Arius was correct about Jesus

[muhammad_isa]

For example: that the Arians are wrong. That's a big one..

Ah, OK. The councils are not infallible .. but are on big things.
Right you are

 

[Lain]

Ah, OK. The councils are not infallible .. but are on big things.
Right you are

At least in my Church which retains such authority for itself, the one I am considering joining in my discernment would disagree and say of the whole that they are. But yeah either way I hold Arius was condemned by God Himself and the whole Church, dead or alive. (Although term reformable irreformable, infallibility differs.)

 

[muhammad_isa]

What was the big deal, anyway?
Why were Christians slaughtering each other over doctrine?

..looks rather suspicious to me.
We have a documented history of Roman Emperors, both Nicene and Arian..

Was it Arian Emperors who destroyed sacred texts, or what is Nicene Emperors?
Hmm .. all very suspicious.

 

[Lain]

What was the big deal, anyway?
Why were Christians slaughtering each other over doctrine?

..looks rather suspicious to me.
We have a documented history of Roman Emperors, both Nicene and Arian..

Was it Arian Emperors who destroyed sacred texts, or what is Nicene Emperors?
Hmm .. all very suspicious.

I have no idea if Arian Emperors destroyed texts but they definitely also tortured, murdered, and exiled Christians. As for killing one another over doctrine, Moses speaks:

"If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers, Of all the nations round about, that are near or afar off, from one end of the earth to the other, Consent not to him, hear him not, neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him, But thou shalt presently put him to death. It Let thy hand be first upon him, and afterwards the hands of all the people. With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage: That all Israel hearing may fear, and may do no more any thing like this."

But I am going through the three great Church Histories right now and will find out more as time goes on.

 

[Dogknox20]

It is all a matter of perspective..
Muslims have been similarly condemned.
However, that doesn't have any bearing on the truth.
It is/was a man-made decision. Men are not infallible.

.
muhammad_isa Jesus is God..... Jesus left us a Church with all of his authority before he ascended into heaven!
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

 

[muhammad_isa]

As for killing one another over doctrine, Moses speaks:

"If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not

"strange gods" refers to polytheism, other than the One and Only YHWH.

The Catholic doctrine evolved over time through a series of ecumenical councils. They were held to establish certain doctrines that outlawed their "opponents".

Did you know that up until 1873 in the UK, it was illegal to be a non-trinitarian?
Do you agree with that?
i.e. forcing people to believe in a creed

..because that is how it was established.

 

[Lain]

"strange gods" refers to polytheism, other than the One and Only YHWH.

The Catholic doctrine evolved over time through a series of ecumenical councils. They were held to establish a certain doctrine that outlawed their "opponents".

Did you know that up until 1873 in the UK, it was illegal to be a non-trinitarian?
Do you agree with that?
i.e. forcing people to believe in a creed

..because that is how it was established.

And the Arians worshipped strange gods, a point made much of by the Church Fathers.

I deny that the doctrines of the Church evolved or established.

I have no idea the specifics of that UK law or how it worked in practice so I can't comment on that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And the Arians worshipped strange gods, a point made much of by the Church Fathers..

That is absurd !
so-called Arians worship YHWH .

I deny that the doctrines of the Church evolved or established.

Really?

Emperor Theodosius' strong commitment to Nicene Christianity involved a calculated risk because Constantinople, the imperial capital of the Eastern Empire, was solidly Arian. To complicate matters, the two leading factions of Nicene Christianity in the East, the Alexandrians and the supporters of Meletius in Antioch, were "bitterly divided ... almost to the point of complete animosity".
-wiki First_Council_of_Constantinople-

..and then we had the Chalcedonian council which divided "the church" into east and west [orthodox and catholic] etc. etc.

It is political. We don't need to know the fine details of the nature of YHWH to worship. It was all about power.

 

[Lain]

That is absurd !
so-called Arians worship YHWH .


Really?

Emperor Theodosius' strong commitment to Nicene Christianity involved a calculated risk because Constantinople, the imperial capital of the Eastern Empire, was solidly Arian. To complicate matters, the two leading factions of Nicene Christianity in the East, the Alexandrians and the supporters of Meletius in Antioch, were "bitterly divided ... almost to the point of complete animosity".
-wiki First_Council_of_Constantinople-

..and then we had the Chalcedonian council which divided "the church" into east and west [orthodox and catholic] etc. etc.

It is political. We don't need to know the fine details of the nature of YHWH to worship. It was all about power.

They worshipped God and a mere creature, an inconsistency in their doctrine.

None of that proves that the doctrines evolved or were established. It's just a comment on the political situation at the time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They worshipped God and a mere creature, an inconsistency in their doctrine.

None of that proves that the doctrines evolved or were established. It's just a comment on the political situation at the time.

I think it does, you know.
If we look at history, sometimes Christians have won battles, and sometimes they lose.
It is quite plausible that Arian belief could have become the uppermost.
The reason why Nicene belief became uppermost, was due to political wrangling.

Constantine was the first Christian Emperor. He called the first council at Nicea, and established Constantinople as the capital.
Constantine eventually died as an Arian, when he was no longer an Emperor.

It is often quoted that Arians were not "mainstream"..
It beggars belief that the capital that Constantine had established was so soon "brainwashed by Arianism".

No .. it's a false claim. Arius did not start "Arianism"..
It is more likely that the Niceans "wiped out any historical evidence" so as to establish themselves as the authority.

 

[Lain]

I think it does, you know.
If we look at history, sometimes Christians have won battles, and sometimes they lose.
It is quite plausible that Arian belief could have become the uppermost.
The reason why Nicene belief became uppermost, was due to political wrangling.

Constantine was the first Christian Emperor. He called the first council at Nicea, and established Constantinople as the capital.
Constantine eventually died as an Arian, when he was no longer an Emperor.

It is often quoted that Arians were not "mainstream"..
It beggars belief that the capital that Constantine had established was so soon "brainwashed by Arianism".

No .. it's a false claim. Arius did not start "Arianism"..
It is more likely that the Niceans "wiped out any historical evidence" so as to establish themselves as the authority.

I see no proof given for these assertions. Moreover, I deny that St. Constantine died as an Arian or anything other than a Christian. We just have a fundamentally different idea of the history of the world, something that I think is not often brought out between Christians and the rest of the world, but it's there.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I deny that St. Constantine died as an Arian or anything other than a Christian..

He summoned the bishops, and told them of his hope to be baptized in the River Jordan, where Christ was written to have been baptized. He requested the baptism right away, promising to live a more Christian life should he live through his illness. The bishops, Eusebius records, "performed the sacred ceremonies according to custom". He chose the Arianizing bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop of the city where he lay dying, as his baptizer.
-wiki Constantine_the_Great-

It seems strange for a person who is dying to choose an Arian Bishop, unless he was comfortable with the bishops' beliefs.
Furthermore, his family were so-called Arians.

 

[Dogknox20]

I see no proof given for these assertions. Moreover, I deny that St. Constantine died as an Arian or anything other than a Christian. We just have a fundamentally different idea of the history of the world, something that I think is not often brought out between Christians and the rest of the world, but it's there.

.
Islam originated in early 7th century long after Jesus the God/Man rose from the dead! Christians are "Christ Followers"!

 

[Lain]

He summoned the bishops, and told them of his hope to be baptized in the River Jordan, where Christ was written to have been baptized. He requested the baptism right away, promising to live a more Christian life should he live through his illness. The bishops, Eusebius records, "performed the sacred ceremonies according to custom". He chose the Arianizing bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop of the city where he lay dying, as his baptizer.
-wiki Constantine_the_Great-

It seems strange for a person who is dying to chose an Arian Bishop, unless he was comfortable with the bishops beliefs.
Furthermore, his family were so-called Arians.

Neither of which prove he was an Arian, but I would first like to read the great Church Histories, by Eusebius, Sozomen, and those who followed, for did not he confess and not deny but spoke to the Council "homoousious"? Also was this Bishop not a relative of his even by some distance, or did he consider it normal (which it is normal to this day) for a Bishop to preside over baptisms which are under his territory and so chose him for that?

Many questions, and the answers are probably available.

 

[Lain]

.
Islam originated in early 7th century long after Jesus the God/Man rose from the dead! Christians are "Christ Followers"!

Amen.

 

[PearlSeeker]

.
Arius WAS a Christian until he rejected Christian beliefs! Arius was AMONG Christians until he rejected Christian beliefs!
This is from the new testament in the bible, it's Scripture Prophesy..
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Arius was a hieratic; a false teacher!

Arius didn't reject Christ or Trinity. Details of Christian beliefs were uncertain.

Regarding 2 Peter see:

Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia

 

[muhammad_isa]

..for did not he confess and not deny but spoke to the Council "homoousious"?

I've no idea .. and what's more, it is all nonsense to me.
Jesus, peace be with him, never talked about such things in the Gospels. It is just people making up things about G-d, as they go along, imo.
It has nothing to do with spiritual guidance.

Jesus was a Jew, and his companions were Jews.
The goy believed in polytheistic gods, and it's not difficult to see how they could argue over concepts such as the trinity.
i.e. dying saviour god as part of a triad etc.

 

[Lain]

I've no idea .. and what's more, it is all nonsense to me.
Jesus, peace be with him, never talked about such things in the Gospels. It is just people making up things about G-d, as they go along, imo.
It has nothing to do with spiritual guidance.

In the Gospels the Lord Jesus speaks of many things, including His nature. I don't find it to be nonsense, but you did say "IMO," we merely have a great difference of opinion. I think that it is the guidance, even central to the entire point of existence, and not made up by man by revealed by God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

II think that it is the guidance..

OK .. what do we learn from it?
How does it change our lives?
..this homoousious stuff, I mean..

 

[Lain]

OK .. what do we learn from it?
How does it change our lives?
..this homoousious stuff, I mean..

Nothing less than who God is and how He exists, which tells us about how we exists and our beginning and end, the goal of life which is God Himself. Probably more. One main thing I get from it is that persons are those which love and are loved in turn, and that they most excellently flourish in that, which leads me to practically pay attention to that in my whole life, with God and man.