Arian Christology

[muhammad_isa]

Assuming you have reasonable facts, opposed to a whole lot of unsupported conjecture, that is?

Hmm .. we all have to decide for ourselves what are "reasonable facts". If we all thought the same way, there would BE no interfaith discussion.
I know you think that we should ideally all just inform people what we believe, and leave what other people believe alone.

To me, however, that does not compute. Why do I believe what I believe? Why does anybody believe what they believe?
This is very important to me. I wouldn't be who I am if I had just picked up a book in isolation, and declared it to be truth.
On what basis did I think that? Yes we are entitled to follow what we like .. divine or otherwise.
..but claiming a creed is "Divine truth" is very serious, imo.
We leave ourselves open to scrutiny.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The [coat of] arms of Bournemouth were granted on 24 March 1891. The crest (above the shield) consists of four English roses surmounted by a pine tree. The motto (below the shield) is Pulchritudo et Salubritas, Latin for "beauty and health". The colours of the shield, the main part of the coat of arms, are taken from the royal arms of *King Edward the Confessor, in whose royal estate the area now known as Bournemouth was situated.

*Usually considered the last king of the House of Wessex, he ruled from 1042 to 1066.
It seems a long time ago now. Might I go back "home" one day?
God knows best

City of Worcester - 'Floreat Semper Fidelis Civitas' - Let the faithful city ever flourish.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Old Roman Symbol (Latin: vetus symbolum romanum), or Old Roman Creed, is an earlier and shorter version of the Apostles’ Creed.
...
According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the first text attesting it is a letter to Pope Julius I in 340 or 341, and it has recently been argued that it developed in the context of the Arian controversy.

I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting).


I'm not arguing that Arians did not believe in this creed.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) adds: "In God there is only a Trinity since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial."

The above is just an example of how the nicene doctrine continues to this very day.
The major Christian churches propagate this doctrine, which outcasts unitarian denominations.
Why is it so necessary to believe this?
It is more or less saying that "the Apostles creed" MUST be interpreted in this way.
It is divisive, and continues the same old "Arian conflict".

I see a similar thing in Islam. I'm told "don't go to this mosque, they believe this or that" etc.
It just ends up with people shouting at each other

 

[RJM]

I agree with a lot of what you say.
But anyway, at least now you will be able to correct anyone saying that Christians are polytheists worshipping three separate gods?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..at least now you will be able to correct anyone saying that Christians are polytheists worshipping three separate gods?

No .. you can .. you follow a church which insists on the Nicene creed being "Divine truth"
However, I'm sure that many Christians don't really care about the "finer details".
They just say they are Catholic or C of E etc, without considering what their church is really teaching and why.

 

[RJM]

No .. you can .. you follow a church which insists on the Nicene creed being "Divine truth"
However, I'm sure that many Christians don't really care about the "finer details".
They just say they are Catholic or C of E etc, without considering what their church is really teaching and why.

I don’t really ‘follow’ any church, you know. 'God meets us where we are.' The dogmas do not limit me to believing.

Beliefs can obviously be misunderstood. But after the misunderstanding is carefully cleared up – and then someone chooses deliberately to continue spreading ‘fake news’ … that is something that can actually be quite damaging in the internet age, imo

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tony —

The only issue with it is limiting the Eternal Spirit to an exclusive single flesh body with one name Jesus.
Where as, Christ is unlimited.
Regards 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.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don’t really ‘follow’ any church, you know. The dogmas do not limit me to believing.

I understand .. some of us take their creeds as 'gospel', and deride others.
..and some of us try to be more constructive.

However beliefs can obviously be misunderstood. That is ignorance. But after the misunderstanding is carefully explained and cleared up – and then someone chooses deliberately to continue spreading ‘fake news’..

I assume you are referring to the "nicene trinity". This is the thing, you see .. it is so engrained in your identity, imo.

This issue is actually very important, which is probably why I have raised the issue in the way that I have.
Christianity and Islam are the majority beliefs. What is likely to bring them together? Make them see "eye to eye"?
I can't see how one lot insisting on a nicene trinity, and the other lot arguing against it, is likely to promote respect for each other.

..so it all goes back to where this creed has its roots. You will presumably insist that "the early-church" believed in a nicene trinity.
..and I will continue to show that there were MANY different beliefs, but the nicene creed became uppermost due to political interference.

 

[RJM]

the nicene creed became uppermost due to political interference.

I don't see that it matters, unless someone believes the trinity is polytheist?

Christianity and Islam are the majority beliefs. What is likely to bring them together? Make them see "eye to eye"?

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.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't see that it matters, unless someone believes the trinity is polytheist?

I do. If you insist that "Jesus is God" and Islam is therefore a fraud .. it matters!
The Arians weren't saying "Jesus is God", despite you saying that they were.

They believed that Jesus was divine .. yes. Not the same thing.

 

[Thomas]

It does appear at a first glance that the Nicene council was a democratic process that established the majority view.

LOL. It does, but it wasn't quite like that.

it is not unreasonable to think that the bishops ...

Yes, they're only human!

At the opening of Nicaea, Constantine emphasised the need for common belief and brotherly harmony among the faithful. He rejoiced that God had removed the impious hostility of tyrants who oppress the Church. However he lamented a much greater danger: internal dissent. He hoped that "all united in one judgment and in that common spirit of peace and concord ... which becomes those consecrated to the service of God."

The majority viewed Constantine as a gift from God, an instrument of God against persecution and the champion of the Word to the pagan world. Resisting the call for unity from a divinely inspired ruler seemed perverse. Hosius (pro-Alexander) was the chair of the council. The radicals got to fully argue their positions – Eustathius of Antioch (a theological adviser to Constantine – for divine equality, Eusebius of Nicomedia for divine subordination.

Constantine persuaded Eusebius of Caesarea, a leading theologian of the east (a political player and fawning supporter of the emperor), to accept a creed containing the phrase "of the same substance" to describe the equality of the Father and the Son. All but two of the bishops signed up to the Nicene Creed.

We must also acknowledge that bishops would look poorly on a presbyter challenging his bishop – if you allowed that where would it end?

 

[RJM]

do. If you insist that "Jesus is God" and Islam is therefore a fraud* .. it matters!

The Christ is both fully God and fully man, incarnate.

But that's not the only problem. The crucifixion and the resurrection and the Eucharist are all denied at source by the Quran. The two scriptures cannot both be accurate, and you have no trouble insisting that it must be the NT at fault, with no other justification except that is what you choose to believe?

Anyway, brother Muhammad ... back on the roundabout?

*No, but limited in its view of Christ. And the truth is I don't know if I can even say that, without putting my life at risk from jihaad if the wrong person reads it, out there somewhere on the world wide web ...

 

[Thomas]

I am highly suspicious of a creed that emanates from such political turmoil.

A view, but I don't think the council was particularly tumultuous. It seems a largely well-ordered affair.

There is an apocryphal tale that Bishop Nicholas of Myra (the progenitor of Santa Claus) grew so angry he crossed the floor and punched Arius, but it appears he was most probably not even at Nicaea, he's not listed among the attendees. The story emerges in the East over 500 years later. Nor did Arius actually speak at Nicaea, he was not a bishop – Eusebius of Nicomedia presented his thesis.

The Creed of Nicaea is substantially the same as other creeds we can discern in writers a century earlier. The Old Roman Symbol, for example. The big point, of course, is the stressing that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father, put in expressly to settle the Arian question.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Christ is both fully God and fully man, incarnate.

..and you know that, how?

The Council of Chalcedon (/kælˈsiːdən,ˈkælsɪdɒn/; Latin: Concilium Chalcedonense; Greek: Σύνοδος της Χαλκηδόνος, Synodos tēs Chalkēdonos) was a church council held from 8 October to 1 November, 451, at Chalcedon
...
Followers of the Council believe its most important achievement was to issue the Chalcedonian Definition, stating that Jesus is "perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man."

Beliefs evolve. Let's not get caught up in dogma of that era as well.

 

[RJM]

and you know that, how

It is Christian belief. You're entitled to your own belief formed from your own scriptures, which you're entitled to believe are accurate and true.

The point is that, in many important aspects, both scriptures cannot claim unlimited accuracy.

So you can follow your own beliefs, and your own dietary dogmas and rules about pictures in houses and so on. But you may not dictate the same laws upon other people, and you should not think yourself better or more pure.

Enough

 

[muhammad_isa]

A view, but I don't think the council was particularly tumultuous.
.

I'm not talking about the council. I'm talking about the whole chain of events. Religion and politics were intertwined.
First we have a "great persecution" followed by what's left of the Christian hierarchy summoned to a council etc.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is Christian belief.

I know it is the majority Christian belief.
..I'm just pointing out WHY I think it is.

It is political & historical. These beliefs formed over many centuries.

 

[RJM]

I know it is the majority Christian belief.
..I'm just pointing out WHY I think it is.

It is political & historical. These beliefs formed over many centuries.

Christ's disciples called him 'My Lord and my God' while he was still with them. According to the NT. Believe what you want. Stop trying to impose your own beliefs upon other people

 

[muhammad_isa]

..anyway .. if people want to stick to an organised religion with beliefs that have evolved over 2000 years, and think
that the church is somehow "infallible" , then that is their choice.

Personally, I won't do that. I look at what the various nations and religions believe and why they believe it.
I see different beliefs in Islam and don't think that ANY of them are infallible. The humans that decide this or that
are not my focus. It is what they are saying, that I ponder on and decide what to believe.

..You're entitled to your own belief formed from your own scriptures

Scripture does not belong to anybody. I believe in the OT .. the Psalms .. the NT and the Quran.
..and that is not a complete list.

 

[RJM]

God uses synchronicity to bring all things around to the best, for those who turn to him.

God knows what's happening in the church. 'God meets us where we are.' Very few (traditional) Christians are the ignorant 'infallible church' zombies you want them to be. I cannot speak for the American style televangelist literalists. God speaks to every individual heart and every soul.

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