Arius was correct about Jesus

[Muffled]

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?

I believe God has always existed and Jesus is God in the flesh. The body of Jesus was generated by God and begotten can fit into that idea but often means by sexual intercourse but that did not happen with Jesus.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Obviously not or it would have been voted in.

When has truth ever got in the way of politics or religion.
And this was both.

The trinity doctrine was the newcomer with some Powerful backers. But it still took them a further 500 years to gain full control of Christianity. It has never been a completely done deal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those scriptures were used from the first century on. Why do you think Arius had some other scripture?

You missed the point. Yes, the "scripture" that we use now was written mostly in the first century. So was quite a bit of other "scripture". Did you not know this? Most of it was either lost or even destroyed. The Bible as you know it was decided at the Council of Nicaea.

"Heresy" did not exist until they decided what books to include and which ones to exclude.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why do you think Arius had some other scripture?

Arius did not subscribe to the Gospel of John.
It is contradictory to what he believed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

When has truth ever got in the way of politics or religion.
And this was both.

The trinity doctrine was the newcomer with some Powerful backers. But it still took them a further 500 years to gain full control of Christianity. It has never been a completely done deal.

No it wasn't a newcomer. You are rewriting history.
Ignatius a.d. 30–107
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV

But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
Against Praxeas Chapter II

Tertullian a.d. 145–220

 

[Wildswanderer]

You missed the point. Yes, the "scripture" that we use now was written mostly in the first century. So was quite a bit of other "scripture". Did you not know this? Most of it was either lost or even destroyed. The Bible as you know it was decided at the Council of Nicaea.

"Heresy" did not exist until they decided what books to include and which ones to exclude.

Hogwash. Heresies existed from the start. Paul was already preaching against them.
And fake gospels were written and rejected by the apostles because they were obviously without merit or historical context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Arius did not subscribe to the Gospel of John.
It is contradictory to what he believed.

He appears ignorant of the history of the Bible and when the books that we now call the Bible were chosen.

As most of us know, the Council of Nicaea was called to settle the issue of the nature of Jesus. There were varying beliefs at that time and none of them were "heresy". There was no official church dogma yet.

Wikipedia is once again a very good starting place. It avoids the bias of various apologetics sites. Plus one can usually check out the references given for oneself.


First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

No it wasn't a newcomer. You are rewriting history.
Ignatius a.d. 30–107
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV

But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
Against Praxeas Chapter II

Tertullian a.d. 145–220

Yes, there were early trinity believers No one has disputed that. There are were also early non-trinity believers. Arius was one person that did not accept the modern version of the trinity. Their numbers were significant and the beliefs varied which is one of the main reasons that they had the Council of Nicaea in the first place.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This discussion has been running now for some 2000 years.

It no nearer a conclusion that it was at Nicaea.
The chances of this thread adding anything of value or new to the argument is negligible.

We all have unshakable opinions as to the truth. As have so many generations before us.

The truth we all agree on is that there is only one God.

The argument is about the Nature of Jesus, not the nature of God.
I would certainly accept that he declared God to be his father.
In my Book that makes him the Son of God, not the father of himself.
The Son is subordinate to the Father.

Unless you believe in the filioque then the Holy spirit emminates from the father, as Orthodox Christians believe. So both the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, there were early trinity believers No one has disputed that. There are were also early non-trinity believers. Arius was one person that did not accept the modern version of the trinity. Their numbers were significant and the beliefs varied which is one of the main reasons that they had the Council of Nicaea in the first place.

And they lost overwhelmingly. So they were a tiny minority.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And they lost overwhelmingly. So they were a tiny minority.

Tut, tut.
..then why were the Arians eventually persecuted, and books burnt?
They were NOT a tiny minority.
You can't vote to determine truth .. particularly when it was just a few bishops who were voting

It's also very interesting to note, that a few years before Nicea, Christians in general were being persecuted .. some more than others !
Those that were insisting on strict monotheism [ like the Jews ], were despised.
Remember, the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem.

 

[InChrist]

You will see nothing in the Bible that directly addresses the "Nature" of God Except perhaps in the old testament that calls him a Jealous God. From the New testament Jesus teachings show that he is a loving God, with the prime example being Jesus sermon on the mount where the Beatitudes. teach us by example how to please God through how we are to treat our fellow man.. this shows his nature to be forgiving benevolent, kind and without discrimination. and his expectation of us to follow that example.

However nowhere does it describe God or say what sort of a being he might be. we are left with very much a blank sheet to fill with our imaginations. at most he is describes as a shining light in majesty.

My signature is an extract from the Beatitudes.

I used to feel that way, I guess. I didn’t know God or much about Him. I think you are right that the scriptures do give insight into the character of God but the instruction on how we are to treat others with love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, the fruits of the Spirit and the Beatitudes. Since being born again to new life in Christ, the Holy Spirit has illuminated the scriptures to me and given me a greater understanding of God.
I was adamant against the Trinity. Then I was saved and born again. I can’t explain it thoroughly, but within days, maybe hours of that I understood the triune nature of God. I knew it was true and made sense... the only sense in line with God’s revelation of Himself in the scriptures.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

And they lost overwhelmingly. So they were a tiny minority.

The procedure of the vote ensured an overwhelming vote one way or the other. As the losers were to be banished, executed, or stripped of office as heritics.
Very few of the Arians stayed to the end when the outcome was assuredly against winning. Some fled,some changed sides. However very few changed their views and even Arius who was declared a heritic and banished, was later recalled by Cesar and continued his teaching. Arianism continued as a branch of Christianity for a further six hundred years. And continues today as a minority belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used to feel that way, I guess. I didn’t know God or much about Him. I think you are right that the scriptures do give insight into the character of God but the instruction on how we are to treat others with love, forgiveness, mercy, kindness, the fruits of the Spirit and the Beatitudes. Since being born again to new life in Christ, the Holy Spirit has illuminated the scriptures to me and given me a greater understanding of God.
I was adamant against the Trinity. Then I was saved and born again. I can’t explain it thoroughly, but within days, maybe hours of that I understood the triune nature of God. I knew it was true and made sense... the only sense in line with God’s revelation of Himself in the scriptures.

Most people cannot tell the difference between knowing and believing. If you cannot demonstrate your knowledge you only have belief. If you cannot test what you believe you only have belief and not knowledge. And most people refuse to test properly.

If you said that you have a very strong belief I would accept that. But when you claim to "know" you put a burden of proof upon yourself and if you cannot demonstrate that you know then you in effect refute your own claim.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..And continues today as a minority belief.

Islam is not a minority belief. It has much in common with so-called Arians.
It is interesting to note that Muhammad appeared when there was great enmity between Arians and Niceans.
The Roman Empire has a lot to answer to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Islam is not a minority belief. It has much in common with so-called Arians.
It is interesting to note that Muhammad appeared when there was great enmity between Arians and Niceans.
The Roman Empire has a lot to answer to.

That would depend upon the definition of "minority" that one uses. There is no "majority" religion. Christianity holds the plurality right now. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world but even it is less than half of the world population. And in the not too distant future Islam looks as if it will pass Christianity in numbers. Would that mean that one could denigrate Christianity by calling it a "minority religion"?

At any rate I am not fond of using that argument whatever one bases it on.

 

[InChrist]

Most people cannot tell the difference between knowing and believing. If you cannot demonstrate your knowledge you only have belief. If you cannot test what you believe you only have belief and not knowledge. And most people refuse to test properly.

If you said that you have a very strong belief I would accept that. But when you claim to "know" you put a burden of proof upon yourself and if you cannot demonstrate that you know then you in effect refute your own claim.

For your sake I’ll say I have a very strong, assured belief. From my perspective I know what I know, as the scriptures verify I can...


These things I have written to youwho believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Islam is not a minority belief. It has much in common with so-called Arians.
It is interesting to note that Muhammad appeared when there was great enmity between Arians and Niceans.
The Roman Empire has a lot to answer to.

There. Are many non trinitarian beliefs some of them Christian.
Islam has one great failing, in that it believes in the Koran absolutely, and that it is the one true religion. This has stuck it in many ways in the middle ages.

It will remain so until it realise that change is not only inevitable but also necessary to remain relevant. It is a fact of life ordained by God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Would that mean that one could denigrate Christianity by calling it a "minority religion"?

No .. that was not my point.
A poster said that the Arians were only a small minority, which I challenged.
Whatever is in the majority proves nothing.
Truth is not determined by the number of adherents.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For your sake I’ll say I have a very strong, assured belief. From my perspective I know what I know, as the scriptures verify I can...


These things I have written to youwho believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13

If you "knew" you could support your beliefs. Like it or not if you cannot support your claims you only have a very strong belief.

You should look into the concept of epistemology. Or how we know what we know.

 

[InChrist]

If you "knew" you could support your beliefs. Like it or not if you cannot support your claims you only have a very strong belief.

You should look into the concept of epistemology. Or how we know what we know.

No, I could not prove it to one like you who is limited to the physical, material realm. Biblical faith and the ability to know goes beyond into the spiritual, which according to the scriptures is just as real, probably more so... the true reality.

So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight.
2 Corinthians 5:6-7