Arian Christology

[muhammad_isa]

If a church leader would declare his denomination to no longer be trinitarian, my guess is there would be a schism in that group, with "old believers" who would adhere to the previous ways. Not exactly a way to produce unity!

I totally agree. It's a quandary.
Nevertheless, being in a position of responsibility for spiritual guidance is a serious post.
Do you recall Rowan Williams, an archbishop of Canterbury?

Williams, a scholar of the Church Fathers and a historian of Christian spirituality, wrote in 1983 that orthodoxy should be seen "as a tool rather than an end in itself..." It is not something which stands still.
...
He subsequently worked with Muslim leaders in England and on the third anniversary of 9/11 spoke, by invitation, at the Al-Azhar University Institute in Cairo on the subject of the Trinity. He stated that the followers of the will of God should not be led into ways of violence.

 

[RJM]

Yes .. the Arian conflict was all about the trinity.

Yes, which is a fair discussion, as long as one acknowledges the points previously made by others in the thread -- which is what discussion really is?

This theological construct which was first established in the Roman church at Nicea still haunts us today.

This is the problem. Who is haunted by it? Does it haunt you?

so the argument is about what really happened in the first few centuries AD

Trying to unravel what happened 1600 yrs ago is uncertain as you say, and interesting as the complexities unfold. It is not about making your mind up in advance to use it to try to force your own opinion about what Christianity should be?

Even if Christians were polytheists (which it has been shown they are not) why is that your problem? If they believe in the crucifixion and resurrection, why is that your problem? You need to start learning to accept other faiths for what they are, not instructing them how they need be, in order to conform with your own ideas of what they need to be -- with at the same time only a very shallow knowledge of what they actually really are?

And a complete unwillingness to hear or understand what they really are, but only to try to impose your own requirements upon them?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I found Thomas' explanations quite good and very interesting reading.

Indeed .. I like @Thomas' posts.

Did you read them, especially the one where he explained what Nicea was all about, and the one where he painstakingly assembled fragments of Arian writings which demonstrate that Arius and presumably those who followed his teachings were not even opposed to the Trinity, but had different ideas about its detailed configuration?

As I have said previously, I find some of his posts rather long.
However, I have read them.
We really need to define what we mean by "a trinity".
The trinity that was established in the Nicene creed was very specific.

A "barrage of assertions" in one long post is not something that I'm prepared to discuss.

 

[RJM]

Williams, a scholar of the Church Fathers and a historian of Christian spirituality, wrote in 1983 that orthodoxy should be seen "as a tool rather than an end in itself..." It is not something which stands still.

It's unbelievable that you can post this with a straight face. Of course the church does not stand still. Next thing you are accusing the church of changing too much -- when it goes against the values you think it should maintain.

A "barrage of assertions" in one long post is not something that I'm prepared to discuss

Accurate passages from relevant historical documents, you mean?

We really need to define what we mean by "a trinity".

Who needs to?

 

[RJM]

@muhammad_isa
Requires Catholics to lose the trinity, the crucifixion and resurrection, the eucharist and sacraments, the crucifix and stained glass portraits -- I'm sure the list goes on -- to make Moslems happy. Nothing anyone says will have the slightest effect upon what he has already decided. Definitely nothing I say will ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

A "barrage of assertions" in one long post is not something that I'm prepared to discuss

Accurate passages from relevant historical documents, you mean?

..whether they are right or wrong is not the point.
If anybody wishes to "draw points" from his essays / long posts, then I can pass comment.

We really need to define what we mean by "a trinity".

Who needs to?

WE do .. if we wish to argue that Jesus believed in the Nicene creed, that is.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Incidentally, that's what I think V. Garaffa's general articles are .. a "barrage of assertions"
Some I agree with .. some I don't.

 

[RJM]

Incidentally, that's what I think V. Garaffa's general articles are .. a "barrage of assertions"
Some I agree with .. some I don't.

Fair enough. I'm sure in all the years those articles have been there, not one single person has properly read through a single one of them, lol

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tony –

I see Jesus is an Individual that was born of and part of the Holy Spirit, just as we are individuals born of and a part of the Human Spirit.

Ah ... Two 'spirits'?

Christ is a station and not an individual name, or a surname.

Quite so, but needs to be understood in context, and is one of many titles used in the Scriptures.

before they set what became man made doctrine and made heresy out of all other thought.

Rather how we view the Baha'i, I'm afraid.

 

[Thomas]

Yes .. the Arian conflict was all about the trinity.

Arius never mentions the Trinity, nor the Holy Spirit ... it was Christology, that's what you seem unable to comprehend. Arius' theology would suggest an hierarchical Trinity.

 

[RJM]

see Jesus is an Individual that was born of and part of the Holy Spirit, just as we are individuals born of and a part of the Human Spirit.

Ah ... Two 'spirits'?

I get this: the Christ incarnate as non-temporal Spirit upon the temporal horizontal axis of nature?

Men struggled with this concept for a few hundred years, before they set what became man made doctrine and made heresy out of all other thought.

Rather how we view the Baha'i,

Again the idea that Christians -- eventually meaning Papist Catholics -- are just a lot of ignorant sheep, unable to form an original thought and totally subjected to the dogma and the yoke of their very nasty church masters

EDIT
But in principle I do get a lot of what @Tone Bristow-Stagg is saying

 

[muhammad_isa]

Arius never mentions the Trinity

Hmm .. this is why I said we need to define what we mean by "the trinity".
OF COURSE Arius didn't mention "the trinity" .. he was arguing against it
i.e. trinity as in the Nicene creed

Arius' theology would suggest an hierarchical Trinity.

To you it clearly does. But what would that actually mean in practice?
How can the Father be God and the Son be God .. but the eternal Father is greater than the created Son?
I assume that is what you think Arius meant by his "philosophy", for want of a better word.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

If you are talking about the American style prosperity-preaching televangelist We Christians Club -- imo they turn people away from the true message of Christ. But that is not what is being discussed here? The discussion here is about (traditional) Christianity, and particularly about the role of the trinity within it?

If anyone is saying that in order to not be exclusive they should re-invent themselves in order to satisfy Muslims and others, in order to avoid war, that is something else?

The role of the Trinity in Christianity, I see fulfilled the warnings about adding to the scriptures.

The Trinity has become the main casue of preventing Christains from excepting the returns promised in the Scripture.

History is a great lesson. Every time a Message has been given, eventually it's teachings are influenced by men and the light ceases to shine.

That is why God gave us a Covenant that we would never be left without guidance. It is up to us to decide when that guidance is given, as that is also part of the Covernant. God gives the guidance, we are to embrace it.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

How can the Father be God and the Son be God .. but the eternal Father is greater than the created Son?

Because you're taking the terms literally Muhammad. Father is not literally Father, and Son is not literally Son. Those are kindergarden human terms. There's a lot more to it than you want there to be.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Ah ... Two 'spirits'?

Thanks for conversing Thomas.

In a talk by Abdul'baha, Abdu'lbaha explains that there is 5 levels of Spirit.

1 Vegetable
2 Animal
3 Human
4 Spirit of Faith
5 Holy Spirit.

There is much written on this topic.

I would add a scientific thought on how this spirit levels unfolds in this world. We now know that trees communicate.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Hi Tony –

Rather how we view the Baha'i, I'm afraid.

As you can Thomas, but the history of Heresy in the Church, does not reflect what I have offered in good spirit.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

If 'God' is the unchanging vertical Spirit axis, then 'Christ' is the temporal incarnation upon the horizontal axis of nature, antahkarana bridge manifest symbol figure-of-eight shifting axis infinity flow

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because you're taking the terms literally Muhammad. Father is not literally Father, and Son is not literally Son.

Nope .. I am not arguing against the convential trinity here. The Nicene creed states:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father
...

Why "very God of very God" ?
To differentiate between "not so God" perhaps?
..because that's what Arius believed .. "not so God" .. lesser .. created.

 

[RJM]

Why "very God of Very God" ?
To differentiate between "not so God" perhaps?

If 'God' is the unchanging vertical Spirit axis, then 'Christ' is the temporal incarnation upon the horizontal axis of nature, antahkarana bridge manifest symbol figure-of-eight shifting axis infinity flow

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I get this: the Christ incarnate as non-temporal Spirit upon the temporal horizontal axis of nature?

The way I currently see this (note I say currently) is that the story of the Virgin Birth is a Metephor for deeper understanding of our Spiritual Nature.

As we know the Human spirit is given to us at conception. This spirit is created on the edge of darkness and the beginning of light and is the potential we are born with, but we need guidance, education and the Spirit of Faith to reach that potential, to be born again into light of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is pre-existing it is the giver of life and I see this is the Potential that the Messenger is born with, they are the givers of Life. So though they are born from the womb of a mother, they in reality are born of the Holy Spirit.

It will be a great day, when war has ceased and man collectively puts our mind into faith and science and discover all that we can be.

Regards Tony