Arian Christology

[muhammad_isa]

God speaks to every individual heart and every soul

I totally agree with that.

There is truth in all religions, for those who turn to God.

I'm not quite sure what that means. If you mean all religions contain "truths", then possibly.
If you mean that those who turn to God, regardless of which religion they turn to, are following truth .. then not really.
I know people who believe the devil created the world, and define God as having no "voice".

Is it not right to join an interfaith website, with the purpose of trying to discredit Christianity.

Why should I want to do that?
I was raised as a Christian believing in God, and respect that belief.
My family was raised as C of E and my sister married a Catholic.
I have attended all sorts of different churches and chapels .. some formal .. some informal.

I believe in God as do you. It is YOU who insist that "Jesus is God" , and keep referring to your particular creed as "Christianity" due to being in a majority.

No .. my intention [ "purpose"] in this thread, is to show how our creeds have serious consequences in the world.
Pretending that they don't doesn't get us anywhere in the long run .. IMO

Do we want a repeat of "the Arian" conflict?
Do we want a war between Christians and Muslims?
I most CERTAINLY don't .. and feel sure that you don't either.
What is YOUR solution to the problem?

 

[RJM]

Do we want a war between Christians and Muslims?
I most CERTAINLY don't .. and feel sure that you don't either.
What is YOUR solution to the problem?

Well yours is obviously that in order to prevent it, the best thing is for everyone to become a Muslim? Or else ...?

I mean God forbid that Muslims should just accept and live with other faiths?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..and you accuse ME of sarcasm
The best thing is for people not to make claims that they have no knowledge of, about God.

I mean .. we can ALL hypothesise about what God is and what God isn't.
..and then we can shout some slogan "praise the Lord" or "God is great"
and kill each other. I'm trying to be constructive here .. but you won't have it.
You insist that we have to be "Christian" or "Muslim" just because..

..and you resent somebody pointing out that history has something to do with people's beliefs.
I have no problem with somebody who wants to criticise the history of Islam [ in another thread ]

Naturally, it depends on the way that they do it. If they just want to be abusive to Prophets
or Muslims because they despise them, then that is usually self-evident.

 

[RJM]

..and you accuse ME of sarcasm
The best thing is for people not to make claims that they have no knowledge of, about God.

I mean .. we can ALL hypothesise about what God is and what God isn't.
..and then we can shout some slogan "praise the Lord" or "God is great"
and kill each other. I'm trying to be constructive here .. but you won't have it.
You insist that we have to be "Christian" or "Muslim" just because..

..and you resent somebody pointing out that history has something to do with people's beliefs.
I have no problem with somebody who wants to criticise the history of Islam [ in another thread ]

Naturally, it depends on the way that they do it. If they just want to be abusive to Prophets
or Muslims because they despise them, then that is usually self-evident.

My solution is that Muslims should accept and live with other faiths.
What is your solution? Is it that Christianity should abandon its core beliefs, and 're-invent' itself to become acceptable to Muslims? In line with what the Quran says (about Jesus)?

I'm quite serious. You asked for my solution.
I am waiting for your answer, and trying to imagine what sort of verbal dodge is coming next ... accompanied by a wink or smiley-face emoji

 

[muhammad_isa]

My solution is that Muslims should accept and live with other faiths.

That is not a solution. That is implying that Muslims are "the aggressors".
I think that is probably what you believe. You are entitled to your opinions, but I'm afraid it's no solution.
Ignoring "the Arian" problem and ploughing on regardless solves nothing.

Is it that Christianity should abandon its core beliefs, and 're-invent' itself to become acceptable to Muslims?

It is you, those in the majority, that say Christianity is all about the trinity. I see that as just a continuation of what the Roman Empire decided long ago.
"Christianity" doesn't have to do anything. That would be people. They are free to believe whatever they like.
We are not forced to be a Catholic or a Bahai or anything else.

 

[Thomas]

... my intention [ "purpose"] in this thread, is to show how our creeds have serious consequences in the world.

Yes, they do, but I'm not sure what consequence your draw from the Arian issue?

You seem to imply there was all manner of religio-political shenanigans – which there probably were – and persecutions – which there probably weren't (on the scale popularly imagined). As soon as Muhammed was settled in Medina, it was a de facto 'Moslem state'? By all accounts the takeover was peaceful, but then we only have the victor's version ... it's very east to cast aspersions even in the presence of concrete knowledge.

It seems to me the Deuteronomic era of Judaism is likewise embroiled in such issues, and the same for the emergence and expansion of Islam generally. I don't know why this particular moment in Christian history is so important to you?

(I can see it being 'something', as there is a general error in assuming that Arius was anti-Trinitarian, and that Nicaea introduced the Trinity into doctrine.)

It's all a matter of perspective – to me it seems you're making more of Nicaea than it was. It's like me suggesting that someone arriving at the 'official' Quran, and ordering all other texts burned, is very convenient, and maybe a lesson learned. I actually think its eminently sensible – a Constantine-like desire to have everyone singing from the same songsheet, as it were. I doubt those involved with the compilation of the Quran had any inkling of how skeptical and conspiracy-oriented the post-modern mind is.

 

[RJM]

That is not a solution. That is implying that Muslims are "the aggressors".
I think that is probably what you believe. You are entitled to your opinions, but I'm afraid it's no solution.

I think we have a difference of perception. I come from Africa where there are many Muslims. Cape town is full of Mosques. Many areas come to a stop Friday afternoon, and the sound of the muezzin call to prayer is familiar to everyone.

Supermarkets have to keep pork in completely separate fridges, and alcohol away from all other drinks and food stuffs, or they would lose half their customers.

Muslims are not a threatened victim minority in Africa. Perhaps living in London and coming from a Church of England family gives you a different view.

A quarter of the world population is Muslim. It's not really reasonable to keep playing the victim card, imo.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, they do, but I'm not sure what consequence your draw from the Arian issue?

You seem to imply there was all manner of religio-political shenanigans – which there probably were – and persecutions – which there probably weren't (on the scale popularly imagined).

Well, this is it. None of us can be entirely sure of fine details. We can however, see that the forming of a creed that was established by the Roman Empire is surrounded by controversy.

I don't know why this particular moment in Christian history is so important to you?

(I can see it being 'something', as there is a general error in assuming that Arius was anti-Trinitarian, and that Nicaea introduced the Trinity into doctrine.)

It is important because I do not think that the Nicene creed [ i.e. the trinity as it is believed by the majority of Christians today ] is a reliable account of what Jesus taught. Putting an emphasis on this distracts from the essence of who he was and what he was saying.
Claiming that Arius was not "anti-trinitarian" is not very meaningful, imo. He did not believe in "the trinity" as in the Nicene creed.

I actually think its eminently sensible – a Constantine-like desire to have everyone singing from the same songsheet, as it were..

Of course. Constantine was an Emperor, and he knew that it was important to attempt to unite his subjects.
However, as we all know, it wasn't so simple a task. He had to deal with the aftermath of Diocletian's reign.

Am I just conjecturing on how his reign might have affected Christianity between 303 - 313 ?
I doubt it. It was quite severe in most accounts. The exact demographics are debatable, yes .. but it's enough for me
to doubt that it had no effect on what was to follow. i.e. the decisions of the council

 

[muhammad_isa]

I come from Africa where there are many Muslims. Cape town is full of Mosques. Many areas come to a stop Friday afternoon, and the sound of the muezzin call to prayer is familiar to everyone.

Yes, I thought that you were originally from Cape town.

Muslims are not a threatened victim minority in Africa. Perhaps living in London and coming from a Church of England family gives you a different view.

It probably does. I am concerned that we don't end up with violence here in the UK, as in the history of India..

A quarter of the world population is Muslim. It's not really reasonable to keep playing the victim card, imo.

No .. I'm not trying to play "the victim card" .. I just like peace, and see that 'the trinity' is a source of division.
It is unfortunate that mankind loves wealth so much that they turn on each other.
There is much corruption in the world. I'm not singing the praises of modern, majority-Muslim countries.
None of us are exempt from the works of the devil.

 

[RJM]

Yes, I thought that you were originally from Cape town.

Been here 10yrs now

see that 'the trinity' is a source of division.

Why? Why is it your problem? Why should the Christian church change to satisfy Muslims?

And what about the crucifixion, the resurrection the eucharist and everything else? Why does it worry you so much?

am concerned that we don't end up with violence here in the UK, as in the history of India..

Who's going to instigate the violence? The UK is rather different from India I would have thought?

 

[RJM]

Anyway, enough for the day is the evil thereof. I'm going to watch the Tipping Point on TV now, lol

 

[Thomas]

Ignoring "the Arian" problem and ploughing on regardless solves nothing.

What, precisely, is problematic for you?

It is you, those in the majority, that say Christianity is all about the trinity. I see that as just a continuation of what the Roman Empire decided long ago.

Who decided it, and when? You say this, you offer no evidence in support of it, you dismiss the material evidence that refutes it for no good reason ...

On the other hand, We have sound evidence that the Church was trinitarian from 96AD or thereabouts. We have a fundamentally Trinitarian creed from Hippolytus in 215AD – although he was writing in Rome. We have the term Trinity used by Theophilius of Antioch, which we can date to between 180 and 185AD. The Church was not 'Roman' in those days, so I don't see where you get this idea from?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why should the Christian church change to satisfy Muslims?

It is very unlikely that the Pope is going to make any drastic changes, I would have thought.
We, as individuals, do not have to satisfy anybody, other than God.

And what about the crucifixion, the resurrection the eucharist and everything else? Why does it worry you so much?

It doesn't.

Who's going to instigate the violence? The UK is rather different from India I would have thought?

I don't know .. human beings are human beings .. they fight with each other.
It's usually tribal and about power & wealth, imo.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What, precisely, is problematic for you?

The attitude of "the church" towards those that dismiss the trinity [as "the church" teaches it].

On the other hand, We have sound evidence that the Church was trinitarian from 96AD or thereabouts. We have a fundamentally Trinitarian creed from Hippolytus in 215AD – although he was writing in Rome. We have the term Trinity used by Theophilius of Antioch, which we can date to between 180 and 185AD. The Church was not 'Roman' in those days, so I don't see where you get this idea from?

First of all, may I ask why the trinity is so important to you personally?
Do you think it drastically affects what Jesus was teaching us?
If not, then why is it declared blasphemous?

Secondly, you use the term "Church" as if there was only one early Christian church. That is not the case.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Hi Tony —

Not what we believe, though? We do not 'limit' the Holy Spirit.

Christ's risen body is not a body as we understand them. Christ actualises His corporeal presence as He judges. Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen.

Thanks for the follow up, I will offer some thoughts as to what vision Baha'u'llah has offered.

I see Jesus is an Individual that was born of and part of the Holy Spirit, just as we are individuals born of and a part of the Human Spirit.

It is offered in the Bible that we need to be born again in the spirit of Faith to become joined to the Holy Spirit.

Christ is a station and not an individual name, or a surname. It means 'Annointed One'. Christ is the 'Name' that Peter said we would know Jesus by, Jesus confirmed that knowing Jesus was the Christ is what the Church was to be built upon.

Men struggled with this concept for a few hundred years, before they set what became man made doctrine and made heresy out of all other thought. The rest is a history of persecution of those that saw Christ in another light.

So Jesus is the Christ, as Jesus is Annointed of the Holy Spirit. This same Holy Spirit Annoints all God's Messengers. It is God who chooses how much light they shine to humanity. For Jesus, He was Annointed as Christ the Son. His teachings show us One God and a personal Salvation in picking up the cross and following Him. Oh that the world could have learnt the lesson and turned the other cheek.

When we look at Jesus we see the Bible says we see man like us, but when we look to Christ we see God and we see all the Prophets and Messengers. We see the First and we see the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega.

When we become Lovers of a Name, we see Christ only as that name, where as, as far back as Isaiah we see that we must be able to accept new names.

Isaiah 62:2 "The nations shall see your righteousness, and all the kings your glory, and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will give."

Then there is the passages in Revelation where Jesus offered that He would have a new Name.

Christ is an all embracing Love. Christ is all the Messengers and all the Messengers have suffered in this life for our Salvation. This is the age where Salvation is universal. To be part of the kingdom is for humanity to embrace One God as one humanity.

There is so much given on this now Thomas, always happy to discuss.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

There is more than the trinity/divinity of the Son involved: there are the crucifixion and resurrection and eucharist, all of which are denied at source by the Quran.

I do not see the Quran states a denial of any Biblical passage.

I see the Quran corrects the direction that the Trinity doctrine would steer Christianity. That Muhammed was saying Jesus is not God, there is not a doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible.

How many Christians can now read that Bible without having the concept of the Trinity pervade their thoughts?

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

I do not see the Quran states a denial of any Biblical passage.

I see the Quran corrects the direction that the Trinity doctrine would steer Christianity. That Muhammed was saying Jesus is not God, there is not a doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible.

How many Christians can now read that Bible without having the concept of the Trinity pervade their thoughts?

Regards Tony

But what makes you think that Christianity is concerned about the Quranic definition of what Christ is allowed to be? What the Quran has about Jesus is totally irrelevant to Christians. You really do need to grasp the point ...

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

But what makes you think that Christianity is concerned about the Quranic definition of what Christ is allowed to be? What the Quran has about Jesus is totally irrelevant to Christians. You really do need to grasp the point ...

I see that the Message of the Quran, given by Muhammad was a timely bounty from God and foretold in the Bible.

As such that is part of the quandary we now all face in our attempt to embrace our One God.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Well yours is obviously that in order to prevent it, the best thing is for everyone to become a Muslim? Or else ...?

I mean God forbid that Muslims should just accept and live with other faiths?

How about we all become Lovers of the Light, no matter from where it shines from?

All Names become One.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

I see that the Message of the Quran, given by Muhammad was a timely bounty from God and foretold in the Bible.

Regards Tony

I rest my point. What has what you see about the Quran got anything with what Christians believe? It's totally irrelevant.