, and his twisted view of "Grace", supposedly went to the Gentiles. He apparently had God rejecting the "Chosen People". If you read Hosea 3, God had Hosea buy an adulterous women (Gentiles) for "many days", and then the sons of Israel were return to God and David their king in the last days, as shown in Ezekiel 36 & 37. Joseph and Judah still have not joined and returned. As for Abraham being called out of the land of Ur to give him land to possess, that was done by virtue of obedience, based on faith that he was called. That is not the same as Paul's crazy ideal of Grace, whereas he thinks he and his follower are saved from death because they believe what the demons believe.
If the Trinity doctrine wasn't in dispute, then how could they fail to settle a non dispute, and why did Constantine think it caused enough trouble in his empire to settle this non dispute?
You seem to fail to admit that the term Pontifex Maximus had its origins with the pagan priest leadership of Rome, which was transferred to Julius Caesar, who like many emperors, considered themselves sons of god, then Constantine, who was also leader of the pagan church via being Pontifex Maximus. And while his toady was an Arian, it was doubtful that Constantine was anything other than a worshipper of the god of war. He may have made concessions for Christians on behalf of his Christian mother, but in general, Christians of any leanings, rarely worship pagan gods knowingly. Not to say they don't worship pagan gods unknowingly, such as upholding Constantine's decree of keeping the day of the sun god holy (Sunday).
D'you think it arrogant? I rather think it's good manner that, if you're going to debate with someone, at least take the trouble to see their side of the debate.
Everett Ferguson (born February 18, 1933) currently serves as Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas. He is author of numerous books on early Christian studies
I personally don't see why the precise beliefs of Arians changes anything. They were non-trinitarians. They did not invent a Homoousian trinity.
They were persecuted by the Nicene church.
Lay waste to what you disagree with
Kill them all, let G-d sort them out!
Oral tradition OK, even if false. People believe that. What can you do with such people? Hang them? But Hinduism gives us the right to question everything (Gods and Goddesses included), and believe what one finds to be believable (I am a strong atheist and a strong Hindu as well). Furtunately, we do not have to contend with false claims of people being prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/Mahdis sent by God or Allah. So, less problems.
Most of the problems come from mankind's love of wealth.
"what people believe" does not threaten "the absolute truth" in any way.
Almighty God does not need mankind to enforce particular creeds, and ban others.
It is human beings oppressing each other that is threatening.
Perhaps ... but the fathers quite rightly did. It has a profound implication with regard to the whole understanding of Scripture.
By way of explaining how we perceive it as important, imagine an imam were to preach that it was not actually the angel Gabriel who came to Mohammed in the cave, rather the angel was an expedient device employed to assert the source of the Quran is divine inspiration, rather than the fruit of purely human creativity.
Not quite. Arius did not believe in what came to be defined as the Doctrine of the Trinity, but he did believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He did baptise in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. For Arius, Jesus was not quite God, but he was not quite man, either.
LOL, no-one 'invented' in that sense, the Niceans proposed a Homoousian (Gk: of the same substance) explanation of the relation between the Father and the Son, the Arians proposed a Homoiousian (Gk: of a like substance) explanation.
Arius' teaching spawned a number of alternative theologies, semi-arianism, etc., etc..
And the Niceans were persecuted by the Arians!
The Homoousian victory at Nicaea was short-lived. Arius was exiled, but despite the Council's decrees and Constantine's wishes, the controversy continued. Constantine allowed Arius and many of his supporters to return to their homes. Athanasius was exiled, though he was later recalled (he was exiled and forgiven around five times!). Arius was restored to a full communion. Some scholars consider that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents. Whatever the cause, his death did not end the controversy.
Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia. Constantius II, his successor, was an Arian sympathiser. Arianism reached its high point in 357. Following Julian the Apostate who sought to restore paganism to the empire, the emperor Valens, an Arian, renewed the persecution of Nicene bishops. Valens's successor, Theodosius I ended Arianism once and for all among the elites of the Eastern Empire through a combination of imperial decree, persecution, and by calling the Second Council in 381 in Constantinople, condemning Arius and affirming the revised Nicene Creed.
Arianism survived among the non-Germanic peoples of the Empire.
Well, you say that "the father's rightly did" .. but that is only your belief.
Naturally, it had a profound implication. "Jesus is God" leads to all kinds of conclusions based on it.
Not that they make any sense .. but I'm told they don't have to.
That is beside the point. The point is that the majority of Christians at that time did not put emphasis on a "Holy trinity".
It was a political process that established it as "truth".
That is not surprising. When empires start interfering with what people believe, it becomes political.
..and yes, the rest of your post is an account of the conflict. It has little bearing on whether the "Holy Trinity" is reality.
If that were so then there would not have been the fuss there was I know it's not your belief, but please don't belittle the belief of others. It was quite a big deal at the time – and enough for you to make a big deal of it now!
It seems to me you've been told all sorts of things about Christianity that seem fanciful to many Christians.
I used to labour under the same impression regarding other's beliefs. I've learned.
No, that point destabilises your position, you can't just dismiss it because it doesn't suit your argument.
There is a need for precision in such discussions, else we're wasting our time.
They did in spirit, as it were, if not in the letter. A belief in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit characterised Christianity from the outset. It was the principle point of their baptismal initiation, and they understood it did not mean tritheism.
The dispute began because Arius' congregation demanded he preach according to the baptism they had received.
Just contextualising for anyone interested, it was a hot issue, and not solved by Constantine or Nicea.
I wasn't aware that I was belittling anybody. It is just a case of why we hold certain beliefs. It can't categorically be proved either way.
..unless somebody has a time machine
I don't feel that I am wasting my time.
You haven't commented on "because there is no certainty about what theological and philosophical traditions formed his thought"
You imply that there IS certainty. I say that the Arian's precise creed is beside the point. It is enough to know that they did not promote a "Holy Trinity". ie. Jesus is God etc.
He's trying to explain historical disputes and debates and conversations, and a whole lot of subtlety, which you are just choosing to ignore, to stomp your own view on everyone.
And why you bring up Arius character? He was obviously an impressive person. How does your wiki character assessment of Arius affect the debate?
OK ... I got sidetracked. Let's backtrack:
You misrepresent Arius in reference to the Trinity – there would still have been a Doctrine of the Holy Trinity had he won the debate, just an Arian one.
Arius was not arguing for or against a trinity; he believed in a trinity of divine beings, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Arius' was arguing about the precise relation of the Father to the Son, that the Logos of God, incarnate in Jesus Christ, was begotten of God before time began, but that there was a time when he was not. The Father was fully divine, the Son was semi-divine, the Holy Spirit was an angelic presence.
Arius believed in, and prayed to, Jesus. As a presbyter, Arius must have baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Arian Trinity would differ in that it would be a trinity of like substance (Homoiousios), as opposed to a trinity of the same substance (Homoousios).
It's there in the Thalia, ('Festivity', 'Banquet') composed by himself:
"So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings (hypostaseis) are not mixed together among themselves." (line 16)
Cos the devil is in the detail!
There may not be certainty as to the traditions that shaped his thought, but that is not the issue here – there is certainty about his thoughts (Indeed, if not, what point are you trying to make?) The Thalia for one is an explanation of how he saw the relation of the Father to the Son. There are other surviving works.
I know. It's because your understanding lacks precision you make the following error:
So what was all the fuss about then? Are you saying that our ancestors were stupid and killed each other for differing in trifling details?
We cannot ask Arius directly what his views were .. it is quite possible that "the thalia" is an accurate representation of his views.
There again, it is possible that he has been misrepresented.
I say again. It matters little what Arius' beliefs actually were. It is enough to know that the dispute was about "the nature of Jesus".
It has nothing to do with what I might believe as a Muslim. After all, Muhammad hadn't even been born.
..and then we have the Ebionites.
ALL creeds except for the Nicene church were declared as heresy.
They became uppermost, and most Christians today insist it is the truth.
That is not an error.
"The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it."
The argument is about "the divinity of Jesus". Suggesting it is about baptism is just a diversion.
Arius brought the issue to people's attention and caused division .. much as I'm doing now
There must be good reason why this issue caused so much trouble. It was clearly not "obvious" to the early Christians that Jesus is God. i.e. one and the same
It only became a "Holy Trinity" when it was established by the Romans. It cannot be shown that the word "trinity" was
in use before Arius' time.
Christology, not Trinity.
So? All versions other than the official version of the Quran were burned. So?
Yes it is, check the evidence.
Yep, and Arius believed Jesus was divine.
Oh, good grief. Wrong again!
The first use of the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century.
The first defense of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by Tertullian.
Arius was active early fourth century.
-- wiki --
So what if he did?
I ask again what all the fuss was about then? Irrelevant details?
I'm not saying that the word "trinity" [ "Τριάς" (Trias) ] was not mentioned by anybody.
I'm saying that it wasn't predominant.
The OP is about "religious tradition".
I guess what Thomas and I are talking about is the "Sacred tradition of the Catholic church".
I have seen many atheists questioning that it can be proved that Jesus was anything other than an itinerant preacher
..just trying to keep our exchange in context.
I don't think it can be proved through historical documents that the majority of early Christians were trinitarians or not.
I'm not really claiming anything else
The exchange started with
Thomas: "No, not at all. For the Arians, Jesus was God, but a created God."
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Was God created, or is He eternal?
I think you have missed the point. The "contradiction", double mindedness, hypocrisy of "Christianity", is based on the leaven of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:11), or more to the point, the leaven/hypocrisy of the Pharisee of Pharisees, Paul. Without double mindedness/hypocrisy, you would have no church of the tares/Christianity, which is a church following a wide twisted path to destruction (Matthew 7:13). The Law/commandments, such as you shall have no other gods before me, is made "obsolete" per some unknown author of Hebrews, whom is often identified as Paul. As for there being many gods, of course there are gods, or why would you need the 1st commandment. The point is that they are not "before"/equal to God. The Greeks have their gods, and the Persians have their gods/prince (Daniel 10:13), yet Michael is the prince/god/angel of the Jews.
Separate names with a comma.