Oral Torah, Sacred Tradition, Ahadith

[RJM]

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.

Which has been explained, several times over five pages, and by the parable of the vine -- so busted there -- it's not and never was polytheism. It has to do with deeply philosophical ancient debate about the exact nature of Christ.

So lose the polytheism idea. It's a red herring, or a strawman, or whatever you want to call it.

And anyway it has nothing to do with answering the question why, without evidence of your own to offer, and rejecting the evidence offered by history -- you are so confidently able to assert that what you believe is correct ,and what others believe is wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which has been explained, several times over five pages, and by the parable of the vine -- so busted there -- it's not and never was polytheism.

What was never polytheism?
I am not arguing that the trinity is polytheistic.
You are too quick to jump to conclusions.

Let's go back to what I said a few posts ago..
"How does your understanding of the belief of the Arians achieve a monotheistic creed?

If you ignore the question, then why?

 

[RJM]

What was never polytheism?

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:5

"How does your understanding of the belief of the Arians achieve a monotheistic creed?

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:5

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 ?

Now your turn to answer:

why, without evidence of your own to offer, and rejecting the evidence offered by history -- you are so confidently able to assert that what you believe is correct ,and what others believe is wrong.

Your problem is not with the belief in the Trinity?

 

[RJM]

You insist the Trinity was Constantine's effect, and is a false belief?
It has been securely demonstrated in the course of this thread that early Christians used the Trinity formula centuries before Constantine and Nicea.

Your argument is that Matthew's In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not indicate a Trinitarian belief. But it can just as equally -- and more than equally -- be argued that it does? Why should it not?

So what gives you surety that Christian belief in the Trinity it is not the correct belief/reality, and that your own belief is not the wrong, or incomplete, belief?

 

[Cino]

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.

I was not aware that "Pilgrim Notes" were a category of Bahai literature. Thanks! It does fit in with the theme of "oral" or extracanonical tradition. Some time ago, @arthra mentioned a book called "Dawnbreakers", which contains a historical narrative of significant events in Babi and early Baha'i periods, if I remember correctly, and which seems to be influential in defining Baha'i identity. Would this also count as "Pilgrims notes"?

What status do Abdul Baha's writings have? Or Shoghi Effendi's? They seem to have shaped the Baha'i faith and community in ways that Baha'u'llah's writings left open or did not specify. Are they Pilgrim's Notes as well, or is there a different category?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:5

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.

I'm trying to understand your cryptic answer
"The Son branches in its use of begotten of but not different from the Father"
Is this is your understanding of Arianism?
..that the Son can be subordinate to the Father, but not different from the Father?

I'm so sorry .. but that does not make any sense whatsoever.
In the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
You can then claim that The son is not "different" from the Father.

In the belief of the Arians, Father and Son can not be "the same" as one is created, and one is eternal.

Now your turn to answer:
..why, without evidence of your own to offer, and rejecting the evidence offered by history -- you are so confidently able to assert that what you believe is correct ,and what others believe is wrong..

What answer would you like .. that I am a Muslim .. or I am a Unitarian .. or I am a Christian hater?
It's a pointless question intended only to distract from logical argument, accusing me of being biased.
I did not write any history books. I did not write any scripture. I just make conclusions which make sense to me.

I can ask you exactly the same question .. your answer, however, would not interest me in the slightest.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like, for whatever reason.

 

[RJM]

I'm trying to understand your cryptic answer
"The Son (branches) in its use of begotten of but not different from the Father"
Is this is your understanding of Arianism?
..that the Son can be subordinate to the Father, but not different from the Father?

The branch is subordinate to, but not different from the vine. Arianism is not the point. It's a red herring. Your proper difficulty is with the Trinity belief.

What answer would you like .. that I am a Muslim .. or I am a Unitarian .. or I am a Christian hater?
It's a pointless question intended only to distract from logical argument, accusing me of being biased.

No, it is the whole point, Muhammad.

The answer is that you have to argue the correctness of 'your own' scripture, and therefore to dismiss Trinitarian Christianity -- regardless of what is said or evidenced? You already know Christian Trinitarianism is/has to be incorrect and false -- because 'your own' scripture says so -- and nothing's going to make you see otherwise? That is the point? You need to be honest here?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The answer is that you have to argue the correctness of 'your own' scripture, and therefore to dismiss Trinitarian Christianity -- regardless of what is said or evidenced?

I don't "have to" do anything.
I believe that the Qura'n is true .. yes. I thank God for his blessings.

I am not a born Muslim who ignorantly argues "my religion is better than yours"
I look at the facts, and interpret everything in light of them.

Perhaps it is you who have to "argue the correctness of your own creed.".
In any case, if you are more interested in tittle-tattle than serious debate, I'll leave you to it.

 

[RJM]

I believe that the Qura'n is true .. yes. I thank God for his blessings.

Ok. So the NT sometimes differs ...

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I was not aware that "Pilgrim Notes" were a category of Bahai literature. Thanks! It does fit in with the theme of "oral" or extracanonical tradition. Some time ago, @arthra mentioned a book called "Dawnbreakers", which contains a historical narrative of significant events in Babi and early Baha'i periods, if I remember correctly, and which seems to be influential in defining Baha'i identity. Would this also count as "Pilgrims notes"?

What status do Abdul Baha's writings have? Or Shoghi Effendi's? They seem to have shaped the Baha'i faith and community in ways that Baha'u'llah's writings left open or did not specify. Are they Pilgrim's Notes as well, or is there a different category?

Thanks for the questions. There is a can of worms there.

Pilgrim Notes are to be used as a matter of interest and like a Hadith, they can be supported by official writings. The Table talks of Shoghi Effendi around the time of the 2nd world war contain much grim detail. Some of this found its way into official writings, so to me they are of great interest as to what we will face in the future.

Nabils Narrative is a bit of both, with a sad story attached.

Baha'u'llah asked Nabil to write this and Nabil collected and recorded eye witness stories.

Baha'u'llah proof read some of this and a copy existed with corrections but was stolen by the Covenant Breakers and is yet to be recovered.

Abdul'baha also did some proof reading and corrections. In the end, it is a very reliable look at the History of the Faith and the events that unfolded. Shoghi Effendi translated this work so the Baha'i could study the history, so it is a very important work for us to read. It has many heart wrenching stories.

Both Abul'baha and Shoghi Effendi's writings are under the Covenant, so they are accounted as Authorised Scripture as is the guidance given by the Universal House of Justice.

This is a list of Pilgrim Notes

https://bahai-library.com/Pilgrims

This is the light we are to see them in

https://bahai.works/Lights_of_Guidance/Pilgrims'_Notes

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

I thought that I had made that clear..

Sorry, I missed it? Can you repost/repeat?

Do you not see that the trinity that you believe in is a formula which is intended to preserve the Oneness of God?

Yes.

How does your understanding of the belief of the Arians achieve that?

Good question! The development of Christian doctrine walked along the knife-edge of thinking in Hellenic philosophical terms, without drifting into Hellenism. It was the theologian's dilemma. Arianism can be seen as a form of Neoplatonic emanationism:

The "One" is beyond being, and the One emanates a sequence of lesser beings, in a gradated series of hierarchies.

I could explain Arius' model in terms of Plotinus' Enneads, written a 100 years before Arius, but that would only be as an example of metaphysical speculation, not as a formative source.

 

[Thomas]

... It implies that the Arians were polytheists and mainstream trinitarians are "the monotheists".

But your 'impartial historians' didn't accuse Arius of polytheism. No-one did. His condemnation at Nicea does not mention polytheism. I don't know where you got this from?

...although Constantine helped to engineer the Nicene creed for the sake of the empire,
he repented on his deathbed and died as an Arian.

LOL. Where'd you get that from

 

[muhammad_isa]

Good question! The development of Christian doctrine walked along the knife-edge of thinking in Hellenic philosophical terms, without drifting into Hellenism. It was the theologian's dilemma..

That seems reasonable to me..

Arianism can be seen as a form of Neoplatonic emanationism:

I'm not as educated in this field as you .. I don't really understand that 'language'

The "One" is beyond being, and the One emanates a sequence of lesser beings, in a gradated series of hierarchies

That is what you allege.
OF COURSE, "the One" emanates lesser beings. All of mankind are "lesser beings" i.e. they were created

As I have already said, I understand that you believe in a particular formula for the trinity that "preserves the Oneness of God".
There is a fine line between thinking that Jesus was Holy or that Jesus was God.
It is clear to me that the Arians did NOT believe that Jesus was God. They reserved that for "the Father".

..so what is wrong with the Arian's belief, in your opinion? Why is your trinity formula "the truth" and
what you believe their's to be, wrong?

 

[RJM]

I think I need to try to rephrase my clumsily worded comment below, which may have been misunderstood:

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 ?

What I meant to say is that in the analogy: the Father is the vine, the Son is the branches (of the vine) and the Holy Spirit is the fruit. So although the branches are begotten of the (unbegotten) vine, they are the same substance.

In response, of course, to any misunderstanding that the Christian Trinity implies three different gods.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But your 'impartial historians' didn't accuse Arius of polytheism

I wasn't aware that I have cited any "impartial historians" about this issue..
However, what do you think about the following?

The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Sirmium

LOL. Where'd you get that from

Well, what do you think?

Eusebius [of Nicomedia] baptised Constantine the Great in his villa in Nicomedia, on May 22, 337 just before the death of the Emperor.
...
It was because of Eusebius that "On the whole, Constantine and his successors made life pretty miserable for Church leaders committed to the Nicene decision and its Trinitarian formula."

 

[RJM]

There is a fine line between thinking that Jesus was Holy or that Jesus was God.

Christ is far more than just a spokesman/prophet/messenger for the Father. Jesus was without sin. The life of Christ is the demonstration. There is infinite wisdom and mystery in the life of Christ.

 

[Thomas]

It is clear to me that the Arians did NOT believe that Jesus was God. They reserved that for "the Father".

I ask again ... where do you get that from?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I ask again ... where do you get that from?

Simple deduction?

The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Sirmium

Your arguments about the Arians, that they also believed that "Jesus is God"
is not particularly relevant, in any case.
What IS relevant is that they believed that "the Father is greater than the Son" !

 

[RJM]

How does it dismiss modern Christian Trinitarianism? The assumption is that it is false polytheism foisted upon the world by Constantine at Nicea, in order to promote a divine Jesus as Sol Invitus.

But it's been proven in this thread that the Trinity doctrine far predates Constantine or Nicea. It's a red herring.

Although the parable of the vine was meant in a different context, it nevertheless does explain the issue.

The truth is these doctrinal wranglings don't really matter to me at all. But I am just asking anyway.

 

[Cino]

Your arguments about the Arians, that they also believed that "Jesus is God"
is not particularly relevant, in any case.
What IS relevant is that they believed that "the Father is greater than the Son" !

Since Jewish Kabbalah also has an emanationist model of creation, similar to neoplatonism, while remaining fiercely unitarian, I think @muhammad_isa has a point here, @Thomas.

I find your discussion fascinating, btw, learning a lot! May I suggest you start a thread of its own on Arian Christology?