Hi Bishadi —
Seems a little one sided but let's look at a letter ...
OK ... but it simply staing what Arius believes ... which I know, and which has been demonstrated to be wrong. Arius just could not accept that he was wrong. You should read Athenasius or Hilary of Poitiers, who outlined the metaphysics of the issue.
A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
Precisely — byt this was not the belief of the Church at large was it, which was my point? Nicea did not invent a doctrine out of the blue, Nicea simply affirmed what the Church believes and had always believed.
Not everything is necessarily dogmatically defined ... there is no dogma of the Resurrection, for example, as it was never seriously disputed in the Church, everyone accepts that Christ was crucified, died, and rose from the dead. Dogmas only occur in the face of error, they are corrective statements to end conflict and confusion.
+++
Arius lists some of the errors imputed to doctrine, but then goes to to state his own belief. In fact Arius' doctrine created a number of problems which he himself could not resolve, because although he was insistent that Christ was not God, he offered no meaningful explanation of who, and what, Christ was. The only option is a demigod, or higher order of angel ... a demiurge ... not divine, not human ... the emergence of a number of possible solutions (semiarianism) points towards the insufficiency of his ideas to clarifiy his point. In short, Arius created more questions than answers, always a sign.
Arius, in his own words, acknowledged that he was soon sidelined in the political wrangling that ensued, especially after Nicea. Eusebius was something of a mover and shaker in political circles, and capitalised on the argument to advance his own position. In the wake of Arius there emerged 'semiarianism' by which his basic thesis was worked and reworked in an attempt to extract an Arian doctrine from the Nicea statement.
But my original point is still valid, and this sets the context ... Nicea said nothing that was not said, whereas Arius introduced something new, and was roundly rejected for so doing.
Christology and the Trinity are profound Mysteries, and not easily comprehended, and wherever man is veiled from the truth then this is one of the errors that will arise. Arianism did not go away, it just takes on different forms, it's alive and well today in JW doctrine, in 'Liberal Christian' doctrines, and in New Age philosophy.
Against this, we have the likes of Athenasius, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers, Maximus the Confessor, Leontius of Byzantium and a cloud of other witnesses that testify to the true, clear and constant teaching of the Church, that Jesus Christ is 'true man and true God', 'one person in two natures', 'without division, separation, confusion or change'. Where Arius could only offer confusion, these, and others, argued with clarity and precision and a luminous insight into both the human and the divine.
if Jesus was born on earth in flesh and blood then mortal as each person ever born; the immaculate is the choice of what he shared in knowledge not what people say he is.
Not in the Christian Tradition ... it is not knowledge which saves, it's being. Judgement is not an intelligence text.
The religious leaders are who created the idea that a man can 'walk on water.'
Ah, the Bultmann position! Actually, if you get up to date with Scripture ccholarship, you'll see that Bultmann is no longer tenable (Benoit, and others). You may choose to stand by it, but there is significant argument and evidence that points to the contrary — so it's a matter of faith.
Thomas
those who are looked down upon , are the ones who do the work, and get things done , and its interesting that it was religious leaders that were used in this illustration.