Roots of Modern Christianity

[KnightRider]

I'm quite new to the forum so forgive me if this topic has been addressed recently. I introduced myself in the thread entitled "Just looking for some answers" in the new-member forum, and stated that my leanings are towards Christianity. I do however have some concerns about the rise of what we today understand as Christianity. For the most part I believe in the Bible and I hope/believe that Jesus Christ is who he professed to be -- the son of God. From what I understand of the New Testament it appears that an actual organized church was set up with the 12 apostles. Curious about the history of this church I read a book on Christian history (I don't remember off hand the title or name of the author but if you're interested I can find it).

According to the history that I read several of the original apostles were killed and Christians in general were heavily persecuted early on. Eventually Christians were forced to survive in different isolated groups apparently living off of the remembered teachings of the apostles. That all changed when Constantine was converted to Christianity and made it the official religion of the empire. Many of these Christians came forward but with differing ideas about what they claimed the apostles had taught and on topics as fundamental as the divinity of Jesus. Constantine wanted to unify the Christian theology and several councils resulted, in which they debated and ultimately voted on the "true" doctrines of Christianity. So this is the first thing that troubles me, the doctrines were voted on? OK so maybe if there was some divine spirit of understanding that was present and the voted results were inspired from heaven, then I could accept that, but with what followed in the history makes me find that hard to believe. After Christianity was "defined" and made the universal religion it was then the Christians that became the persecutors who forced their beliefs on everyone. To me that completely contradicts the Christianity found in the New Testament.

Now, maybe this history is not accurate and there's some important information missing, but if it is at least mostly accurate than in order for pure Chrisitanity to exist today there must have been some divine intervention to straighten things out and in effect overturn some of the principles established in those councils, but it seems that most Christian denominations rely heavily on those voted creeds. Again I may be wrong on this and I'd be interested to here your thoughts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm quite new to the forum so forgive me if this topic has been addressed recently. I introduced myself in the thread entitled "Just looking for some answers" in the new-member forum, and stated that my leanings are towards Christianity. I do however have some concerns about the rise of what we today understand as Christianity. For the most part I believe in the Bible and I hope/believe that Jesus Christ is who he professed to be -- the son of God. From what I understand of the New Testament it appears that an actual organized church was set up with the 12 apostles. Curious about the history of this church I read a book on Christian history (I don't remember off hand the title or name of the author but if you're interested I can find it).

According to the history that I read several of the original apostles were killed and Christians in general were heavily persecuted early on. Eventually Christians were forced to survive in different isolated groups apparently living off of the remembered teachings of the apostles. That all changed when Constantine was converted to Christianity and made it the official religion of the empire. Many of these Christians came forward but with differing ideas about what they claimed the apostles had taught and on topics as fundamental as the divinity of Jesus. Constantine wanted to unify the Christian theology and several councils resulted, in which they debated and ultimately voted on the "true" doctrines of Christianity. So this is the first thing that troubles me, the doctrines were voted on? OK so maybe if there was some divine spirit of understanding that was present and the voted results were inspired from heaven, then I could accept that, but with what followed in the history makes me find that hard to believe. After Christianity was "defined" and made the universal religion it was then the Christians that became the persecutors who forced their beliefs on everyone. To me that completely contradicts the Christianity found in the New Testament.

Now, maybe this history is not accurate and there's some important information missing, but if it is at least mostly accurate than in order for pure Chrisitanity to exist today there must have been some divine intervention to straighten things out and in effect overturn some of the principles established in those councils, but it seems that most Christian denominations rely heavily on those voted creeds. Again I may be wrong on this and I'd be interested to here your thoughts.

I've been pointing people to Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy, as it is available online. It is a very scholarly review of how orthodox Christianity "won" and became the dominant voice of interpreting the NT.

 

[Valjean]

Good observations, KnightRider. Google Ecclesiastic Councils and read about the power politics that gave us the Church we have today.

Religious teachings do not generally reflect the actual text of their Holy Writings. Religious teachings are tailored to address the values, fears and concerns of the day. Religion maintains the status quo and offers rewards and punishments to keep the elite on top and the general rabble in line.

 

[KnightRider]

I've been pointing people to Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy, as it is available online. It is a very scholarly review of how orthodox Christianity "won" and became the dominant voice of interpreting the NT.

Thanks, I looked over it quickly and it looks interesting. I'll definitely read it more thoroughly over the next few days.

 

[KnightRider]

Good observations, KnightRider. Google Ecclesiastic Councils and read about the power politics that gave us the Church we have today.

Religious teachings do not generally reflect the actual text of their Holy Writings. Religious teachings are tailored to address the values, fears and concerns of the day. Religion maintains the status quo and offers rewards and punishments to keep the elite on top and the general rabble in line.

I agree that there are many religions/denominations that seem to work to maintain the status quo and profit financially or politically from it, but I honestly believe that there are also some that are genuinely interested in bringing truth and happiness to all people. Those are the ones I'm interested in familiarizing myself with to find the truth.

 

[Popeyesays]

I agree that there are many religions/denominations that seem to work to maintain the status quo and profit financially or politically from it, but I honestly believe that there are also some that are genuinely interested in bringing truth and happiness to all people. Those are the ones I'm interested in familiarizing myself with to find the truth.

One of the problems was the lack of a clear succession of authority after the passing of Jesus. To see how a modern religion dealt with succession productively check out www.bahai.org .

Regards,
Scott

 

[KnightRider]

One of the problems was the lack of a clear succession of authority after the passing of Jesus. To see how a modern religion dealt with succession productively check out www.bahai.org .

Regards,
Scott

That lack of a clear succession of authority is something that I think about a lot. I believe that Jesus passed it on to the Twelve Apostles then it seems to have ended there.

I read through some information on the Baha'i religion that you referred me to and it sounded pretty interesting. So you believe that Bahá’u’lláh was a prophet-like figure that restored that authority? If so, I'm curious how it occurred? Baha'i seems to be a very worthy organization that does a lot to help humanity and try to bring peace to the world. I completely respect that. I was a little troubled doctrinally by this statement though: "He taught that all the world’s religions represent stages in the revelation of God’s will and purpose for humanity." This implies that God has revealed contradicting "truths" throughout the ages since the different world religions have taught and continue to teach conflicting doctrines (example: resurrection vs reincarnation). That doesn't really make sense to me, nonetheless I respect the good intentions and good works done by the Baha'i religion.

 

[Quiddity]

KnightRider, great topic. Such a monolithic topic that is quite difficult to encapsulate in a couple posts. But let's take baby steps. The early Church was constantly squabbling about different issues that pertain to Christian faith and morals. This squabbling is often seen as another version of what we see today. With thousands of denominations disagreeing about baptism, salvation, etc. This was not the case in early Christianity contrary to what some people would have you believe. It was but One Church settling issues, developing, and understanding of what they have been taught. There is volumes upon volumes of writings of the issues. Here is some sources if you wish to spend the rest of your life reading some of them.....
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://ccel.org/

This is definately something you need to settle first and take the next step and look into authority.

 

[Popeyesays]

That lack of a clear succession of authority is something that I think about a lot. I believe that Jesus passed it on to the Twelve Apostles then it seems to have ended there.

I read through some information on the Baha'i religion that you referred me to and it sounded pretty interesting. So you believe that Bahá’u’lláh was a prophet-like figure that restored that authority? If so, I'm curious how it occurred? Baha'i seems to be a very worthy organization that does a lot to help humanity and try to bring peace to the world. I completely respect that. I was a little troubled doctrinally by this statement though: "He taught that all the world’s religions represent stages in the revelation of God’s will and purpose for humanity." This implies that God has revealed contradicting "truths" throughout the ages since the different world religions have taught and continue to teach conflicting doctrines (example: resurrection vs reincarnation). That doesn't really make sense to me, nonetheless I respect the good intentions and good works done by the Baha'i religion.

Buddhism teaches that one must give up this world to progress to the next one. That this world is a "dream" in comparison to the state of "nirvana" which is the true world.
Unfortunately, the actual words of the Buddha do not still exist, and we are left with the memories of those who heard the Buddha passed on by the memories of those who never heard the Buddha. So, is the actual teaching of reincarnation as we know it, of any relevance to the actual teachings of the Buddha while He lived. Certainly if we wonder about the exact words of Jesus in the New Testament, we have to wonder about the actual words of the Buddha as well.

"
The Four Noble Truths

In his first sermon after attaining enlightenment, the Buddha taught the "Four Noble Truths," which form the foundation of belief for all branches of Buddhism:

1. All of life is marked by suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by desire and attachment.
3. Suffering can be stopped.
4. The way to end suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Noble Eightfold Path

According to the fourth Noble Truth, one can permanently escape suffering by following the Noble Eightfold Path. The word "right" in these eight items designates "true" or "correct," to distinguish the Buddhist way from others: It is not enought to gain knowledge; it must be right knowledge.

1. Right knowledge
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration"

And:
"
The Buddha said of death:

Life is a journey.
Death is a return to earth.
The universe is like an inn.
The passing years are like dust.
Regard this phantom world
As a star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp - a phantom - and a dream"

Baha`i's have a take on this which is quite similar to the actual words of the Buddha, even though reincarnation is not part of the Baha`i Faith.

"Thou hast written concerning the impersonality of the Divinity. Personality is in the manifestation of the Divinity, not in the essence of the Divinity. The reality of the divine world is purified and sanctified from limits and restriction. But the pure Mirror, which is the manifestor of the Sun of Truth and in which the Sun of Truth is manifest in full appearance -- that Mirror is restricted, and not the Lights. The soul pervadeth throughout the entire body, and its commands are effective in all the parts and limbs of man. Notwithstanding its utmost sanctification (or abstraction) this soul is manifest and evident in all its grades, in this material form. By "seeing God" is meant beholding the Manifestation of Himself; for witnessing the sun in its entire splendor, in a clear glassy surface, is identical with witnessing the essence of the sun itself.
When the souls of the sincere depart, then their unreal vision is changed into a vision of reality. Even as man, when in the age of childhood and imperfection, though he seeth things, yet that vision is superficial and external. But when he reacheth the world of perfection and becometh endowed with reasoning faculty and discrimination and comprehension, then that vision of his is a vision of reality and not appearance.
It is evident that the divine nearness is an unlimited nearness, be it in this world or the next one. This is a nearness which is sanctified from the comprehension of minds. The more a man seeketh light from the Sun of Truth, the nearer he will draw. For instance, a clear body is near unto the sun, and a black stone is far from the sun. This nearness dependeth upon clearness, purity and perfection, and that remoteness is due to density, dullness and imperfection.
"As to the question whether souls will recognize each other in the spiritual world: This fact is certain; for the Kingdom is the world of vision, where all the concealed realities will become disclosed. How much more the intimate souls will become manifest. The mysteries of which man is heedless in this earthly world, those will he discover in the heavenly world, and there will 483 he be informed of the secret of truth; how much more will he recognize or discover persons with whom he has associated. Undoubtedly, the holy souls who find a pure eye and are favored with insight will, in the kingdom of lights, be acquainted with all mysteries, and will seek the bounty of witnessing the reality of every great soul. They will even manifestly behold the Beauty of God in that world. Likewise will they find all the friends of God, both those of former and recent times, present in the heavenly assemblage."
(Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 482)

Regards,
Scott

​

 

[KnightRider]

Victor, thanks for the links, I'll try to read through them the quantity is a little overwhelming, but worth it to me. From what I've studied, I agree with you through the first few centuries, when Apostles were still around and their established branches were still fresh. It appears to me however that the church eventually became spread quite thin with followers in many geographical locations but lacked the leadership outreach (communication, travel limitations) to adequately handle it. Not to mention the persecution that threatened and took the life of many of the early leaders. So it seems inevitable to me that by 300+ AD there were easily isolated groups that had completely differing thoughts or traditions on true Christianity. Thus resulting in a need for the councils to vote/decide on the true doctrines. I would like to believe that pure Christianity remained in tact through this period but I have a hard time believing it did with some of the doctrines and non-humane treatment that the resulting church endorsed over the next several centuries. Also what happened to the precedence of 12 apostles as established in the N.T. Please understand I'm not attacking Catholisism, there are just a lot of historical events and even current doctrines that I have troubles accepting represent the pure Christianity of the N.T.

 

[KnightRider]

Unfortunately, the actual words of the Buddha do not still exist, and we are left with the memories of those who heard the Buddha passed on by the memories of those who never heard the Buddha. So, is the actual teaching of reincarnation as we know it, of any relevance to the actual teachings of the Buddha while He lived. Certainly if we wonder about the exact words of Jesus in the New Testament, we have to wonder about the actual words of the Buddha as well.

OK, I'm trying to understand what you meant here. So you believe that both Buddha and Jesus were prophet-like figures? But you don't necessarily believe that Buddha preached reincarnation? Do you believe the Bible?

I believe that there is much that is consistant between the teachings of Buddha and Jesus. The noble virtues that they both taught I believe to be true principles and ones that lead to happiness and potentially to the end of suffering. However, I sincerely fail to see the complete connection. Jesus and his disciples claimed that he was more than a prophet -- the actual Son of God and Savior of mankind. He also preached resurrection and was resurrected himself. Maybe Buddha didn't preach reincarnation, but would he have agreed that Jesus was the Son of God and that He was resurrected?

 

[Popeyesays]

OK, I'm trying to understand what you meant here. So you believe that both Buddha and Jesus were prophet-like figures? But you don't necessarily believe that Buddha preached reincarnation? Do you believe the Bible?

I believe that there is much that is consistant between the teachings of Buddha and Jesus. The noble virtues that they both taught I believe to be true principles and ones that lead to happiness and potentially to the end of suffering. However, I sincerely fail to see the complete connection. Jesus and his disciples claimed that he was more than a prophet -- the actual Son of God and Savior of mankind. He also preached resurrection and was resurrected himself. Maybe Buddha didn't preach reincarnation, but would he have agreed that Jesus was the Son of God and that He was resurrected?

Prophet-like?
I'll go it one better - the Manifestations of God which include, Abraham, Moses, Krsna, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha`u'llah, Noah, Salih and Hud - for sure, and beyond doubt. There may have been others but we have lost their names and scripture over time. All came from God with equal stature. They are all the Divine Messengers, the Manifestations of God - the Son of God - for all intents and purposes.
In one way, Those blessed souls are all the reincarnations of the same soul - though in different times, places and with different names They lived different lives.

So here we have not just resurrection, but reincarnation in a sense.

But me? No. The Manifestations of God exist on a different plane of existence than humanity. They shared an entirely different kind of communion with God. Humanity gets this life to fulfill some credit before God with their own efforts and decisions, we do not reincarnate.

Regards,
Scott

 

[KnightRider]

OK that makes more sense. What scriptures do you use? So do you consider Christianity and Buddism incomplete religions since they don't acknowledge the divinity of the other? Was it Baha`u'llah that formalized this belief in the "Manifestations of God" or is there precedence for it in the scriptures? I don't recall anything that supports this in the Bible though I could be wrong.

 

[Smoke]

One of the problems was the lack of a clear succession of authority after the passing of Jesus.

I disagree. It seems pretty clear that leadership passed to Jesus' brother James, and that his leadership was given at least formal, if not wholehearted, recognition by the various factions.

 

[ChrisP]

I disagree. It seems pretty clear that leadership passed to Jesus' brother James, and that his leadership was given at least formal, if not wholehearted, recognition by the various factions.

Could you please point me to scripture/documentation regarding this?

 

[Popeyesays]

I disagree. It seems pretty clear that leadership passed to Jesus' brother James, and that his leadership was given at least formal, if not wholehearted, recognition by the various factions.

And yet Roman Catholicism will say Peter was the "rock" upon which the church is founded. The only direct Gospel assignment to James is in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, thanks for the links, I'll try to read through them the quantity is a little overwhelming, but worth it to me. From what I've studied, I agree with you through the first few centuries, when Apostles were still around and their established branches were still fresh. It appears to me however that the church eventually became spread quite thin with followers in many geographical locations but lacked the leadership outreach (communication, travel limitations) to adequately handle it. Not to mention the persecution that threatened and took the life of many of the early leaders. So it seems inevitable to me that by 300+ AD there were easily isolated groups that had completely differing thoughts or traditions on true Christianity.

I'll tell you what, I'll be open to what I think your saying and only ask that you give me some information of these other groups that held "completely differing thoughts or traditions on true Christianity". Granted there were differing views floating around and some people/small groups that deviated (Nestorians) but by no means do I see any of those groups connected to groups you see now and most people were pretty clear on where to go on Christian faith and morals.

Thus resulting in a need for the councils to vote/decide on the true doctrines. I would like to believe that pure Christianity remained in tact through this period but I have a hard time believing it did with some of the doctrines and non-humane treatment that the resulting church endorsed over the next several centuries.

I would contend that there is in fact a paper trail of early Christian writings and the result of many of those discussions can be seen in Councils and various other writings. So it's not like you can easily say Christians don't believe in X because the writings can disprove or support a claim (That is if it's not clear in the Bible). Now obviously most people don't start off by reading volumes upon volumes of historical writings and then come to a conclusion after a decade of reading. This is only more necessary now with all the different flavors of Christianity that surround us. We all have to become Popes and theologians just to take some steps foward toward truth. I assure you that for almost 1,500 years the majority of Christians nearly had to point to a Church for guidance. Most of the squabbling happened high in the ranks and the if the issue was grand enough it got solved in a Council. What do you think kept Christianity united for 1,500 (Eastern Orthodox seperated around the 1450's) years, KnightRider? One thing and one thing alone: They allowed things to be resolved up in the ranks. They had faith in the Church even when things were going very good. That is the difference.

Also what happened to the precedence of 12 apostles as established in the N.T. Please understand I'm not attacking Catholisism, there are just a lot of historical events and even current doctrines that I have troubles accepting represent the pure Christianity of the N.T.

Can you clarify please. Not sure what you are asking. Don't worry I'm not offended and I don't think you are attacking the Catholic Church.

 

[Quiddity]

And yet Roman Catholicism will say Peter was the "rock" upon which the church is founded. The only direct Gospel assignment to James is in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas

Regards,
Scott

True, true....:jam:

 

[No*s]

I'm quite new to the forum so forgive me if this topic has been addressed recently. I introduced myself in the thread entitled "Just looking for some answers" in the new-member forum, and stated that my leanings are towards Christianity. I do however have some concerns about the rise of what we today understand as Christianity. For the most part I believe in the Bible and I hope/believe that Jesus Christ is who he professed to be -- the son of God. From what I understand of the New Testament it appears that an actual organized church was set up with the 12 apostles. Curious about the history of this church I read a book on Christian history (I don't remember off hand the title or name of the author but if you're interested I can find it).

According to the history that I read several of the original apostles were killed and Christians in general were heavily persecuted early on. Eventually Christians were forced to survive in different isolated groups apparently living off of the remembered teachings of the apostles. That all changed when Constantine was converted to Christianity and made it the official religion of the empire. Many of these Christians came forward but with differing ideas about what they claimed the apostles had taught and on topics as fundamental as the divinity of Jesus. Constantine wanted to unify the Christian theology and several councils resulted, in which they debated and ultimately voted on the "true" doctrines of Christianity. So this is the first thing that troubles me, the doctrines were voted on? OK so maybe if there was some divine spirit of understanding that was present and the voted results were inspired from heaven, then I could accept that, but with what followed in the history makes me find that hard to believe. After Christianity was "defined" and made the universal religion it was then the Christians that became the persecutors who forced their beliefs on everyone. To me that completely contradicts the Christianity found in the New Testament.

Now, maybe this history is not accurate and there's some important information missing, but if it is at least mostly accurate than in order for pure Chrisitanity to exist today there must have been some divine intervention to straighten things out and in effect overturn some of the principles established in those councils, but it seems that most Christian denominations rely heavily on those voted creeds. Again I may be wrong on this and I'd be interested to here your thoughts.

Knight Rider, there are other ways to view the evidence. Victor and I will be in agreement on this, naturally.

First, Christianity was not so completely isolated by the persecutions. Even in AD 70 (or 90 if you take that date), the Church in Rome was trying to reconcile a problem in Corinth (Rome being the best choice culturally, because Corinth, at the time, was actually a Latin city, not a Greek one). We know from the Didache that there were wondering teachers and prophets.

Both of those documents date around the same time as the NT, and after that we don't see this great isolation. For instance, St. Irenaeus uses the unity of the faith as a basic argument (even if he did have some historical errors). Ss. Justin Martyr did the same, and St. Ignatius apparently assumed it.

The various churches, far from being isolated, were coming into closer and closer communication as Christianity spread and the Empire was helpless to stop it. When they did this, they passed along the teachings of the Apostles, who passed along the teaching of Christ (this is important: Truth is a Person in Christianity, not a concept, and thus, our coming to know it must be personal, in a model after the master-disciple model of the Master). Each one received faith in Christ in a personal fashion.

This method acts like a bunch of people seeing a movie several times. When someone misquotes it, the rest will correct him. Look at history and see the same thing. Errors and disputes arose immediately, and they continued and have not stopped. In general we can trace the errors to individuals. Sabellius created a doctrine called Sabellianism. Arianism is so-called, because it was invented by the presbyter Arius in the year 318.

Most every heresy can be traced to a single founder, a single time, even if it doesn't die (there are exceptions, of course). When he began teaching, there was an outcry and disturbance. The people rebelled. For a while, there was fighting, while his teaching gained ground (Arius, being one of the most successful, and one of the ones where politics did help quench, rather than inflame, the issue). Later, some were mixed with politics. For instance, in the fifth century, the rejection of Chalcedon was made permanent, not by any traditional interpretation, but because politics and religion mixed: the monophysites began referring to the Church as the "Melkite Church," the "Emperor's Church," and tied the politics to the theology. It made the schism permanent (I'm not going to lie, there are some dirty politics in history). Both sides committed terrible errors to maintain peace and order, and that ensured the permanence of what, otherwise, may have passed on its own.

Likewise, when the papacy schismed away, there was politics involved. It started with theology: the Latins altered the Nicene Creed amongst other issues. It tied into a traditional rivalry between the, now Greek, Roman Empire and the new Frankish powers, the Holy Roman Empire (Roman in name and appointment by the papacy, but thoroughly Frankish in lineage).

In each case, though, we can trace the novelty of the teaching. Far from being an isolated faith, the heresies that schismed were isolated. Some heresies were more viscious than others, but in the end, when they arose, would not be refuted, and schismed, they led themselves to the same end, and we can always know their beginning.

Taking this approach gives modern Christianity a more confident feel even in the midst of the dirty politics (and they did exist). There is one other factor: from the earliest days, Christians believed that Christ sent the Spirit to guide the Church into all Truth and that the people of God would never be fully led astray. As a result, we believe the Church always triumphant in every heresy. This simply reinforces the view above. There are ways of looking at things that differ radically from one of a governmental Christianity that destroyed all others (notice that there were efforts by the Emperors to change the Church's teachings, and only the more "conservative" councils would succeed. Robber Councils lost face and failed utterly, and there were many of those).

 

[KnightRider]

I'll tell you what, I'll be open to what I think your saying and only ask that you give me some information of these other groups that held "completely differing thoughts or traditions on true Christianity". Granted there were differing views floating around and some people/small groups that deviated (Nestorians) but by no means do I see any of those groups connected to groups you see now and most people were pretty clear on where to go on Christian faith and morals.

Fair enough. The main group that comes to mind is the Arians. They were a group of Christians who believed that Jesus was the Son of God -- a seperate person, as opposed to the trinitarian notion that they are part of the same. The Arian beliefs had acquired a significant following in Alexandria and in much of the eastern Mediterranean. This resulted in considerable conflict within the Christian community. Constantine was determined to maintain a unified Christian church and as a result called the First Council of Nicea. Because the majority of the Bishops at the time were of trinitarian belief, that was the doctrine that won out. It was then pronounced that anyone who refused to accept this doctrine would be exiled. Constantine also ordered that the Arian book that proclaimed their beliefs be burned. This is likely why the church remained unified for so long, because it was enforced by the empire. It really wasn't until the empire split that major divisions/breakoffs occurred in the church.

So here are the problems I have with the early church:

• The church seemed to be run as much by the emperor as by any ecclesiastical authority. And often that rule was with an iron fist.
• To be honest I have a hard time accepting the trinitarian idea. There is scriptural evidence that God the father and Jesus his Son were just that: father and son - two seperate individuals (Acts 7:55, Matt. 3:17). In my opinion the Arians were justified in their belief, but because the majority of Bishops didn't agree, the Arians were exiled and their book burned. That is not Christian-like in any sense.