Arius was correct about Jesus

[firedragon]

When the OP was first made, there wasn't an explanation of who Arius was.

Lol. Really. I apologise.

 

[Truthseeker]

The Epistles? It's not like the Gospels are the only text in the NT.

It depends on your point of view of whether the epistles are infallible. Why would you think so? Even there, it is not usually baldly stated that Jesus is equal to God, and that depends on the translation of one thing that Paul said.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Paul, "The Epistle to the Philippians", 2:5

That's the King James version.

5 Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped

The World English Bible

According to Baha'is, He was in the form of God, but not the essence of God. I'm just saying the latter part of this translation is not clearly saying that Jesus was equal to God. There are different translations, and as you probably know at places Jesus says things like "the Father is greater than I" as well as "if you have seen me you have seen God". The latter according to Baha'i means that all the attributes of God are fully apparent in God, but He is not identical with His essence. The Trinity was created to explain something like this, but it is complicated and hard to grasp. The Baha'i way of looking at this is simpler and easier to grasp and therefore more likely to be true from a logical point of view.

See @Trailblazer for epistles that indicate other than what you are saying. She saves all that in a file and has a good memory, and I don't:

Arius was correct about Jesus

 

[Hockeycowboy]

because the Bible is inconsistent, so how can anyone know what is accurate or inaccurate, what is literal and what is figurative?

I disagree with this....
It’s only in misunderstanding it, that it seems inconsistent.

But as Jesus stated, his Father’s guidance & direction is needed: Luke 10:21.
We can’t understand His Word without His help.

Now, the $64,000 question is....whom would Jesus’ Father, Jehovah God / Yahweh, give understanding to? Those who listen to (obey) God & His Son, or those who don’t obey God’s Laws? I think you can guess.

And what are those Laws?
Briefly, we must avoid actions outlined in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
and ‘love your brothers.’ (John 13:34-35) Even your enemy. (Matthew 5:44.) Without stipulation.
(These last two can be very difficult to obey in wartime, due to worldly pressure.)

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Unfortunately, Christendom’s leaders generally don’t adhere to these commandments. (From its inception, way back in Constantine the Great’s day, they’ve supported their respective countries during war, killing their brothers just because of geography or ideology.) So we shouldn’t expect them to have been granted any accurate knowledge of God’s Word.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm sorry it was a terrible joke because you said "Christian mythicism" instead of "Christ mythicism." May this incident be quickly forgotten and die in the memories of all who have seen it.

I'm old, so I'll forget whether I mean to or not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A story is not proof that anything in that story ever took place.
So you think the resurrection stories mean Jesus was God?
Maybe you should have been a Christian.

You're not switching to our team now, are you?
#confused

 

[lewisnotmiller]

like how some folk on tiktok believe that Christianity was started by Loki and Dionysus as a prank and it went too far. Someone made it as a joke just a joke they weren't serious but then folks actually believed them and now it's all over tiktok.

It's ridiculous I don't know who came up with that theory

Even I think more of religion than turning to tiktok for advice.
Having said that, I wouldn't trust tiktok to give good advice about fungal toenails, let alone the Creator of all.

Umm...not that I need information about fungal toenails.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And as a simple matter of history, the Trinity doctrine is not invented till the 4th century CE.

Depends what you mean by 'inventing the doctrine'. Discussions on the Trinity and its nature existed before this.
However doctrinally, the Council of Nicea was obviously a fundamental pivot point in determining orthodoxy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In context the 1 Corinthian verse supports that Jesus always existed. Timothy is neutral and Deuteronomy is Old Testament.

Given that God has always existed, and that He is aware of ALL things .. and always has been .. and always will be, one can argue that Jesus always existing is no different than ANYBODY always existing.

Does anybody categorically know where souls come from?
The only thing that I know, is that they come "from God".
They are immortal like God. Immortal, implies that they have always existed, and always will.

..so what's the big deal?
Is Jesus aware of every leaf that has fallen and will fall?
Is Jesus aware of every "thought" that has been thought, and will be thought?

This never ending argument about a man called Jesus being of "the same essence" does not please God.
You cannot "vote" to decide the truth.
That is merely a political circus

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given that God has always existed, and that He is aware of ALL things .. and always has been .. and always will be, one can argue that Jesus always existing is no different than ANYBODY always existing.

Does anybody categorically know where souls come from?
The only thing that I know, is that they come "from God".
They are immortal like God. Immortal, implies that they have always existed, and always will.

..so what's the big deal?
Is Jesus aware of every leaf that has fallen and will fall?
Is Jesus aware of every "thought" that has been thought, and will be thought?

This never ending argument about a man called Jesus being of "the same essence" does not please God.
You cannot "vote" to decide the truth.
That is merely a political circus

I would say that it is no more of a political circus than Islam or any other man-made religion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I would say that it is no more of a political circus than Islam..

It is true that mankind corrupt their faith .. it doesn't only apply to Christianity.
However, to deny that the orthodox Christian creed evolved over centuries, by (democratic) hands of men, would be futile.

Papal infallibility can similarly shown to be unjustified, as a foundation of faith.

 

[blü 2]

Depends what you mean by 'inventing the doctrine'. Discussions on the Trinity and its nature existed before this.
However doctrinally, the Council of Nicea was obviously a fundamental pivot point in determining orthodoxy.

That's true. From early on there were attempts to promote the principal character of Christianity to God status. There were various problems, though, the central one being how Jesus could be God when the Father was already God, given that it was taboo to be polytheists like the pagans. Not till the 4th century was the Trinity solution accepted. It says that God is three distinct persons, each of whom is 100% of the one and only God which ─ as they admit, though they use the euphemism 'mystery in the strict sense' ─ is incoherent.

 

[Lain]

It depends on your point of view of whether the epistles are infallible. Why would you think so? Even there, it is not usually baldly stated that Jesus is equal to God, and that depends on the translation of one thing that Paul said.

My point was not about anything Trinitarian, simply that the religion has more than just the Gospels. But even so, there is nothing against a rightly considered Trinitarian position in the Scriptures, and neither can anyone show that the position is contradictory (I have never seen a person do this once and due to reviewing the propositions in Trinitarianism as they are due to my experience and this I have concluded it is outright impossible to do so).

 

[Colt]

Arius was correct about Jesus. Arius lived from c. AD 256–336. He was an Christian presbyter He believed Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father, therefore Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.

Jesus is according to the Bible God's son, Jesus is not God. Only the Father is God. In my opinion.

Any thoughts? Do you disagree or agree? Why?

Jesus had a beginning in the eternal past, before this world was. The Son of God is conscious of being ancestral to the Father and as a divine being. Arius was simply expressing his belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point was not about anything Trinitarian, simply that the religion has more than just the Gospels. But even so, there is nothing against a rightly considered Trinitarian position in the Scriptures, and neither can anyone show that the position is contradictory (I have never seen a person do this once and due to reviewing the propositions in Trinitarianism as they are due to my experience and this I have concluded it is outright impossible to do so).

Do you realize that the books of the New Testament were chosen based at least partially on their ability to support Trinitarianism? The Bible that we have today is the result of people deciding what was true and then choosing those books that supported it. Not only were other works not included. They were often called "heretical" and destroyed. It is probably the number one reason that other gospels are so hard to find. There were far more than just the four that we are familiar with.

 

[Lain]

Do you realize that the books of the New Testament were chosen based at least partially on their ability to support Trinitarianism? The Bible that we have today is the result of people deciding what was true and then choosing those books that supported it. Not only were other works not included. They were often called "heretical" and destroyed. It is probably the number one reason that other gospels are so hard to find. There were far more than just the four that we are familiar with.

I am very aware of the books not included, and those we have found which were not included. I in fact have read them (nearly all that have been translated into English) and read about their context, what views they present, etc, and still do (as they are not all wrong in my opinion and do help to elucidate the context of terms and ideas Christians have today). I am also aware that what was considered possibly canonical (read in the Liturgy) was determined by what I call "the canon/rule of Faith," that is they had to be in accord with the Faith (and somewhat paradoxically, if that word applies, determine the Faith while also be determined by it). In other words: yes I realize all of this, the efforts to destroy and hide books, the politics of condemnation, etc.

This is all a major reason why I find it hilarious when a non-Trinitarians tries to out-Scripture me or other Trinitarians using the New Testament, as if the hands of our Fathers haven't been all over that for centuries (and in forming it), answering every possible objection and refuting heretics from the same verses they used. It's just funny when you think about it. In my opinion at least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am very aware of the books not included, and those we have found which were not included. I in fact have read them (nearly all that have been translated into English) and read about their context, what views they present, etc, and still do (as they are not all wrong in my opinion and do help to elucidate the context of terms and ideas Christians have today). I am also aware that what was considered possibly canonical (read in the Liturgy) was determined by what I call "the canon/rule of Faith," that is they had to be in accord with the Faith (and somewhat paradoxically, if that word applies, determine the Faith while also be determined by it). In other words: yes I realize all of this, the efforts to destroy and hide books, the politics of condemnation, etc.

This is all a major reason why I find it hilarious when a non-Trinitarians tries to out-Scripture me or other Trinitarians using the New Testament, as if the hands of our Fathers haven't been all over that for centuries (and in forming it), answering every possible objection and refuting heretics from the same verses they used. It's just funny when you think about it. In my opinion at least.

No. At best you have only read a small percentage of books not included. You cannot read that which no longer exists. And also you are conflating apologetics, which ironically is apologizing for the errors in the Bible with a refutation. Apologetics is almost never a refutation. Most of the time it is merely an excuse. In other words, apologetics never explained the failed prophecies of the Bible. One clear one that they fail at miserably is the Tyre prophecy. At best they can only make weak excuses that the gullible will not consume.

 

[Lain]

No. At best you have only read a small percentage of books not included.

That's what I said, although I see the sentence wasn't clear. Of the small amount of books that we have found which are also translated into English I have read and studied those (found/existent + translated into English), nearly all of them, perhaps some others have been found that I don't know of, I don't keep up with that anymore. Not ones that don't exist.

Also I am not sure why you are bringing up apologetics and lying apologists when you don't know what arguments and refutations I am referencing and we both agreed on our mutual dislike of the typical (that is common, majority, overwhelming horde, in my opinion) apologist. In addition to that accusing me of conflating that with a refutation when you don't know what I am specifically referring to in that paragraph? That is rather odd.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jesus had a beginning in the eternal past, before this world was. The Son of God is conscious of being ancestral to the Father and as a divine being. Arius was simply expressing his belief.

..so are you [ simply expressing your belief ]

What is a soul?
Are souls immortal?
If not, where do they come from, and where do they go to?

I would say that ALL human beings had a beginning in the "eternal past" ..
What does it even mean?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Arius was correct about Jesus. Arius lived from c. AD 256–336. He was an Christian presbyter He believed Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father, therefore Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.

Jesus is according to the Bible God's son, Jesus is not God. Only the Father is God. In my opinion.

Any thoughts? Do you disagree or agree? Why?

Arius was a heretic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what I said, although I see the sentence wasn't clear. Of the small amount of books that we have found which are also translated into English I have read and studied those (found/existent + translated into English), nearly all of them, perhaps some others have been found that I don't know of, I don't keep up with that anymore. Not ones that don't exist.

Also I am not sure why you are bringing up apologetics and lying apologists when you don't know what arguments and refutations I am referencing and we both agreed on our mutual dislike of the typical (that is common, majority, overwhelming horde, in my opinion) apologist. In addition to that accusing me of conflating that with a refutation when you don't know what I am specifically referring to in that paragraph? That is rather odd.

As to apologetics you were the one that brought it up, though you did not use the term. You said this:

"This is all a major reason why I find it hilarious when a non-Trinitarians tries to out-Scripture me or other Trinitarians using the New Testament, as if the hands of our Fathers haven't been all over that for centuries (and in forming it), answering every possible objection and refuting heretics from the same verses they used. It's just funny when you think about it. In my opinion at least."

That is apologetics. They do not tend to be refutations. They are only "reasons" that other Christians will accept. They rarely refute anything.