Arian Christology

@RJM Corbet

Origin did not have a Qur'an. Neither did Emperor Justinian in 543 AD.
Muhammad wasn't born until 570 AD.
The Qur'an began to be revealed 40 years later in 610 AD.
 
Last edited:
The humanity of Jesus cannot be separated from the divinity of Christ
 
Oh dear .. how sad :(
We're all so clever. We claim to know all about God. The fine details of what He is.
..and then despise those that don't believe like we do.

Almighty God guides whomsoever He wills. We need to be humble to appreciate the truth.
I'm sure that God does not want us to call each other heretics and kill each other.
Have we learnt anything from the errors of the past?

I don't think so. I speak to Muslims and I speak to Christians.
They both arrogantly continue to spew their doctrines and ignore
the whole point of faith.
I suppose it's inevitable. Mankind is tribal by nature, and they behave as if God belongs to them.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is long and very political. It cannot be shown
to be "the complete truth and nothing but the truth". It was derived at through a series of
political wranglings.
It has little to do with the Gospel .. more to do with empire.
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
But the body of Jesus died on the cross, was missing on the third day from the tomb, and the Christ manifested after the resurrection?
Click to expand...

"1 Corinthians 15:42-44 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body"

Regards Tony
 
Thomas said:
..currently this thread is jumping all over the shop in a 'keep throwing spaghetti in the hope that something sticks' kinda way... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you would feel "under attack" due to the nature of the discussion.
I think we are both approaching it from different angles. You see the early Christians as believing in "the trinity",
whereas I don't.
That is because I see the Trinity as meaning the orthodox view
i.e. The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will

Furthermore, you see the early Christians as believing Jesus is God, whereas I do not.
That is because I equate "Jesus is God" with meaning Jesus is the Father.

Father . . . . . Son
120px-Holy_Trinity_Template.jpg

. . . Holy Spirit

...
And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost.
...

Let's see..
..the statement "JESUS IS GOD" means different things to different people?
Part of the 'mystery' in the orthodox trinity?
I don't see Arius' view as a mystery. The Father is God .. absolutely no question about it..
..and the Son is created by the Father .. call him divine if you like .. but he is NOT the Father.
The Father is Yahweh. Jesus is NOT Yahweh, although divine.

Oh well .. I tried :)
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
Well, have a nice time. It is not my forum.
Click to expand...

I'm getting rather confused actually. It's all getting very technical. Something that started off with
a comment about Nicene Christianity has ended up swirling around in a "Godhead" .. which I don't even believe in :D
 
RJM Corbet said:
I said:
Why is it that Nicene Christianity must be "the true belief"? A council of bishops deciding something immediately after an extreme persecution does not prove it..
Click to expand...

However that is what was decided. If it had gone the other way, then it would be different, would it not?
Click to expand...

That is indeed what was decided. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many Christians haven't stopped to think about why
or how their faith is what it is. That is what this discussion is about, really.
We are all free to think about it as we like.

There are so many different creeds, and we have to decide why we think ours is correct..
Can we really say that every religion or sect is on true guidance from God?
How is it that possible? Why should ours be right and all the others wrong?
..or maybe we don't really care, and just wish to stay with what we find familiar.

In that case, we don't really have a moral foot to stand on.
 
muhammad_isa said:
There are so many different creeds, and we have to decide why we think ours is correct..
Can we really say that every religion or sect is on true guidance from God?
How is it that possible? Why should ours be right and all the others wrong?
Click to expand...

Regarding the truth of world views, I think it is important to remember perspective.

In illustrative imagery: The sun is always shining, but from different continents on Earth it appears to be rising, setting, or, on one of the poles, it might even never rise, or always shine. And even in the latter case of a polar summer with an ever-shining sun, it would be a gross mistake to equate the point of view of a penguin with the point of view of the sun.

In other words, from my point of view, it makes a lot of sense to assume that different religions and sects all have their merits and provide valid ways to approach the truth of our existence.

Not all religions claim this truth for themselves, by the way. There are those, even in the ones that trace back to Abraham, that are comfortable with the idea of other people worshipping God in their own ways, which were given to them by God.

..or maybe we don't really care, and just wish to stay with what we find familiar.

In that case, we don't really have a moral foot to stand on.
Click to expand...

Again, only if I insist on being the only one with access to the truth. Then it would be very hypocritical to demand of others to test their assumptions but not do so myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
"1 Corinthians 15:42-44 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body"

Regards Tony
Click to expand...
Yes all that is understood Tony, but Christ showed his wounds to Thomas. It is the mystery of the Resurrection. There's been extensive discussion in other threads about the spiritual body, etc. The fact is, according to the scriptures at any rate, the humanity of Jesus cannot be separated from the divinity of Christ.
muhammad_isa said:
that case, we don't really have a moral foot to stand on.
Click to expand...
'We' have 'our' book that denies not just the divinity of Christ, but also the crucifixion and the resurrection, and the sacraments and most of the Christian scriptures -- therefore 'we' have the moral obligation to take our jihaad to you because that is what 'our' book tells us to do?
muhammad_isa said:
We claim to know all about God. The fine details of what He is.
..and then despise those that don't believe like we do.
Click to expand...
Bingo
muhammad_isa said:
Why should ours be right and all the others wrong?
Click to expand...
Bingo
muhammad_isa said:
The Father is Yahweh.
Click to expand...
It means "I Am'

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 8:51-59&version=NIV full passage
muhammad_isa said:
Jesus is NOT Yahweh, although divine.
Click to expand...
Divine means God. Are you talking about gods and demigods and divisions of gods here?
muhammad_isa said:
Oh well .. I tried :)
Click to expand...
Yup. Try again, lol

You keep talking as if God is actually Father and Christ is actually Son. But they are just human words used to try to explain spiritual things to human minds. The problem is literalism.
 
Cino said:
In other words, from my point of view, it makes a lot of sense to assume that different religions and sects all have their merits and provide valid ways to approach the truth of our existence.
Click to expand...

Yes .. that is broadly true.
However, on many occasions, different creeds directly contradict each other, and create division.

In the case of the Catholic church, a creed evolved over a few centuries which progressively excluded
others. Something that starts off as "God is One .. love your neighbour as yourself" morphs into
pages of "what you must believe" :)
 
RJM Corbet said:
..You keep talking as if God is actually Father and Christ is actually Son. But they are just human words used to try to explain spiritual things to human minds. The problem is literalism.
Click to expand...

That is what you are saying .. because you believe in an orthodox trinity.
Clearly "our Father whom art in heaven" refers to God in heaven.

..and from there onwards we seem to be divided about who or what the Son is.

Origin didn't believe exactly the same as what Arius believed, for example,
but Arius' philosophy was broadly in line with his.

..claiming that "we Christians all believe in the trinity" is misleading.
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
..so Origen was an Arian?
Click to expand...
Well to determine that, you'd have to compare what Origen wrote (which you probably wouldn't accept) with what Arius wrote (which you don't accept) :oops:

Personally, I'd say not a strict Arian, no ... semi-Arian, maybe?

muhammad_isa said:
..not an "Arian" then .. a subordinationist.
Click to expand...
Historically a lot of scholars would say yes, but then:

"Gregory's (Gregory of Nyssa) close dependence on Origen in his anti-subordinationism, within his polemic against 'Arianism', confirms that Origen was not the forerunner of 'Arianism.' as he was depicted in the Origenist controversy and is often still regarded to be, but the main inspirer of the Cappadocians, especially Nyssa, in what became Trinitarian orthodoxy. Origen inspired Marcellus, who was anti-Arian, Eusebius, who in fact was no 'Arian,' Athanasius, the champion of anti-Arianism, and the Cappadocians. I argue extensively ... (from) a painstaking analysis of his works (always with attention to their reliability in relation to Greek original, translations, and fragments) and of Pamphilus, Eusebius, Athanasius, and other revealing testimonies, pagan and Christian." (I.L.E. Ramelli, "Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line", Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 65, No. 1 (2011)

muhammad_isa said:
lOh no ! It doesn't look like many people had "the truth" .. or is it all an illusion?
Click to expand...
Believers in any faith must ask themselves that question often, if not every day ...

muhammad_isa said:
Never mind .. there must be something left from all that burning.
Click to expand...
Oooh, glass houses, chum! :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
RJM Corbet said:
You're making too much of the physical Father and Son aspect of trinity -- especially of the man Jesus as portrayed by the Quran. It's more than that. The Christ is more than what the Quran limits him to be (already discussed)
Click to expand...
Oh, bravo! A point I wish I'd made!

Might I add the same applies to the Baha'i viewpoint, but then that's Moslem-inspired, so understandable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Then again, @muhammad_isa], to paraphrase ...

"In the case of the Islam, a creed evolved over a few centuries which progressively excluded others. Something that starts off as "God is One .. love your neighbour as yourself" (never a creed, btw) morphs into pages of "what you must believe"

People in glass houses ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
muhammad_isa said:
Oh dear .. how sad :(
We're all so clever. We claim to know all about God. The fine details of what He is.
..and then despise those that don't believe like we do.
Click to expand...
@muhammad_isa – This smacks of petulance. It also applies to you as much as anyone – in fact moreso, as you're the one telling we Christians what's right and what's wrong with our beliefs, and we've been polite enough not to snap back at yours, but frankly I'm running out of patience with your sniping and clever asides, and so have pointed out above where I think you're out of line.

Please stick to the issue under debate.

Your opinions are your opinions but, as I've said, whether there is any substance to them is another matter. You believe so, I believe not, so be it.
 
Thomas said:
I said:
We're all so clever. We claim to know all about God. The fine details of what He is. ..and then despise those that don't believe like we do
Click to expand...
@muhammad_isa – This smacks of petulance. It also applies to you as much as anyone – in fact moreso, as you're the one telling we Christians what's right and what's wrong with our beliefs
Click to expand...

This is a general observation of Christians and Muslims.
They come up with doctrine .. which is fine .. but then insist that they are right and others are wrong.
In the case of the Arian controversy, they ended up killing each other on a relatively large scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top