Arian Christology

It doesn't resonate with me. I've learned to trust my instinct. I suppose that's it ...

 

Well, if the Book of Revelation is accepted then the New Jerusalem is talked about. John Michell in his book "The New Jerusalem" discusses the sacred geometry of it all in extensive detail. I rather enjoyed that book.

 

Yes .. we prefer to use reason rather than interpreting quoted verses that "we are the only ones to be saved"

62. Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
- Qur'an The Cow -

111 And they say: None entereth Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful.
112 Nay, but whosoever surrendereth his purpose to God while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
- Qur'an The Cow -

69. Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
- Qur'an The Table Spread -

 

Baha'u'llah offered alternate meanings as to the New Jerusalem. We could explore what was offered.

Personally I see the new name is clear prophecy and that only to those that accept that name will see Jesus promise about the Father.

Regards Tony

 

In theology called Perichoresis (Gk) or Circumincession (Lt) refers to the 'movement' – a reciprocal dynamic relationship – of the Three Persons within the Godhead.

The term "co(-)inherence" is sometimes used, that has a nice quantumy feel to it

 

Well that depends on which Arian and what branch of Unitarian.

Arius himself was not Unitarian, in that he believed Christ was created before all times and all ages, and that Christ was the instrument through whom the Father created the world:

"God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom –
Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all:
He is is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself."
Thalia paragraph 10.

and

"Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will,
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others "
Thalia paragraph 20.

You keep arguing from an erroneous premise.

 

Interpretations of the Book of Revelations is a rabbit-hole which the wise tend to steer clear of ...

 

Well there's the rub... we might have something, we might have nothing ... we are never more fallible than when we believe in ourselves ... nor more dangerous, for that matter ...

 

I'm sure it does..

God knows best what Arius was and wasn't.
Let's not make the issue conveniently all about one man, eh?

Ah .. so you base all your arguments on the authenticity of "the Thalia".

I shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket, if I were you

 

For accuracy, here is the Nicene Creed:
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholi...yers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/

And here The Apostles Creed which some Catholics prefer:
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholi...rs-every-catholic-should-know/apostles-creed/

Both are Catholic versions

 

Yes, and anybody who doesn't believe it to be true is an "alien" .. no sorry arian

 

All I can say is I wouldn't want to have to spend eternity of afterlife around a couple people here ...

 

What the Buddha said, regarding his arch-demon Maro. May I interest you in the Eightfold Path of Liberation from Tiresome Forum Threads?

 

Well, he was the founder of this particular Theology. Do you have other Arian sources?

 

"Arian" is a label.

and as already quoted..

 

Well at least we agree on that.

I read that as an admission of error.

This thread is about Arian Christology. The least we can do it try and get the basics right.

Yep, I tend to side with scholarship.

"... the Thalia is but one document among many that survive (at least in fragments) from before the Council of Nicaea whose precise dates and circumstances of composition are contested, it is one of only a handful authored by Arius himself and a crucial text for understanding the course of controversy over Arius and the development of his theology"

"The verbatim fragments of the Thalia are one of the most reliable sources for retrieving the theology of Arius, in addition to his three extant letters. The Thalia fragments are preserved mainly in Athanasius, De synodis 15.3, but also at the beginning of Contra Arianos 1.5, and there are also two otherwise unattested lines in Contra Arianos."
Mark Delcogliano, "How Did Arius Learn from Asterius?" Vol 69, Issue 3. Cambridge University Press.

"Arius' Thalia ... God's first thought was the creation of the Son, before all ages ... explains how the Son could still be God, even if he did not exist eternally"

"This second passage (De Synodis, pg. 15) seems to be a direct quotation or a compilation of quotations; it may have been written by someone other than Athanasius, perhaps even a person sympathetic to Arius... But although these quotations seem reasonably accurate, their proper context is lost, thus their place in Arius' larger system of thought is impossible to reconstruct."
-- wiki (emphasis mine) --

We might perhaps never have a grasp of his complete theological picture, but there are elements, from his letters, from the Thalia, from reference to him in the letters of others such as Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea.

Even though a Trinitarian, I am not against Arius, I have a lot of sympathy for him. He was doing his best, and stood by what he believed. By all accounts he was a decent bloke, although tending to think himself superior to his opponents. On the other hand, I stand firmly with Athanasius, and hold that he was doing proper philosophy as was practiced: stating his own position, his opponent's position, then demonstrating his opponent's error. Interspersed with all that is a significant degree of ad hominems, but that seems par for the course in those days. Unlike Arius, however, I'm not so sure Athanasius was a thoroughly likeable bloke, in fact, if rumour is true, he could be a right b•st•rd.

I don't mate, I'm all over the arguments

 

is that a challenge?

 

Perhaps "the thalia" should be in the Bible as "the word of God"

Mmm .. funny what nonsense people can believe isn't it?
Anyway .. it all got sorted out .. anything other than the nicene creed was declared heresy.

 

@muhammad_isa
IMO you are trolling

What does this mean?

What does this mean?

That was 1700 years ago. I posted the Nicene Creed #30 Did you bother to read it? And did you read the Apostles Creed, which is often read in churches in place of the Nicene Creed?

Where does this go? "Therefore ...

Ditto this? "Therefore ...

These are supposed to be forums for intelligent, mature and tolerant interfaith debate, for learning and sharing -- not a kindergarden area

 

Recent scholarships has knocked Arius from his ownership of the controversy that bears his name.

Previously, Arius was viewed as the originator of a theology that lasted for decades after his death. Recent studies treats Arius as "a catalyst for a controversy within which his particular theology rapidly becomes marginal" (Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy). Maurice Wiles' essay (Attitudes to Arius in the Arian Controversy, Barnes and Williams, Arianism After Arius, 31–43) end with: "the figure of Arius was not perhaps, in fact, very important to any of those known by one of the various expansions of his name (eg, semi-Arians and neo-Arians). And to Athanasius he was not so much a person to be refuted, as a discredited name with which to undermine others … Arius was dead before Athanasius embarked on any large scale theological debate of the issues that Arius had raised. And then his real quarrel was with the living. The dead Arius was not even a whipping boy, but a whip".

Athanasius repeatedly presents Asterius as the advocate of Arianism.

"Asterius of Cappadocia 'Asterius the Sophist' (died c.341). Said to have been a pupil of Lucian of Antioch (as was Arius), but it is unclear to what extent this was the case. He is commonly believed to be a defender of Arianism and of Eusebius of Caesarea's theology, emphasising the derivative nature of the Son as a spontaneous manifestation and generation of the Father's will."
-- wiki --

Athanasius is usually read to mean Asterius was a Eusebian who supported Arius before and after Nicaea. It is assumed Asterius defended Arius even as he developed his thought. Athanasius accuses both of teaching the same things without mentioning an influence either way, although in De decretis Athanasius claims that Arius copied from Asterius. Markus Vinzent (Professor, Dept of Theology & Religious Studies, King's College, London) has suggested that Asterius might have had a formative influence on Arius. He concludes that what came to be known as 'Arianism' is really the theology of Asterius. Mark DelCogliano (Associate Professor of Theology, University of St. Thomas, Minnesota), argues that Asterius’ influence on Arius only happened once the controversy had spread throughout the East.

He suggests that Arius' Thalia drew upon the Syntagmation of Asterius, and that Arius’ essay was an articulation of Eusebian theology in response to Asterius’ tract.

--- what then follows is an extended explanation about the translation of Koine Greek in Athanasius, and how it has been traditionally misinterpreted ---

This (DelCogliano's) interpretation is that Arius is both an impetus for and influenced by the Syntagmation. This makes it even harder to disentangle the thought of Arius and Asterius in the works of Athanasius. But it is clear that Asterius can by no means be considered a formative influence on Arius. His influence on Arius came late in the controversy; it is more a question of intellectual refinement than fundamental formation.

In the wake of Arius’ winning the support of Eusebius of Nicomedia around 321, it (Syntagmation) was mostly likely written at the urging of Eusebius to promote the cause of the mistreated Arius among eastern churchmen.

Arius, then, was a cog, a nevertheless important cog, in stiffening up the emerging Eusebian alliance. He sparked the emergence of the alliance by securing the support of Eusebius of Nicomedia, who then promoted his cause throughout the eastern provinces. A key element of his endorsement was commissioning Asterius to write the Syntagmation, which Arius then drew to bolster support for himself when writing the Thalia.

The Eusebians continued, although Arius himself soon became marginalised.