Arian Christology

[Thomas]

I think we are both approaching it from different angles. You see the early Christians as believing in "the trinity", whereas I don't.

And I can demonstrate the foundation of my belief, and you can't disprove it, nor prove yours.

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

Well ... I doubt then nor today would your average Trinitarian give you that definition, there were various ways of expressing the belief, but they were trinitarian. It's the role of theology to 'unpack' Revelation, as it were.

(BTW, that wiki bit is not quite accurate, the Three differ in 'action' (or operation) and relation.

Furthermore, you see the early Christians as believing Jesus is God, whereas I do not.

Again, I can demonstrate the foundation of my belief ...

That is because I equate "Jesus is God" with meaning Jesus is the Father.

OK, but that's not what we believe, so that's a classic straw man fallacy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Lets' not make it all about Arius .. let's talk about the reason why the Father is not greater than the Son?

Who said that?

Well, the orthodox trinity "says that"..

 

[RJM]

That is what you are saying .. because you believe in an orthodox trinity.

When I tell you what I do believe, you ignore it.

Clearly "our Father whom art in heaven" refers to God in heaven.

No, not clearly at all.
As with most of Christ’s words and parables, it is the use of human language to try to explain a spiritual reality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

N0, not clearly. Not clearly at all.
As with most of Christ’s words and parables it is clearly the use of human language to try to explain a spiritual reality.

I'm perplexed.
"our Father whom art in heaven" means what, then?
You do believe the Father is God, don't you? [ whether you also believe the Son is God or not is immaterial ]

 

[RJM]

You do believe the Father is God, don't you?

It is used by Christ to explain to human beings in human language the interactive relationship of Spirit to nature. Aka: Christ as fully Spirit and fully nature, both, imo

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tony —

The quote you offered further down also gave an explanation.

I read this, but it doesn't really address the issue of the Trinity.

Divine Oneness is proven ...

The Oneness of God is integral to a Trinitarian understanding.

The sun is one sun but manifesteth itself in different mirrors...

I can only say again, the analogy offered does not actually equate or relate to the doctrine – it's a case of presenting an erroneous analogy of what we believe, and then answering that.

An akin analogy would be the Father is the sun, the Son is its radiance and the Holy Spirit is its light. Or again, Father is the sun, the Son is its light, and the Holy Spirit is its warmth – as ever analogies are like unto, but not the same as – the mirror is the soul.

 

[Thomas]

In the case of the Arian controversy, they ended up killing each other on a relatively large scale.

Did they, though?

 

[Thomas]

Well, the orthodox trinity "says that"..

Scripture and Tradition are clear on this point: Everything the Son is, is given Him by the Father, ergo the Father is greater because it is the Father who gives to the Son, but the Son is the same because God's self-giving is Infinite and Boundless, in effect He gives Himself utterly and entirely to the Son.

 

[Cino]

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

Is division really that terrible?

Is unity to be understood as being divided from and separate from multiplicity? That's a contradiction right there. Does unity contain even its opposite? Isn't that kind of monism a bit lazy? Thomas outlined the Neoplatonist solution, a hierarchy of Truth leading up to Unity, which permits multiplicity while maintaining Truth. He mentioned a couple of Muslim philosophers who were influential and also thought along these lines.

Incidentally, I think violence, narrow-mindedness, hard-heartedness, bigotry, looking down on others, and so on, are far more destructive and dangerous than division.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Scripture and Tradition are clear on this point: Everything the Son is, is given Him by the Father, ergo the Father is greater because it is the Father who gives to the Son, but the Son is the same because God's self-giving is Infinite and Boundless, in effect He gives Himself utterly and entirely to the Son.

Moved ----> https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19662/

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is used by Christ to explain to human beings in human language the interactive relationship of Spirit to nature..

That does not answer my question..
"You do believe the Father is God, don't you?"

Is it yes or no .. or yes, but etc.

 

[RJM]

"You do believe the Father is God, don't you?"

It's too simplistic. Father is the word used by Christ: it was not used before Christ, in reference to God. It describes God in relation to human beings, with Christ as the bridge between Spirit and nature -- in the sense that 'God' is also in relation a neutron star, or to a fish, or to electricity or gravity.

It's just not possible to simplify the interaction between Spirit and (human) nature in simple words. Christ's life and death and resurrection contain all truth and all mystery of the relationship between God and man, that libraries of words cannot properly explain. It's not just about 'Jesus son of Mary' the man.

Arius’s basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent (not dependent for its existence on anything else) and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot therefore be the self-existent and immutable God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father, since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence

Although Arius's own letters apparently do not say that?

Go outside and take air into your lungs. Now come back inside and blow it out into a balloon. Was the air in the balloon created, that you breathed out -- or was it begotten of and no different from the infinity of unbegotten air outside? Draw a bucket of water from the well and take it inside into your house and use it to make tea. Is the tea created by or is it begotten of the well?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Thomas outlined the Neoplatonist solution, a hierarchy of Truth leading up to Unity, which permits multiplicity while maintaining Truth. He mentioned a couple of Muslim philosophers who were influential and also thought along these lines.

Do you think that being "fully God" and also "created by God" is theologically credible?

Well NeoPlatonism is a credible system. It's influence on Jewish, Christian and Islamic thought is evident. As an emanationism system, it allows for hierarchical degrees of divinity.

Philo of Alexandria was influenced by it, the Christian Fathers were. Sufi cosmology bears its imprint, as do Islamic philosophers like Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi, to name but two.

I already said that we agree on the subject of "hierarchical degrees of divinity" as a concept concerning the trinity.

Incidentally, I think violence, narrow-mindedness, hard-heartedness, bigotry, looking down on others, and so on, are far more destructive and dangerous than division.

I'm afraid it comes with "the territory". If people insist that "their doctrine" is right and others are wrong,
it can become a political nightmare.
That is why the Qur'an is so divisive .. people either believe or disbelieve. It is not a matter of doctrine when it comes to
the subject of the trinity. Muslims all believe in Jesus, the son of Mary, and that he did not claim to be God.

How one approaches the issue is obviously important i.e. Christian-Muslim dialogue
However .. I digress .. this discussion is about the division in early Christianity that shaped orthodox belief.

 

[RJM]

Muslims all believe in Jesus, the son of Mary, and that he did not claim to be God. How one approaches the issue is obviously important i.e. Christian-Muslim dialogue

Also that he did not die on the cross, did not rise from the tomb, etc. No middle-ground. Sorry, no offence meant, but just get over it, brother ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, no offence meant...

No offence taken

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

An akin analogy would be the Father is the sun, the Son is its radiance and the Holy Spirit is its light. Or again, Father is the sun, the Son is its light, and the Holy Spirit is its warmth – as ever analogies are like unto, but not the same as – the mirror is the soul.

The other way to look at it when we take away our connection to the flesh is;

That God is the Sun, the Holy Spirit is the life giving rays of the Sun and the Mirror is the Messenger. It is the sun and the rays that give life on this planet.

When we look at the Body of the Messenger they are the perfect mirror. They reflect to us and all we can see of them is God in Attributes, we do not know, nor does the Messenger know God in Essence.

That Perfect mirror is what we see God in in every age God sends a Messenger.

This explains the Trinity with Logic and Reason. Shows us how a flesh Body can be seen as God and shows the absolute Oneness of all God's Messengers, that all Names and Attributes come from God, but are not God.

When we become lovers only of a Name, I see we fail to see who Christ really was, and why Jesus could offer I have many other sheep that are not of this fold.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

The fact is, according to the scriptures at any rate, the humanity of Jesus cannot be separated from the divinity of Christ.

Then I see there is an issue. We will never see the material body of Jesus ever again.

As such, one can conclude they will never see the Divine Christ as well.

I personally see that is what is meant in let the dead bury the dead. When we pursue a material view of life over following Christ in Spirit.

Personally I am tired of this bag of bones and it animal tendencies, why would we want to stay in the matrix of this world and not to be born again in spirit , never to return to the matrix?

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then I see there is an issue. We will never see the material body of Jesus ever again.

As such, one can conclude they will never see the Divine Christ as well.

Why? Jesus did not die a natural death. He ascended to 'heaven' to be with his 'Father'?
Can the Father not send him back [as a miracle], just as he was born of a virgin being a miracle?

 

[RJM]

Humans have always tried to manipulate Christ to fit their own belief and philosophy.

 

[RJM]

IMO they always need to piggyback on Jesus. They don't have anything original, that Jesus didn't say or do