Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

Arius reasoned that the Son was begotten before time began, and was responsible, with the Father, for creating time.

..but what does that mean?
Does that mean that Arius believed that the Son was eternal, or not?

It would be more logical to accept the evidence letters of Arius himself, than to reason that a Bishop rejected the Gospel of John 1700 years ago because you logically deduce it?

I know that you'd LIKE those letters to be true .. you've made that abundantly clear :)

There was no time before time. Spirit is not subject to time.

Oh .. so Arius believed that the Son was eternal then .. is that what you are saying?
 
Yeah, but as they depend of stuff you skeptically dismiss, obviously your logic takes precedence.

No .. my logic should NOT take precedence if it is not correct.
I asked you to show me where it is not correct. I believe that it is correct, of course.
 
No .. my logic should NOT take precedence if it is not correct.
I asked you to show me where it is not correct. I believe that it is correct, of course.

Well I have shown consistently, you just won't see it ... I can do no more ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Oh .. so Arius believed that the Son was eternal then .. is that what you are saying
Arius argued the Son was begotten before time began. If you insist you cannot grasp that Spirit is not dependent on time, perhaps you are wasting time trying to discuss religion, spirit, metaphysics -- whatever you want to call it -- in purely material terms?
know that you'd LIKE those letters to be true
Truth is I don't care that much. But you sure seem to need to prove they're false? You can't just speculate away the historical evidence as fake and replace it with your own predetermined theory.
 
Last edited:
Well I have shown consistently, you just won't see it ... I can do no more ...

No you haven't .. I only asked you at 1.37pm today if you would reply to my post..
..and you have not attempted to show me where I am wrong since.
 
Are you sure?
I care. That's what it's all about isn't it? The truth.

You didn't explain to me whether all that guff about time means that Arius believed that the Son is eternal or NOT?
Explained it a hundred times. You are insulting my intelligence and doing yourself no credit. Waste of time.
 
OK :D

I think maybe the answer to my question "did Arius believe that the Son is eternal or not?"
must not have a simple answer.

Perhaps, one day he believed he is, and the next day he believed he isn't.
..or maybe he thought that he is and isn't simultaneously :eek:

..or maybe he believed that he isn't eternal, but it
doesn't really matter, because what happens outside of time means that he is
.
..or maybe it doesn't make any difference because it's all a mystery anyway.
..which means it doesn't matter what any of the gospel authors opinions were, or what any of the 3rd. century Christian historians wrote, or what any of us here in this thread writes.
The only thing that makes any sense is what Jesus is reported to have said.
Yes .. I think I'll stick to that.
Oh .. there I go again with my false logic :oops:
 
Last edited:
284. Unto God (belongeth) whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth; and whether ye make known what is in your minds or hide it, God will bring you to account for it. He will forgive whom He will and He will punish whom He will. God is Able to do all things.

285. The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) the believers. Each one believeth in God and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers--We make no distinction between any of His messengers--and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.

- Qur'an The Cow -

Muslims make no distinction between Moses, Jesus and Muhammad [ peace be with them ]
They are all close to God. They all served to enlighten mankind.
Yet there are amongst mankind those who seek to distort God's Wisdom.
 
Last edited:
Pharaoh was puffed up with pride and thought he could challenge God..

10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded:
and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.

11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.

12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.

- Exodus 7 -

God's "magic" will always triumph over that of mankind's deception.
 
Last edited:
Any attempt to talk about a 'God' outside of time and space is going to get complicated?
(Occam's Razor proposes the simplest explanation as most usually the correct one?)
The simplest explanation that incorporates ALL variables is usually the correct one. This is an important distinction, as most of my acquaintance are quick to use Occam's Razor to cut away variables that conflict with their intended ends...
 
The simplest explanation that incorporates ALL variables is usually the correct one. This is an important distinction, as most of my acquaintance are quick to use Occam's Razor to cut away variables that conflict with their intended ends...

To posit a variable, it helps to have observations of it, which is tricky in the case of "outside time and space", i.e. by definition not interacting with the observable universe. I call Rossell's Teapot on this one, whis is not something I do lightly.
 
@Thomas @muhammad_isa @juantoo3 @Tone Bristow-Stagg others ...
At risk of repetition, and trying to start with a clean slate:

Prior to Nicea, did most early Christians accept the divinity of the Son? Or did they not?

Was the belief in the divinity of the Son already mainstream with early Christians, before the Nicea Council in AD 325? Or was Rome responsible for basically imposing upon early Christians a belief in the divinity of Christ?
I went through the first 30 or so posts, I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if I missed something...

If there were at least two primary strains / veins / lines of thought argued forcefully at Nicea, and which I might add continued for another hundred years or so, I think it is reasonable to conclude that there were alternate interpretations in wide acceptance.

Second question I have for clarification, is what is meant by "early" Christian? Prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, Qumran and Masada? Prior to Bar Kochba and the Jewish diaspora? Prior to Nicea? What precisely is meant by the term "early?" This is important to flesh out.

Very early were the Nazareans and the Ebionites. I'm not well versed to distinguish either from the other, but considering time and place (pre-Temple destruction and on to Nicea and likely beyond) they would have been what we would term today as Messianic Jews. That is to say they would have been practicing, observant Jews who also accepted that Jesus filled the role of the expected Messiah.

For various reasons, no less political, both groups were essentially pushed aside at Nicea. I suspect this was in large part because their membership was so exclusive as to prevent large scale "congregations," and so they were outweighed by sheer force of numbers. I suspect but cannot prove, that the Arian branch had a sympathetic connection with one or both of these earliest Christian congregations, and from there developed their point of view of the matter.

So I think the direct answer to your question "(D)id most early Christians accept the divinity of the Son?" by the time of Nicea was probably closer to half and half, or at least the Arian branch was a significant minority (one that couldn't be ignored). Lest we forget, Eusebius, Constantine's personal chaplain, was Arian, and it was he who baptized Constantine. So St. Constantine the Great was an Arian Christian. Though Arius had been excommunicated, he was en route to a ceremony for absolution when he passed away.

As much as I know Thomas bristles over the fact, the only reason the view of Athanasius ultimately won out is by military force under a later Emperor (I want to say Justinian). So if by "early" Christians you mean circa 400ad or so, then you would likely be correct that the Athanasian branch was the mainstream voice at that time. It absolutely was from then on, as any significant disagreements were forcibly put down as heresies. (Exceptions being the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Churches.)

Found this:

wiki said:
Ten years after the Council of Nicea, Constantine the Great, who was himself later baptized by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337 AD,[22][23] convened another gathering of church leaders at the regional First Synod of Tyre in 335 (attended by 310 bishops), to address various charges mounted against Athanasius by his detractors, such as "murder, illegal taxation, sorcery, and treason", following his refusal to readmit Arius into fellowship.[7] Athanasius was exiled to Trier (in modern Germany) following his conviction at Tyre of conspiracy, and Arius was, effectively, exonerated.[24] Athanasius eventually returned to Alexandria in 346, after the deaths of both Arius and Constantine. Though Arianism had spread, Athanasius and other Nicene Christian church leaders crusaded against Arian theology, and Arius was anathemised and condemned as a heretic once more at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381 (attended by 150 bishops).[25][7] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians, as was the first King of Italy, Odoacer (433?–493), and the Lombards were also Arians or Semi-Arians until the 7th century. Visigothic Spain was Arian until 589. Many Goths adopted Arian beliefs upon their conversion to Christianity. The Vandals actively spread Arianism in North Africa.
Arianism - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
To posit a variable, it helps to have observations of it, which is tricky in the case of "outside time and space", i.e. by definition not interacting with the observable universe. I call Rossell's Teapot on this one, whis is not something I do lightly.
Fair enough, but it does not negate the fact that Occam's Razor is more often improperly used by those claiming to wield it. An imagined variable is imagined, an ignored variable is an altogether different matter.
 
Employing Occam's Razor in effect that Arius's own letters are a better view of Arius's thoughts, than a contrived explanation that contradicts what Arius himself actually said -- involving forgery etc, to conform to a particular (Islamist & other) agenda.

The letters were published by Arius's opponent, not by his ally. There is no evidence or reason to believe that Arius believed different to what he himself actually wrote -- and what Constantine wrote about him -- unless Arius's and even Constantine's own writings need to be challenged and deviously manipulated to conform to a certain predisposed agenda?

This regardless of how later 'Arians' may have taken and run with the idea?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top