Arian Christology

RJM Corbet said:
I said:
Perhaps "the thalia" should be in the Bible as "the word of God"
Click to expand...
What does this mean?
Click to expand...

It means that I think that @Thomas' claim of "scholarship" is based on some fragments of "truth" that are not in the Bible.

RJM Corbet said:
I said:
Mmm .. funny what nonsense people can believe isn't it?
Click to expand...
What does this mean?
Click to expand...

It means that it is strange how Arias' belief spread so quickly if it was so illogical.

RJM Corbet said:
What does this mean? Where does it go? "Therefore ...
Click to expand...

I'm saying that people are/were accused of being Arians if they dispute the nicene creed.

RJM Corbet said:
Ditto this? "Therefore ...
Click to expand...

..therefore, just making this topic into a discussion of "what Arius believed" is just an attempt to disguise the fact that Christians have always had varying opinions .. it is just that Arius brought "the godhead" into people's attention.
 
muhammad_isa said:
It means that I think that @Thomas' claim of "scholarship" is based on some fragments of "truth" that are not in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Directly implying that @Thomas needs to confine himself to the Bible for true material? Or is it just sarcasm?
muhammad_isa said:
It means that it is strange how Arias' belief spread so quickly if it was so illogical.
Click to expand...
So what if it spread? Christianity spread. There were factions.
muhammad_isa said:
I'm saying that people are/were accused of being Arians if they dispute the nicene creed.
Click to expand...
I am saying have you read the Nicene Creed? Or the Apostles Creed that is often used in its place.
muhammad_isa said:
..therefore, just making this topic into a discussion of "what Arius believed" is just an attempt to disguise the fact that Christians
have always had varying opinions
Click to expand...
So???
muhammad_isa said:
.. it is just that Arius brought "the godhead" into people's attention.
Click to expand...
But you have just argued that whatever Arius personally thought or believed is known only to God -- and anyway immaterial?

You are again shifting the goalposts deliberately choosing to ignore the central issue, which is that you're only interested in trying to use Arianism to educate the part of Christianity that does not fit in with your own religious beliefs. That would be fine. But you are not interested in proper debate.

You cannot be pinned down to proper discussion. You revert to a level of debate that is not fitting for these forums. I may not have found the right w0rds here, because I am tired of going around in circles -- but I hope the meaning is clear?
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
It means that I think that @Thomas' claim of "scholarship" is based on some fragments of "truth" that are not in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Now now. The Thalia was being discussed, not the Bible, and I never suggested the Thalia was Revelation – please don't misrepresent me in an attempt to score a point.

muhammad_isa said:
It means that it is strange how Arias' belief spread so quickly if it was so illogical.
Click to expand...
Christological questions were there from the very beginning! LOL, even Jesus asked them!!! (eg Mark 8:27, Matthew 16:15.)

See my post above on the role of Arius in the broader dispute.

muhammad_isa said:
...therefore, just making this topic into a discussion of "what Arius believed" is just an attempt to disguise the fact that Christians have always had varying opinions .. it is just that Arius brought "the godhead" into people's attention.
Click to expand...
You see, again and again you misrepresent. This thread is actually entitled 'Arian Chistology'! Nor am I or anyone suggesting there was not varying opinions, in fact I rather think I have offered more evidence for that than you have!
 
RJM Corbet said:
... you are not interested in proper debate. You revert to a level of debate that is not fitting for these forums. I may not have found the right words here, because I am tired of going around in circles -- but I hope the meaning is clear?
Click to expand...
Feeling the same way... pity, 'cos' the topic has led me off in all directions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
RJM Corbet said:
Directly implying that @Thomas needs to confine himself to the Bible for true material?
Click to expand...

No .. I suppose what I am saying is that much of "the history" that @Thomas considers sound and a result of scholarship,
is coming from THE VERY PEOPLE who were involved in the decisions of the Nicene council. I'm dubious about that "history".
History can often be misrepresented by nations or parties.

RJM Corbet said:
You are again shifting the goalposts deliberately choosing to ignore the central issue, which is that you're only interested in trying to use Arianism to educate the part of Christianity that does not fit in with your own religious beliefs. That would be fine. But you are not interested in proper debate.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm interested in proper debate. Yes, I'm interested in how the Arians were persecuted and annihilated shortly before Muhammad, peace be with him, was sent to mankind by our Creator.
 
Thomas said:
See my post above on the role of Arius in the broader dispute.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's very interesting. The dispute is primarily one about the doctrine of the trinity.
..whatever the "type" of Unitarians the various different Arian communities were, does not justify
how the Roman Empire behaved towards those that did not agree with the nicene creed.
 
Thomas said:
Interpretations of the Book of Revelations is a rabbit-hole which the wise tend to steer clear of ...
Click to expand...

Well I personally see we are very lucky that Christ returned, now known as the Glory of God, Baha’u’llah the Father and offerd us all Truth.

So that is the quandary face. Do the wise turn away from, or to that Message?

You have your choice, I made mine.

Regards Tony
 
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
You have your choice, I made mine.
Click to expand...

It is rude to imply that other people have not put a lot of consideration into their choices.

Also, do you really think that you can just choose to believe this or that, like picking a favorite lifestyle item from what's on offer? Do you really think anyone here takes their beliefs that lightly?
 
Cino said:
It is rude to imply that other people have not put a lot of consideration into their choices.

Also, do you really think that you can just choose to believe this or that, like picking a favorite lifestyle item from what's on offer? Do you really think anyone here takes their beliefs that lightly?
Click to expand...

Yes I see we do get to choose. Many people's choice is to go with what they know, nature and nurture have bound them to certain traditions and thoughts that they are content with.

Personally I am a black and white person and that is how I always come across, just ask my wife. It is me from my nature and nurture and my logical view of life.

Faith was definitely a choice for me, I could have just as easily rejected it and lived another life and at one time I did just that. They were my choices.

What is stated is a fact, it is not an insult. Unless one is not happy with, or 100% sure of the choices they have made?

Regards Tony
 
I quoted too little, here you go:

Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
So that is the quandary face. Do the wise turn away from, or to that Message?

You have your choice, I made mine.
Click to expand...

Do you really question the wisdom of the other participants, or imply they made a wrong choice, because they do not share your faith? That is kind of rude, especially in light of this being an Interfaith Discussion Forum.

Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
Faith was definitely a choice for me, I could have just as easily rejected it and lived another life and at one time I did just that. They were my choices.
Click to expand...

Is wisdom the same as deductive reasoning, to you? Like making an informed consumer choice?

For example, could you just choose differently, now?
 
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
What is stated is a fact, it is not an insult. Unless one is not happy with, or 100% sure of the choices they have made?
Click to expand...

Um, it may not be a fact, but an interpretation. I am not sure I have ever been 100% sure of anything, especially as time goes on. Very precious little in a finite existence is ever 100% sure. I'm just sayin......
 
Tone Bristow-Stagg said:
Well I personally see we are very lucky that Christ returned, now known as the Glory of God, Baha’u’llah the Father and offerd us all Truth.
Click to expand...

I think my reservation is that Jesus would do better by coming back as himself as he was in his day, not with a different name. That leaves too much open to abuse and deceit. Does that make sense? I honestly just don't think I would ever find this convincing in any manner of the claim. Jesus should come back AS Jesus and identify himself as such an one, so there can be no even possible error of a human interpretation, conceptualization, etc. Sorry, no offense intended.
 
RJM Corbet said:
You cannot be pinned down to proper discussion. You revert to a level of debate that is not fitting for these forums. I may not have found the right w0rds here, because I am tired of going around in circles -- but I hope the meaning is clear?
Click to expand...
Not trying to be difficult, but I view this as a discussion. Debates accomplish nothing and never help. I have been in debates, and this ain't one. This is nowhere near an actual debate, and I am very glad of it actually. A discussion is just so much more helpful, useful, and enjoyable. There isn't anything about making points and running off imagining someone wins and someone loses. Discussions is where we can learn and share and disagree agreeably without losing face, if that is a concern. In debates that becomes a concern, but not in discussions. It's why I like going down that route.

Besides, honestly, this is never going to be a subject where one wins in a debate. There is no winning in this kind of debate. A discussion everyone can come away feeling smarter, more informed, and enjoying the process.
 
ScholarlySeeker said:
Not trying to be difficult, but I view this as a discussion. Debates accomplish nothing and never help. I have been in debates, and this ain't one. This is nowhere near an actual debate, and I am very glad of it actually. A discussion is just so much more helpful, useful, and enjoyable. There isn't anything about making points and running off imagining someone wins and someone loses. Discussions is where we can learn and share and disagree agreeably without losing face, if that is a concern. In debates that becomes a concern, but not in discussions. It's why I like going down that route.

Besides, honestly, this is never going to be a subject where one wins in a debate. There is no winning in this kind of debate. A discussion everyone can come away feeling smarter, more informed, and enjoying the process.
Click to expand...
Actually, what has been transpiring is neither debate nor discussion. We have here some people talking at one another, not to one another. We have here some people not interested in trying to understand a different point of view, just interested in repeating their own point of view. We have here some people who say to others that they need to think outside the box, to be open to new ideas, new understandings, new truths, but who, in actuality, mean that others need to accept their ideas, understandings and truths.

If you can play peace maker, go for it. As for me, right at the moment real life has reared its head again. I’ve got to call on a fellow, the eldest of six children, who just lost his youngest brother, age 52 to covid. This is one funeral I won’t be doing. The brother lived out of state. But I’ve done too many of late.
 
RabbiO said:
Actually, what has been transpiring is neither debate nor discussion. We have here some people talking at one another, not to one another. We have here some people not interested in trying to understand a different point of view, just interested in repeating their own point of view. We have here some people who say to others that they need to think outside the box, to be open to new ideas, new understandings, new truths, but who, in actuality, mean that others need to accept their ideas, understandings and truths.
Click to expand...
In other words, a typical message board! GRIN! No wonder I feel right at home... by the way, I just finished reading the first volume of the Zohar. Mighty fascinating! Now onto vol. 2......gonna try for all 12 of them in two years.... that's gotta be a heap much amount of spirituality coming my way, right? Lol!
 
ScholarlySeeker said:
I think my reservation is that Jesus would do better by coming back as himself as he was in his day, not with a different name. That leaves too much open to abuse and deceit. Does that make sense? I honestly just don't think I would ever find this convincing in any manner of the claim. Jesus should come back AS Jesus and identify himself as such an one, so there can be no even possible error of a human interpretation, conceptualization, etc. Sorry, no offense intended.
Click to expand...

No offence taken and no offence is given, or directed to any person.

My logical brain says that is the quandary we face in life, that is, we face our own choices.

Regards Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top