Absolutely wrong .. read the rest of the post.
Oral Torah, Sacred Tradition, Ahadith
- Thread starter Cino
- Start date
Absolutely wrong .. read the rest of the post.
I have.
After first telling @Thomas he's being unfair here:
... for saying this:
... the rest of your post says:OK. You can choose to ignore the evidence, but then your whole Arian thesis, and your insistence that the Early Church did not teach the Trinity, does rather fall apart.You argue a point, but then undermine that point by insisting that any evidence we might have is unreliable.
What sense does that make?
I wish you would drop the debating style of telling the other person:
So what you are really saying is ...
So what you really mean is ...
Ok. But the point remains you have just said there is no evidence:Shall we wait to see what @Thomas says?
So your argument is this:
After @Thomas has gone to great lengths throughout this thread to explain to you that this is not what he is effectively suggesting, and backed by historical evidence.
So from where do you get what you think Arius did believe?
It's more subtle than that – it talks about a distinction within the Godhead.
No, I think they were more subtle and nuanced than you allow.
Perhaps you're looking at it from a modern (or Islamic?) mindset, the ancient world was a lot more fluid in its vision.
In Arius' Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, we find this:
"But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach; that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable" (emphasis mine).
The letter is recorded by Epiphanius in the Panarion, (69.6. c. 377AD) The Greek title can be 'Breadbasket' or 'Medicine Chest'. It was a list of heresies, and the Latin was titled 'Against Heresies'. It was also recorded by Theodoret in his Historia Ecclesiastica, (Book I, Chapter 5, c. 450AD).
In both cases the Greek reads πλήρης θεός – pleres theos, 'fully God' (pleres can mean 'complete' as well as 'full'). What's interesting is although we are pretty sure both were critics of the now-heresiarch Arius, had they been falsifying or 'selectively editing' their sources, they would not have included 'fully God', as the argument with Arius was that he taught that Jesus was not fully God, as this phrase could be used in his defence and rehabilitation.
I don't claim to know EXACTLY what Arians believed..
What "talks"? The alleged evidence?
Thomas said : "No, not at all. For the Arians, Jesus was God, but a created God."
I said: "Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Was God created, or is He eternal?"
Thomas said: "Well take it up with him! For Arius, God the Father is eternal, God the Son had an origin, although before all ages ..."
. . .
It makes no difference what historical evidence you refer to, the meaning is the same.
How can the Son be a created god and the Father an eternal God and be one and the same?
That is what you are saying they believed.
I understand what you believe:
You can't project the idea of a godhead in the same way onto Arian belief, because it results in more than One god.
A lot more "fluid"? That seems like you are saying more nonsensical
..and this is supposed to prove that the Arians believed that the Father and Jesus were God, but not equal?
I cannot fathom how any intelligent person could believe such a thing.
Claiming that we have impartial evidence about what Arians believed is problematic, to say the least.
Let's get one thing clear.
I am NOT saying that belief in the trinity is "unintelligent" .. I am not saying that Christians are "unintelligent".
..so please don't accuse me of doing so.
I am saying that believing that Arians believed in a "godhead" that is identical to
majority Christian belief is untenable.
I am NOT saying that belief in the trinity is "unintelligent" .. I am not saying that Christians are "unintelligent".
..so please don't accuse me of doing so.
I am saying that believing that Arians believed in a "godhead" that is identical to
majority Christian belief is untenable.
Ok. But putting Arius aside for a minute:
Let’s take the vine as unbegotten. It is all one thing, but different parts have different functions. That’s the Trinity.
It is Three because the tradition is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son (branches) in the usage is begotten of but not different from the Father vine. And the fruit, the Holy Spirit, is the product of both. It’s getting hung-up on the human idea of the literal Father and Son that is creating the difficulty ?
Last edited:
OK. On what evidence d'you claim an INEXACT knowledge of what Arius believed? Because you have been pretty forthright about declaring his beliefs.
Seems to me you've decided beforehand what you're willing to believe.
Well Plato was certainly intelligent, and he thought along those lines. Plotinus did, Numenius of Apamea did, Iamblichus did ... No-one would accuse these people of being foolish. But they saw to Gods differently to you and I.
I thought that I had made that clear..
We are talking about what Christians might believe..
Do you not see that the trinity that you believe in is a formula which is intended to preserve the Oneness of God?
How does your understanding of the belief of the Arians achieve that?
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
That is a very good question and thank you for thinking of and inviting Baha'i thought.
Personally I see we have to be very careful of oral tradition and try to find the pure unaltered Word.
It is a massive topic, as in the past a lot of scriptures were passed orally.
We have a good example in this age with the Baha'i Writings as we do have many pilgrim notes, that really mirror what past oral tradition would have been. That is a person listening to what was said by a Messenger then some time later saying or recording what was said.
What we can see in Bahai pilgrim notes is how different people who were at the same talk recorded what was said and what details they remembered and embellished.
In the end I see that all good is from God and all else is from our own self. God loves every soul and wants us to be united as One Soul.
Every teaching that apposes that aim, to me is not of the original given spirit.
Regards Tony
Pehaps 'what Christians believe' is the reality?
Or is it the reality?
What do you want to hear? What statement will satisfy you?
Sorry. Ah yes, my highlight didn't reach the end of the sentence, so I filled in the last couple of words manually, without checking properly. I do apologise for the inadvertant error ...
To rephrase then:
Perhaps what Christians might believe is the reality?
edited ...
Last edited:
Yes, of course
..and that is valid for Jehovah's witness, Mormans, Unitarians and the rest.
Argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument for what might be true or not.
No, but how do you justify your own belief that their belief is wrong?Yes, of course
..and that is valid for Jehovah's witness, Mormans, Unitarians and the rest.
Argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument for what might be true or might not.
You have already decided that historical evidence is irrelevant?
And we have already argued that whatever comes up on Wikipedia must be based on just such historical evidence?
Therefore how do you decide what gives your own belief more weight than what anyone else believes?
IMO this requires an answer, not a dodge ...
Last edited:
IN THE CASE OF WHAT THE ARIANS BELIEVED, yes. Is historical evidence generally iirrelevant? Of course not.
Why is it irrelevant in this particular case?
..because it is clearly not impartial. It implies that the Arians were polytheists and mainstream trinitarians are "the monotheists".
Are we to believe that this so-called history is accurate?
Did they not have access to the gospels?
Are we to believe that a large number of Christians, including the clergy, were polytheists?
Well, not I
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
Personally I see only God points out our mistakes when it comes to understanding of God's Word.
Regards Tony
Talk about deliberate misunderstanding ---- after five pages of explanation that this is not the case?
But why do you believe what you believe, Muhammad?
Last edited:
..because mainstream trintarians are primarily the writers of that history.
Is it possible that all the other creeds that were declared heresy by the Roman empire are lies, and
the nicene trinity is truth?
Yes .. of course it is possible.
Is it possible that 10's of thousands of Arians along with their scholars were polytheists?
Yes .. of course it is possible.
Is it likely?
Absolutely not!
I don't find it likely at all that Arians were insincere and ignorant.
I don't find it likely at all that Constantine died as a polytheist.
..although Constantine helped to engineer the Nicene creed for the sake of the empire,
he repented on his deathbed and died as an Arian.